Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Consign hexes to dustbin of history

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Consign hexes to dustbin of history Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Consign hexes to dustbin of history - 5/1/2002 4:15:53 PM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		Executive summary
= = = = = = = = = = =

I would like to get rid of hexes.

In my dreams I would like wargaming units to be able to move freely around a map and not be restricted to hexes. But the reality is that many wargamers enjoy playing turn based games by email.

To do this it requires wargaming units to be fixed on a map. Otherwise when you email your turn the pieces will slide off the map (my little joke there) :)

The problem with hexes is that you are limited to moving in 6 directions. And when the unit arrives at its destination it cannot be placed in a precise location. Instead it must be placed on a hex.

I am of the view that we should be able to take advantage of technology to improve this situation.

I have an idea to dispose of hexes but still allow units to be in fixed positions thus allowing PBEM games.


The body
= = = = =

Start by imagining a chess board. Each square has a point in the center. A wargaming unit can move from one point to another. After movement, the unit is fixed to that point rather than to the square.

Now imagine that we add points to each corner of each square. And we add further points along the edges and further points across the center of each square.

Eventually we finish up with thousands of "points" all across the map.

If a player attempts to move a unit across the map, then at the destination, the unit will always be attracted to a point. The center of the unit counter will end up immedaintly over one of these points.

By having tens of thousands of points on the map, movement becomes much more flexible.

Obviously movement of any unit would be restricted by the terrain in the usual manner.

Of course in the game, all the player sees is the artwork on the map. The points are hidden. And the artwork will improve out of sight. A bend in the river would follow the points on the map. No longer would we have a river following hex sides in a zig zag fashion.

The conclusion
= = = = = = = = =

Generally I believe that we can move away from the traditional board wargames by taking advantage of technology.

This will increase the fun factor in wargames and I hope attract a larger audience to wargames.
Post #: 1
- 5/1/2002 8:34:20 PM   
AlvinS

 

Posts: 665
Joined: 12/2/2000
From: O'Fallon, Missouri
Status: offline 		Greetings Joe98

Your idea is very good. I can envision that happening with the technology that we have. It would deffinitely open up a lot of new possibilities within the wargames and I would enjoy playing them.

I think there is room for both Hex based wargames and the type you suggest. The Hexes would be missed by a lot of wargamers if they went away completely.

I love SPWAW with all of the great features that it brings, but I also still play TANKS by Norm Koger. Regardless of the advances in technology that game is still fun.

In short I welcome the new, but still do not want the old to go away

_____________________________

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." ---Mark Twain

Naval Warfare Simulations

AlvinS

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 2
- 5/2/2002 3:43:59 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Squares only have 4 sides, thats why we use hexes (hexes have 6 eh).

Now insert the word "hex" everywhere you said "point(s)".

A hex is just a hex.

Large hexes only "seem" imposing.
Wargame designers could just have easily made the map with millions of hexes the size of pixels.
But that is just it. The hexes are made the size they are made so we can see them.

It appears your frustration is not with hexes, but in the scale the hexes are employed.

I played an older game called Patton Strikes Back.

Excellent game. It had no "apparent" grid at all. You pointed your cursor to a spot of the map and your unit attemtped to get there.

But it's ludicrous to ask a designer to design a game where the units have no establish yard stick to go by. You can bet that any game out there is using a grid. And a hex grid will always be superior to a square grid.

"Ah yes you tanks try to go there"

"What speed?"

"Your normal Speed"

"What's that?"

"Same as it was last turn"

"But what was it exactly"

"What, don't you know?"

"Actually, now that you mention it, no we don't"

"You can move 5 increments"

"??? what's an increment?"

"A space"

"But there are no spaces, or hexes or boxes"

????????

The above makes my point perhaps as best it can be made.

Yes hexes seem to constrain. But so do traffic speeds, and other annoying laws. Wargames have used hexes all these years for a good reason. They work.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 3
- 5/2/2002 6:13:03 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		Well, Close Combat has no spaces, or hexes or boxes. And I have played that for many years now. The units can move pretty much anywhere.

I am wondering if this can be reproduced in a turn-based game.

Currently a unit can be centred in the centre of a hex. But imagine if it could also be centered at any one of the 6 corners. That would increase flexibility.

Now to squares.

Imagine that a square is 4 units wide.

And imagine that a unit counter is 16 units wide.

And the unit counter is square.

And imagine that the unit counter could be centered over any square.

It means a unit could be moved in very small increments in any direction. And that is the critical point.

It is true that hexes have more sides. I even went to a geometry forum and asked whether there is any other shape that would be suitable. Can you believe there is a geometry forum out there?

Squares, equilateral triangles and hexes are the only suitable shapes.

