Running on a grid as opposed to hexes

[JMD]

Originally Posted by davidtmoore

I use the ruler method myself; best way.

Agreed. Hexes are more accurate, but for true realism one needs to use the ruler. I would love to, but my players drew the line on that one.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

You just answered your own question.

I'm pretty sure I stopped typing after the question mark...

[Ts_]

Make up good, hopefully easy rules for "diagonal" movement on hexes and there shouldn't be a problem.

However, here's a difference between diagonal movement on squares and on hexes: There simply is less space for diagonal movement on hexes, if the neighbours are occupied.

Assume that the average thing on a tile is circular and fills out the tile as good as possible.

1) Now, you might notice that those circles on the hex map can be packed tighter (use a higher percentage of the available space) than those on a square map.
2) In particular, those circles on squares leave "a lot" of space exactly where the diagonal movement takes place. The hexes? Less so, actually the circles on the adjacent hexes touch. How are you going to slip past those circles?

So ...
Diagonals on squares: There is some space.
Diagonals on hexes: There is no space.

Of course, one has to decide if the diameter, the area or whatever of the tiles should agree to come up with a valid mathematical comparison of how much they can be packed and how much space there is between the circular objects. And the objects do not necessarily fill up the entire tile.

Where you draw the line for enough space to move through is up to you.

Regards,
Ts

[davidtmoore]

There's far from "no space" between them. All you're doing is decreasing the amount of space left. A decagon would have less wasted space still; an icosagon, less yet. It would be impossible to do away with the wated space around a circular object within a regular polygon, however many sides it had. That's the essence of Zeno's paradox, and is why Pi is an irrational number.

The hexagon has the obscure benefit of being the "roundest" regular polygon that can be packed together without odd interstices.

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by davidtmoore

There's far from "no space" between them.

There must have been confusion ... I was referring to the distance between the objects where you want to move past them. The circles in the hex map touch, so there is "no space" to get past them. (The circles in the grid touch as well, of course, but not where it matters for the diagonals.)

Regards,
Ts

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Ts_

There must have been confusion ... I was referring to the distance between the objects where you want to move past them. The circles in the hex map touch, so there is "no space" to get past them. (The circles in the grid touch as well, of course, but not where it matters for the diagonals.)

They circles don't touch between diagonal squares, but there's less than a circle's width between them, so representing occupants as circles prevents diagonal movement between occupied diagonal squares.


Perhaps spline-transiting movement would be more acceptable if it was charged at a higher rate, like 2 hexes? This would be similar to charging three squares of movement for each two diagonal moves.

[Corlock Striker]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Perhaps spline-transiting movement would be more acceptable if it was charged at a higher rate, like 2 hexes? This would be similar to charging three squares of movement for each two diagonal moves.

That type of movement would be moving two hexes without changing facing, which has an extra cost included, and if both hexes bordering the spline were occupied would also require an evasion roll.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

That type of movement would be moving two hexes without changing facing, which has an extra cost included, and if both hexes bordering the spline were occupied would also require an evasion roll.

Why would *not* changing your facing cost extra?

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

They circles don't touch between diagonal squares, but there's less than a circle's width between them, so representing occupants as circles prevents diagonal movement between occupied diagonal squares.

Correct, of course. However, if someone wants to draw pictures or do the math, I'm fairly sure that one would notice that larger circles permit "overlapless" diagonal movement in squares than in hexes.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Why would *not* changing your facing cost extra?

That is a good question. To move along the diagonal you are "almost facing" consists of a side step and a forward step. A side step (or backwards) with no changing of facing counts as two steps, though.
Alternatively, you can turn, move forwad, turn back, move forward (4 steps = bad), or move forward, turn, move forward (3 steps = okay) and do the free turn at the end, to get back to your original facing, if you want.
So, 3 steps it is according to the rules.

It does feel weird, though. The diagonals next to the forward direction could cost two, I would say, without breaking much. They are a bit shorter than two full steps, but require a bit of turning in between. (Assuming there is space to.)

Regards,
Ts

[Corlock Striker]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Why would *not* changing your facing cost extra?

All I can say is read the chapter on Tactical Combat in Basic Set: Campaigns. Then you will understand my friend.