Running on a grid as opposed to hexes

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

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

I still don't see where it mentions costing more to not change facing. It even says, "If you go straight ahead, your facing will not change;"

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I still don't see where it mentions costing more to not change facing. It even says, "If you go straight ahead, your facing will not change;"

As I said: If you don't change your facing, but going to a different hex than the front one, you are side-stepping or stepping back. Those movements are (for whatever reason) slower in tactical combat than running forward.

Regards,
Ts

[Gizensha]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

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

I note that moving along a front facing spline without a (net) changing facing is very much doable for two movement... Front left then Front Right or Front Right then Front Left.

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by Gizensha

I note that moving along a front facing spline without a (net) changing facing is very much doable for two movement... Front left then Front Right or Front Right then Front Left.

Dang ... you're right. I'm stupid and forgot that there is more than one front hex.

Regards
Ts

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Ts_

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.

Why are slightly larger but overlapless circles important or relevant? GURPS allows two enemies or four friends to enter the same hex without obstruction, but not to pass through, so it would seem they are more like oblongs that can overlap with mutual consent.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by JMD

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.

Freeform with a ruler does require more work to manage things that are governed by arcs, which I think is the main advantage of the hex grid over freeform (distance is easy on a hex grid, but distance is easy freeform as well.)

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Why are slightly larger but overlapless circles important or relevant?

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

What makes that particular geometric abstraction (the zero width shared point) sufficient for modeling the continuous movement of three-dimensional objects?

Well, you specifically wondered about the geometry of adjacent tiles. And you wanted a difference between squares and hexes. So I discussed the geometry of adjacent tiles in both variants in a higher dimension (over the course of the movement and not just where they touch). They are different.

If I understand you correctly, you now argue, that it doesn't matter whether there is 0, x or y space, because the tiles are too big for the persons standing in them anyway. Then, however, you don't need to move along splines either, and can just take two steps using only the 6 existing sides, even if those tiles are occupied. So there is no need to consider diagonals in hexes, I conclude. However, diagonals are still helpful on squares, because the distances are badly rounded 1.4 vs 2 and not 1.7 vs 2.

And again, with unecessary detail:

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Why are slightly larger but overlapless circles important or relevant? GURPS allows two enemies or four friends to enter the same hex without obstruction, but not to pass through, so it would seem they are more like oblongs that can overlap with mutual consent.

And if those oblong objects are orthogonal to you, they have the same width as a circle with the same diameter. So, on a hex diagonal movement might not be possible, while it could be allowed on squares. Oh right, we've been there before ... (And now you can argue that the objects might not stand perfectly in the center and all that. So? What if they stand in the center?)

In the future it could help the discussion if you would argue for your positions rather than questioning pretty basic observations.

Regards,
Ts

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Ts_

So there is no need to consider diagonals in hexes, I conclude. However, diagonals are still helpful on squares, because the distances are badly rounded 1.4 vs 2 and not 1.7 vs 2.

Diagonal square movement replaces the 1.414... vs 2 ratio with a 1.414...vs 1 ratio, which is wrong by an identical percentage in the opposite direction. There being no overall improvement in this way, I would consider this an inferior situation to hexes' 1 vs 1.15... ratio, with or without a spline transit option.

Originally Posted by Ts_

In the future it could help the discussion if you would argue for your positions rather than questioning pretty basic observations.

What if I haven't decided on a position yet? Or have a problem with the pretty basic observations being underexamined?