But if the increments are very small, squares are the ideal shape. I am not arguing in favour of squares, rather they are easy to imagine for the purposes of getting my point across.


The comment by AlvinS is a bit of a worry “The Hexes would be missed by a lot of wargamers if they went away completely”. Originally wargamers hoped that the classic wargames would be ported to computers. But otherwise be exactly the same. And is reflected in AlvinS comment.

I think if they remained exactly the same it would be boring.

I am of the view that there will be a move away from hexes. And it can only be done by taking advantage of technology. Once the move happens, I reckon more people will join our community.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 4
- 5/2/2002 7:51:54 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		You missed my point

Imagine a hex has an infinite regression of hexes nested inside.

Just as your square can be 4 units wide, a hex can be several lesser hexes wide (actually each hex can be quite a few lesser hexes wide).

A unit counter can be a varying number of those lesser hexes within the next level of hexagonal progression. Also it can exist anywhere within the hexagonal space. It's how I show increasing magnification whenever I creat rolegaming maps.

So a hex can be a hex within a larger hex. A unit that is 4 hexes in size, in the next level down from the original hex could sit in a considerable number of locations within that original hex.
In fact there are more optional locations this way that there is with just squares.

A unit lower in scale than the first unit, could be placed on the first unit, within a hex that occupied a 3rd level regression hex that was one of many hexes within the 2nd level regression.

This could be done of course to excessive detail of course.

The tank division is in the divisional hex, thats in the regimental hex, which is in the battalion hex, which is in the company hex, which is in the platoon hex, which is in the squad hex, which is in the individual unit hex, which is in the shirt hex, which is in the lapel hex. So you could actually use this process to zero in on an individual persons actual rank badge eventually.

That of course is an idiotic level of detail though.

A square could do the same of course. A hex could do it better is all.

But currently no one is using nested hexes.

The hex is a woods hex, and the hex is rendered with a random artwork of woods terrain. And the tank just sits in the hex.
We are not given much say how it sits there, but then some levels of detail dont offer anything.

You are centering a square shape in a lesser square of a larger square. I am centering a hex shape in a lesser hex of a hex shape.
Same reason, same result. I just have more lesser hexes in my original hex.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 5
- 5/5/2002 6:33:14 AM   
rosary

 

Posts: 1162
Joined: 10/8/2001
From: U.S.A.
Status: offline 		I think hexes and turn-based are fine. Usually I like a game in my game when I buy a game. Overglorified versions of Whack-a-mole just doesn't cut it. Even if the graphics are excellent.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 6
- 5/5/2002 2:38:30 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Whack a mole.....

Now that's funny hehehe.

I am not overly concerned that RTS and FPS gamers sort of out number us turn based dudes.

Eventually the glitz will reach a point where it can no longer be improved upon. As it goes I hear the phrase "such and such game is incredible, it uses such and such game's engine" Half the time the games like like the last game only the characters are wearing different clothes.

What usually keeps me from being interested in RTS or FPS games is the sameness of the environment.

Now true, some of our turn based games can look a little similar to each other. But I am not overly worried about the sameness there. I could care less if the games ever get around to looking different. But that glitz is what drives the RTS and FPS market. Once they run out of novelty, essentially the hobby will fizzle for lack of anything to offer.

I usually don't play the game because of the graphics or sounds. I just need a game that plays against me.
If wargame graphics for turn based games never ever progress further I could care less. The sounds do not need to become any more than they are now.

Just as with ASL, I can accept that a game might require several components before it is truely complete.
Take WW2 for instance. If Steel Panthers had been Russian Front only first time and then Western, Med., Pacific, Korea, Vietnam, 70's , 80's, all as separate discs, I would have bought them eventually. And even if the game never eeeeeever evolved beyond the original software.

I don't require Steel Panthers to be more than Steel Panthers. I don't need Combat Leader to be version 1 version 2 version 3 version whatever after. If there are or were flaws, sure release a program to just modify the original perhaps. But a complete re invent of a program with slightly more excessive graphics and slightly more impressive sounds? That's not why I buy any software. But it's what we are forced to accept.

I recently had Heroes of Might and Magic 4 given to me for my birthday. Yes its **** good looking too. But while the graphics are incredible, the sounds awesome, its just fluff really. I would have been just as happy if 4 was all new creatures and all new weapons and even more campaigns. Maybe we are being to well conditioned to think that a new game HAS to be so much more.

