Development Info When Evil Lurks, News on Chaos Chronicles

[Kosmonaut]

[...] hexes are superior in every way

Why?

 

[Grunker]

[...] hexes are superior in every way

Why?

Have you played P&P? Squares impose a lot of problems. Take diagonal movement for example. How many "squares of movement" should they cost? D&D handles it by saying that each second square of diagonal movement costs 2 squares of movement. But then how do you count the square distance to something, in the same way? That actually brings in another problem. There's also a lot of tricky situations with AoE attacks and line of sight and that kindda stuff. D&D doesn't have facing either, partly because facing is a bitch with squares.

Hexes solve all of these problems very elegantly.

 

[aleph]

...D&D handles it by saying that each second square of diagonal movement costs 2 squares of movement. But then how do you count the square distance to something, in the same way? ...

I agree that square grids bring in a lot of problems, but I don't see what the issue is with the distance.

Btw, I'd like to see turn-based games without any grid at all. Table top wargaming doesn't need a grid, so why do crpgs?

 

[Grunker]

I'd like to see turn-based games without any grid at all

ToEE? PoR?

why do crpgs?

Huge discussion on this in the old Chaos Chronicles thread. There are a lot of reasons a grid serves the game much better.

 

[Severian Silk]

I find grids comforting, simply put. It makes mental calculations and preparations easier.

 

[JarlFrank]

This might be the first game in a long time I'd actually buy instead of just pirate because it just looks like it's doing so many things just right.

 

[Kosmonaut]

[...] hexes are superior in every way

Why?

Have you played P&P? Squares impose a lot of problems. Take diagonal movement for example. How many "squares of movement" should they cost? D&D handles it by saying that each second square of diagonal movement costs 2 squares of movement. But then how do you count the square distance to something, in the same way? That actually brings in another problem. There's also a lot of tricky situations with AoE attacks and line of sight and that kindda stuff. D&D doesn't have facing either, partly because facing is a bitch with squares.

Hexes solve all of these problems very elegantly.

Thanks. That was a good explanation. I have never played a P&P game, but yeah I expected that it had to do with movement and facing (hexes being better, that's it).

 

[aleph]

ToEE? PoR?

It has been a while since I played ToEE but wasn't there an underlying grid that was just not shown? And PoR, well ...

Could you tell me what difficulties with distance measurements on square grids you mean?

 

[HobGoblin42]

Could you tell me what difficulties with distance measurements on square grids you mean?

I guess he means the different distances between straight and diagonal directions. But that's only one problem of squares. If you allow movement across the corner points, you have to face massive problems with blocking in general. In contrast to squares, a hexagon always allows you to cross an edge to get onto the next field.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Grids, hidden or visible, are automatically superior to gridless. Gridless is just "realistic" faggotry.

 

[aleph]

I guess he means the different distances between straight and diagonal directions. But that's only one problem of squares. If you allow movement across the corner points, you have to face massive problems with blocking in general. In contrast to squares, a hexagon always allows you to cross an edge to get onto the next field.

Ah, I thought he meant something more intricate and interesting than the obvious. But probably not since he doesn't feel like answering my post.

Grids, hidden or visible, are automatically superior to gridless. Gridless is just "realistic" faggotry.

1/10

learn to troll better