I am looking forward to Combat Leader. But mostly I am looking forward to it looking like Steel Panthers. But with all the lessons learned from fussing over Steel Panthers employed while making Combat Leader.
I just want to drive tanks around, command troops, use artillery and basically play Advanced Squad Leader on a computer.
Anything more than something that looks like ASL, is just a waste of energy to me.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 7
- 5/5/2002 8:44:20 PM   
bgiddings

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline 		I am no technical wizard but it seems to me todays's technology
woud allow a great looking map (ie: rivers not zigzagging to follow the outline of a hex) as one layer of a game and in turn a hex outline to be laid on top of it ...a two layer cake.

Thus you get the realistic map as the geography really is plus the advantages of the hex for unit control from a programmers point of view. What side of a river a unit is on would be determined by what hex the unit came from.

One other thought .... a hex outline does not allow a unit to move in a straight line as with a hex layout the hex is either laid out horizontally or vertically which means that a unit can not move in a straight line in some directions. I am sure that it has been thought of before ...what about an octagons. This shape still allows the programmers to have symmetrical layout but this layout allows straight line movement witout zigzags in 8 directions.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 8
- 5/5/2002 9:46:54 PM   
heiks

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Athens of Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by techex
[B]I am no technical wizard but it seems to me todays's technology
woud allow a great looking map (ie: rivers not zigzagging to follow the outline of a hex) as one layer of a game and in turn a hex outline to be laid on top of it ...a two layer cake.

Thus you get the realistic map as the geography really is plus the advantages of the hex for unit control from a programmers point of view. What side of a river a unit is on would be determined by what hex the unit came from.

One other thought .... a hex outline does not allow a unit to move in a straight line as with a hex layout the hex is either laid out horizontally or vertically which means that a unit can not move in a straight line in some directions. I am sure that it has been thought of before ...what about an octagons. This shape still allows the programmers to have symmetrical layout but this layout allows straight line movement witout zigzags in 8 directions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Octagons won't work. Its impossible to build a surface without holes using only octagons. Try it, you'll see. ;)
Thats why they use hexes instead.

Perhaps a solution to the problem of being restricted to hexes of certain scale would be to have the hex scale set significantly smaller than the intended scale of the game and the nallowing units to have a frontage starting from hex x1,y1 going through hex x2, y2 and ending at hex x3, y3. This would obviously make the game more complicated, but I suppose some people would enjoy it.

And I guess the problem with rivers between hexes is not really a programming issue, but an issue of bauty vs. utility. If you have the river flowing through the center of the hex and place an unit on the hex. Now can you tell which side of the river the unit is on, at a glance? I know I would be worrying about it every time I saw the unit.

_____________________________

"Bingeley bingeley beep!"
- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 9
- 5/5/2002 10:17:25 PM   
bgiddings

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline 		You're absolutely right about octagons ...it will not work!!!!

About the which side of the river problem ...surely today's programming could account for which side of the river one is on by logic or question to player "Are you crossing??" or whatever.
Visually then a small arrow could be placed on the unit/army symbol so that it is evident to the players.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 10
- 5/5/2002 10:32:51 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		The problem with rivers is precicely why we wargamers have a private laugh at those that think they make the map ugly.

We KNOW they impose an artificial look to the terrain.

This is not even worth talking about to some extent. I am not looking for pretty I am looking for accurate to game mechanic. I don't need to fight on a topographical map.

When the river follows the hex side I know categorically where it is. I don't want vague or a lack of clarity.
I have the game Russian Front for instance (it's a board game eh).
The rivers are drawn artistically (actually the mapsheet is often purchased as a wall hanging). If the river is in the hex at all it's an imposition in the hex period. What this means, is you are not behind a river, you are either on it or you are not.
But the river is still confined to the hex. It is a river hex, or it is not. It either flows to the next hex or it does not.

To just draw an artsy map forgets why we turn based wargamers play turn based games. We want accuracy and we want it crystal clear.
Where the river is, in an RTS game is not relevant in the same way it is in a turn based game. In RTS your units are not constrain to turn based limitations of function. They wander as they will and there is NO turn.

I realise the distinction might escape a lot of computer gamers. I highly doubt and gamers over 30 though will have this trouble. As we will have all played board games with hexes and understand why a hex is a hex is a hex.

A stupid AI is a problem. A poor interface is a problem. An outright bug in the game is of course a problem. Hardware limitations might vex some users.

But hexes. It's a waste of energy to design a game without hexes. What's the game benefit. There is no benefit. The game isn't improved just because the map looks prettier. I don't want pretty, I want to kick your pieces's asses. I want to do it in a gaming environment that is accurate first, and pretty, well pretty is of no importance to a good strategic challenge.

When I am planning my river crossing I am not thinking, hmmm the river Bug was it really that shape exactly? I could care less to some extent. As long as it's impact on the region is accurate.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 11
- 5/6/2002 4:16:33 PM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		"I am not overly concerned that RTS and FPS gamers sort of out number us turn based dudes."

Probably you're not concerned because you don't program turn based wargames for a living...as the people at Matrix have pointed out again and again, this isn't a big sale area. This isn't just a hobby, its a business too. Those people that making a living at this should, for their own best financial well being, be concerned about the number who play turn based vs rts/fps.

"Eventually the glitz will reach a point where it can no longer be improved upon. As it goes I hear the phrase "such and such game is incredible, it uses such and such game's engine" Half the time the games like like the last game only the characters are wearing different clothes."

Nah...most thought turn based wargames would be gone with the advent of the computer. Having the artificial means with which to eliminate a needed solution for board games(turns and hexes) didn't stop the joy some get from turn based games. Turn based games will probably never go away and neither will rts and fps games.

"What usually keeps me from being interested in RTS or FPS games is the sameness of the environment."

Yeah, playing HPS panzer campaigns series sure does make me feel like there is a new environment each game....or Talonsofts battleground series, campaign series etc. I could see how you would only see a sameness in rts/fps. *smirk*

"Now true, some of our turn based games can look a little similar to each other. But I am not overly worried about the sameness there. I could care less if the games ever get around to looking different. But that glitz is what drives the RTS and FPS market. Once they run out of novelty, essentially the hobby will fizzle for lack of anything to offer."

LOL... I love this, "some of our turn based games can look a little similar"... You have the gift of understatement when trying to make your argument tailored to your side ;) Well I hate to break it to ya, but the wargaming market, especially the turn based market is smaller now than ever before. On the other hand, rts/fps market continues to grow.... Now I prefer wargames to any other type of game out there, but just because I do, I won't obstinantly stick my head in the sand believing that things are just fine and "those other guys" will lose interest in their genre while "me and my wargameguys" will keep trucking along just fine.

"If wargame graphics for turn based games never ever progress further I could care less. The sounds do not need to become any more than they are now. "

Yes yes...most wargamers prefer substance over looks...however the maker of the wargame also likes having a sizable market with which to sell to. Without some of the nicer things like graphics and sounds that can help increase sales, you may find yourself without enough wargaming companies around to produce games for your (and my) favorite genre.

"I just want to drive tanks around, command troops, use artillery and basically play Advanced Squad Leader on a computer.
Anything more than something that looks like ASL, is just a waste of energy to me."

Hehe...good stuff... I picture a guy complaining about all those new fangled cars on the road saying, "I just want to ride in my carriage being pulled by bessy and matilda...all these automobiles are just a waste of time." I've noticed most of the grognard types in the wargaming community are like this. They resist change for one reason or another. I think it has something to do with the makeup of the type of person that plays wargames in the first place...stubborn, unchanging, resistant to new things. I need to bring my wife around these parts so she can see I'm really not that bad =)

"The problem with rivers is precicely why we wargamers have a private laugh at those that think they make the map ugly."

I think they make the map look ugly...but I also don't like the effects they artificially impose when a computer could and imho should resolve those issues due to its computing power. Hexes are a needed item for board games...it provides a structure so that 2 players can play in a structured environment. With a computer, this is no longer needed.

"This is not even worth talking about to some extent. I am not looking for pretty I am looking for accurate to game mechanic. I don't need to fight on a topographical map."

Yes arent we all. I think those that prefer a non-hex map can see that an accurate game mechanic can be provided with detail reflecting what is actually being played upon. We use CRT's, hexes, impulses etc etc to simulate some type of mechanic. I think its fully reasonable and something that should be sought out is a game mechanic that can address a rive costline accurately. When I'm placing a squad on the river edge in sand, I want the men in the sand to be affected differently than the men standing behind the brush hugging along that sand. In a hex game, we can't get such differentiation. Something like this is a game mechanic that should be utilized more as opposed to less.

"When the river follows the hex side I know categorically where it is. I don't want vague or a lack of clarity. "

With a hex system it's a vague representation of whats being shown on the map. If there were no hex systems then where a man/squad stands is the type of clearly visible terrain he is in. You will, without a shadow of a doubt know that squad/man is standing in the river or on a side of the river.

"But the river is still confined to the hex. It is a river hex, or it is not. It either flows to the next hex or it does not. "

I can just imagine this being discussed in a real life situation..."So sargeant, are you in the river hex or arent you?"

"To just draw an artsy map forgets why we turn based wargamers play turn based games. We want accuracy and we want it crystal clear."

Then you shouldn't want to play on hex based games. Hex based games are not accurate by any stretch. They take an area of land and attribute that area to the entire hex area. Your river hex is a classic example....if it were an "artsy" map without hexes then if a man had one foot in the water and one foot in the dry sand next to it, it would be represented as such. That's accuracy and it's crystal clear.

"Where the river is, in an RTS game is not relevant in the same way it is in a turn based game. In RTS your units are not constrain to turn based limitations of function. They wander as they will and there is NO turn. "

You're kidding right? It's not about turn its about time to cross a river ie: like number of moves to cross a river hex side. It's about the terrain effects of where that man/squad is standing with his/their feet.

"I realise the distinction might escape a lot of computer gamers. I highly doubt and gamers over 30 though will have this trouble. As we will have all played board games with hexes and understand why a hex is a hex is a hex."

Funny, I've noticed those of us over 30 have just the opposite effect in our perception of hexes. A hex was used only to handle the problems of what players can do by limiting their movements of game pieces in a hypothetical time period. They were designed due to problems of how to move pieces with limitations. A computer can solve these limitations by having movement speeds reflected "on the go" as the piece moves/draws fire/ etc etc. It seems that the over 30 crowd that I am a part of has attached itself to a familiar system and forgotten why it was developed in the first place.

"But hexes. It's a waste of energy to design a game without hexes. What's the game benefit. There is no benefit."

Haha...well aside from increasing the accuracy (which most wargamers want) I guess there is no benefit. ;)

"I want to do it in a gaming environment that is accurate first, and pretty, well pretty is of no importance to a good strategic challenge."

What is accurate about hexes? I don't recall reading any descriptions of hexes being used during say, WW2. Was this some form of advanced japanese infantry tactic I'm unaware of? Did the combatants take turns maneurving over the field of battle in hexes? Did units only confine themselves into areas that a hex represents? Is this what you would call accurate?

"When I am planning my river crossing I am not thinking, hmmm the river Bug was it really that shape exactly? I could care less to some extent. As long as it's impact on the region is accurate."

No, like most turn based wargamers you're probably counting the number of hexes too and how many movement points necessary to cross. With a non-hexed map, you'd be much more concerned with the strategic value of where the river Bug is widest, where there are fjords, where the river is the narrowest, etc. Because you'd be playing on a map system that reflects a good gaming principle, wsiwyg (what you see is what you get).

In squad based combat games, the closer we get to real time: 1 second in game = 1 second real life, and real terrain, 1 inch in game = 1 inch in real life, the better and more realistic the game will be. Joe is right on imho with doing away with hexes as the standard of "accurate" should be based not on hex map systems but on wysiwyg maps...

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 12
- 5/6/2002 7:49:44 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		I enjoyed your rebutal Reiryc. I am humble enough to know I am not always right, but you didn't talk of the strengths of NOT having hexes.

All you did was pick apart hexes though. Sure I can tell ya about the weaknesses of hexes too. I don't like how hexes teach players how to "organize" their counters into stylized "perfect defense grids" that don't really reflect the way the units would defend in real life.
The stylized defensive organization is for instance, a weakness that all board gamers will recall and understand immediately.

We have hexes because hexes work.

Some of your responses actually didn't accomplish anything at all. They only made you like snide. By acknowledging what I already acknowledged in advance, and attempting to merely ridicule it, you only made the anti hex lobby look antagonistic. You have to offer an alternate as well. You have to illustrate your alternate's finer qualities. You also have to stand up and take credit. Saying "what he said" is not going to do it.

I have heard numerous comments devoted to "the computational capacity of more and more powerful computers". Personally, I would rather devote that same computational power to "thinking" and leave the maps to look as they are. I am not overly interested in more and more powerful "calculators". How fast my computer can draw a map and manage the units is not very important to me. Whether or not the computer should or should not have moved that unit from there to there is though.
That's in the realm of genuine artificial intelligence though. Currently, none of our computers is actually "thinking" though.
I am not overly interested in making my calculator calculate faster.

To address industry I would say look at several hobbies simultaneously. Yes even non computer hobbies. Trends are trends. We can learn a lot.

Woodworking...do you know I can actually get a machine to make a piece of furniture all by itself using a computer. But I dont expect them to replace me anytime soon.

Models...have you priced a model tank lately? sheesh. But I don't expect kids to stop entering the hobby soon. In fact some of the kits made today that cost 5 times as much are 5 times more fun to make. They have after market add ons and superior accessories all over the place. But I haven't noticed the number of kids making models to have changed since the 50's.

Books... Inspite of all the hype, a book is always going to be more fun to read on the toilet, the tub, the car, on a bus, at the cottage etc. I am not even interested in e books. Not to mention they don't look as nice on a shelf.

I am perfectly aware that the producers of wargames for the computer, will be concerned if the genre doesn't expand. I am also aware, that if in 10 years (or even 5) the genre of turn based just doesn't cut it on computers, it might disappear.
I don't really care to be honest.
Most of us turn based wargamers came to the computer world because opponents are just so hard to find (real ones that eat our pop and chips eh). We are not hear because computers are so much better.

Actually if given a choice of ANY game on the computer or a game on a board, I am not picking the computer. Board games are better period.
It's a fundemental error to think that turn based gamers actually want to be here. It ignores the pychological reason why we play those games. If you reeeeeally look at the person playing the game, you will notice a very different person from the person that plays the RTS or FPS game. We are not even the same people.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 13
- 5/7/2002 1:37:06 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		"I enjoyed your rebutal Reiryc. I am humble enough to know I am not always right, but you didn't talk of the strengths of NOT having hexes."

Sure I did....maybe it wasn't clear however...

My last 2 paragraphs, among others were explaining the strengths of not having hexes...I'll re-quote myself.

"No, like most turn based wargamers you're probably counting the number of hexes too and how many movement points necessary to cross. With a non-hexed map, you'd be much more concerned with the strategic value of where the river Bug is widest, where there are fjords, where the river is the narrowest, etc. Because you'd be playing on a map system that reflects a good gaming principle, wsiwyg (what you see is what you get).

In squad based combat games, the closer we get to real time: 1 second in game = 1 second real life, and real terrain, 1 inch in game = 1 inch in real life, the better and more realistic the game will be. Joe is right on imho with doing away with hexes as the standard of "accurate" should be based not on hex map systems but on wysiwyg maps... "

The strengths are in the accuracy of the maps. The strengths are that by having the map in a wysiwyg form, you have more strategic and accurate strategic choices available to you, the game player.

"Some of your responses actually didn't accomplish anything at all. They only made you like snide. By acknowledging what I already acknowledged in advance, and attempting to merely ridicule it, you only made the anti hex lobby look antagonistic. You have to offer an alternate as well. You have to illustrate your alternate's finer qualities. You also have to stand up and take credit. Saying "what he said" is not going to do it. "

Again, read above. I did precisely that...I said what the value is.

"I have heard numerous comments devoted to "the computational capacity of more and more powerful computers". Personally, I would rather devote that same computational power to "thinking" and leave the maps to look as they are."

I've heard quite a few game programmers say that basically the time needed to program and the power of computers today would not be near sufficient to even come close to really give us a "thinking" AI. Most seem to be of the opinion(even the guys here at matrix) that the best opponent is going to be a human and they will spend more time on game features as opposed to trying to create an AI that is different than what we have today in games. They didn't say they wouldn't tweak it, but in general AI technology hasn't changed a whole lot since computer games have been around.

My point is, that I don't think the AI is going to improve much and the only valuable 'non-cheating' opponent is going to be a human... Thus we probably can't expect much as gamers from an AI in the near future.

"I am not overly interested in more and more powerful "calculators". How fast my computer can draw a map and manage the units is not very important to me. Whether or not the computer should or should not have moved that unit from there to there is though."

Well it does this by being a calculator. The faster the calculator it is, the more routines can be used to determine whether or not a unit should be moved and how from the AI. More routines means more criteria, which appears on the surface to be a 'smarter' AI. So imho you should care about that...it's what will give you a more competent although admittedly, an easy to defeat, computer opponent.

"That's in the realm of genuine artificial intelligence though. Currently, none of our computers is actually "thinking" though.
I am not overly interested in making my calculator calculate faster. "

Well I agree that our computers don't think. Hard to say if they ever really will. But the more calculations these calculators do, the better it is for all of us because of the reasons mentioned above.

"To address industry I would say look at several hobbies simultaneously. Yes even non computer hobbies. Trends are trends. We can learn a lot.

Woodworking...do you know I can actually get a machine to make a piece of furniture all by itself using a computer. But I dont expect them to replace me anytime soon. "

Ah, but the trend is to replace you. Furniture 150 years ago was hand made 100% of the time. Wonder what the percentage is now in comparison and where that trend is going. ;)

"Most of us turn based wargamers came to the computer world because opponents are just so hard to find (real ones that eat our pop and chips eh). We are not hear because computers are so much better. "

I agree completely...


"It's a fundemental error to think that turn based gamers actually want to be here. It ignores the pychological reason why we play those games."

I disagree. I prefer the computer because of the reason you mentioned above(finding opponents) and because of the ability for the computer to be a 'rule lawyer' instead of me and the other 5 people playing. But as they say, different strokes for different folks... =)

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 14
- 5/7/2002 2:29:27 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Thanks Reiyrc (you were clearer that time)

(side note, how did you arrive at your name "Reiryc"? , just wondering).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 15
- 5/7/2002 6:14:51 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		How about Airborne Assault? No hexes, map accuracy down to 4 meters and very good ai.

Oops, a wrong game company...:p

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 16
- 5/7/2002 7:16:30 AM   
rosary

 

Posts: 1162
Joined: 10/8/2001
From: U.S.A.
Status: offline 		In a turn-based game, I appreciate knowing where my units can move and what effect they might possibly have on enemy units. When I play an RTS like AOK it just seems like I point my units at the enemy and they all die so its back to building a bunch more units. I think its a bit boring in a game to be always clicking on queing up farms, units and other things repeatedly regardless of whether its hex or not while most FPS games are really just whack-a-mole meets pacman. How many times can you run in a circle, pick up the BFG, health, armor, kill a few enemies, rinse, repeat.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 17
- 5/7/2002 7:25:10 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Who likes clickfests anyway? Micromanaging gives me the creeps...

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 18
- 5/7/2002 9:55:48 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		My intentions for starting this thread are twofold;

Firstly to increase the fun factor for myself:

Secondly to attract players who are in two minds whether or not to become war gamers.

The intention is to find better ways to play war games. Currently they are played on a virtual board divided up into hexes. Lets find a way to improve on what we have.

I want to play turn based games. I never mentioned FPS. I never mentioned RTS games. Neither of these games are played on a virtual board with hexes.

THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

And I don’t eat Zucchini. Nor is that relevant to the discussion.

I too have played hex based board war games. For about 8 years, myself and my brother played Avalon Hill’s Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. A great game.

But it took up to 2 hours for each player to play a turn. And it took 4 days to play a game.

And for the 5 days between weekends, the table, with the half completed game, had to remain untouched.

When I acquired a personal computer and Atomic’s turn based hex based World at War series, I was in heaven. Games can be saved mid turn, you can play whenever you want. Fabulous!

But the largest scenario involves 500 units on each side. Atomic allowed for some computer control here to overcome the tedious task of issuing 500 separate orders. Yet we all know there are grog players out there who are happy to issue individual orders to each of the 500 units. The grog players still hold the influence in war gaming. My view is that the ability to be a grog should be optional. Otherwise our hobby will not grow.

I directed my brother to the screen shots of Uncommon Valour. I reckon this will be a great game. It happened that he looked at one of the screen shots with the hex outlines showing. He thought “board based war game” and immediately dismissed it.

How do we win him over and people like him?

This is the question. Could people please attempt to answer it.

Firstly, we can improve the graphics. If you look at Uncommon Valour none of the islands are shaped like hexes. The artwork is wonderful. And the ocean is not all one colour. And nor is it that horrible bright blue colour of earlier war games. The shade of blue looks more natural and the shade varies depending on the depth of the water. This game could become a war gaming classic.

Good artwork will attract the undecided player. Poor artwork turns him away.

As for land based games, I agree graphically, there is a problem with river sides if it is done badly. And the answer is to do it better! Whoohooo!

Perhaps a hex could be one sixth the size of the unit counters. And the unit counters could be positioned over the centre of a hex. And the unit counters be hex shaped as well. Smaller hexes means units move in small increments around the map.

With smaller hexes the artwork must improve. Fewer ugly zig zag lines.

As for my second idea, I will post it under a separate thread. But imagine the player who is not a war game grog. This player would like to order the computer, to use certain strategies in certain situations then under each strategy he could tell the computer to use certain tactics in certain situations.

Of course grogs have the option to give individual orders to each and every unit. But my brother has no interest in doing that. And that is the critical point.

-

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 19
- 5/7/2002 3:56:38 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		To help out in the interest of acquiring new meat errrr I mean wargamers, I suggest a couple of examples I suppose.

Take a look at the map for the board game Russian Front. It actually sells well as a wall hanging eh. No that's actual truth.
Now remember that, that map still has hexes imposed on it.
They have the same level of interest in the A3R map, very artistically down. And yet the map conforms to hexes.

Now go and look at the map for ASL's Historical module Pegasus Bridge. Massively increased scale of view. Actual buildings as they really were. But the map has hexes.
If a player will turn down playing a game like this just cause it has hexes, well they could turn down just about anything now couldn't they.

Point is that hexes don't have to be removed.

Simply program the computer to not show them.

They only look annoying to those that think they are annoying.

If you can't see them, you won't even think of them.

But frankly, the idea a person won't buy a game cause it has hexes? That sort of person sounds a bit to obtuse for my needs.
Although I mentioned it earlier, smaller hexes might actually increase the utility of using them. The counter doesn't have to match the hex grid in size necessarily.

I won't continue to mention those other two game styles that are known by letters anymore (don't really care how realistic they are at any rate).

As for graphics. Hmm when a game can make a tank image as detailed as an ASL counter I will stand and applaud. It's no wonder ASL modules cost what they do.

I don't have trouble storing wargames, heck thats the easy part. My enjoyment with computer games is not having to worry about stacking the counters, or having stacks of counters fall over. And has anyone played Pacific War before, oh my god the charts are everywhere. Computer games make short work of chart storage nightmares.

Set up time is easier too. Takes me a full day placing counters on my Longest Day map...ouch. And the map even comes with an image of where the initial forces are placed (there is just that manner to place).

No the wargame industry is not in any danger from hexes. Nor is it in any danger if fewer and fewer computer wargames are produced. But it will endanger those that think they are grognards incorrectly I suppose.
The very second computer programmers stop making turn based wargames, will be the day it becomes possible to find new board game wargames easily again.
People will once again discover the joy of the all night face to face wargame during college.
We will forget accronyms like FPS and RTS and relearn combos like ZOC and MP's.

Its always neat to play a wargame with an opponent, but all us older gamers know to well that most of us like to play them solitaire just as much. We are all history obsessed individuals. It's what separates us from the non turn based crowd the most I think. And no, if you like the otherstyles, history isn't your true love, you are kidding yourself.

I am here for computer programmers. An interested client. But if we are not commercially viable in quantity; well then its time to accept it.
If players won't buy a complex concept game with low tech looks, then perhaps they need to go and play Command and Conquer or Diablo or whatever turns their crank. They will be making those games for a long time too I suppose (for the same reason they released Jason 10, sheeesh how many times can they kill him, and I grew up thinking Rocky was over done).

Here is how I recruit gamers. Rather simple approach actually.
I go and find someone that looks like they are marginally interested in warfare (or thinks they are).
I come right out and tell them they don't really know squat; because they have never played a real wargame.
Not very subtle but it works. They have little room for maneuver eh.
They either play my game and try to make me look dumb, or they meekly accept that I am right.
The chances of a young buck willingly accepting that an old coot is smarter is amazingly low too eh.

Once upon a time the average wargamer was a person that could read amazingly well. Literacy rate had to be incredible. Advanced education was commonplace (so manner gamers were in college actually at the time). Keen Knowledge of history was also a trademark.
These traits were somewhat hard to get away from.

Todays computer wargames though come with either no rules book worth comment, or any need for them at all. They dont require the player to even understand the game really. They just "feel" there way through the interface.
I would like to see a gamer "feel" there way the a game of ASL myself. I think computers are actually making dumber and dumber gamers, out of those that never mastered board type games.

Sorry if that sounded in someway eletist. Truth though is I can read a game faster than most computer-experiences only players.
Just like a math teacher that never needed a calculator can do quick math in there head, I can do all those calculations each turn and in my head, that are today done by the machine.
True I can't do every possible permutation as fast as a machine, but I can edit all but the 5 useful choices in a blink as well.
The machine isnt thinking, hence it is unable to tell grabage from strategy. The machine is just making a selection based on pre set selections.
It's the reason a computer AI always falls for the sucker moves, that to a human are obviously a sucker moves.

This is another area where the realism argument falls short. Realism is meaningless against a dumb AI or even a decent one. Realism of the map isn't required by two human opponents.
If the computer can't make any valid use out of the realism, then it is just making it do it for nothing.
And well, if the players gain no benefit, then it isn't a benefit.
And I am here now saying that a hexless map doesn't do anything useful for me.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 20
- 5/7/2002 5:50:08 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Hexless maps and wego-system are the future for serious wargames, but there will be also great new games with igo ugo-system and map hexes.

[QUOTE]As for my second idea, I will post it under a separate thread. But imagine the player who is not a war game grog. This player would like to order the computer, to use certain strategies in certain situations then under each strategy he could tell the computer to use certain tactics in certain situations. [/QUOTE]

Sounds like that player should check Airborne Assault demo. Don´t get me wrong. I´m not here to promote any particular game. I´m just excited about new kind of game mechanics presented in a serious wargame.

[QUOTE]take a look at the map for the board game Russian Front[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Russian Front is a prime example of a game with horrible graphics, but excellent gameplay (for a board game), and it is the latter that really counts.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 21
- 5/7/2002 6:02:27 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take a look at the map for the board game Russian Front
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, the Russian Front is a prime example of a game with horrible graphics, but excellent gameplay (for a board game), and it is the latter that really counts.

Hmmmm actually the funny part is I was specifically complimenting the game Russian Front's Graphics.

But art is never seen by two people the same way.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 22
- 5/7/2002 6:07:32 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Hmmmm actually the funny part is I was specifically complimenting the game Russian Front's Graphics. [/QUOTE]

:D

Sorry about that.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 23
- 5/7/2002 6:55:23 PM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		There are only 3 shapes suitable:

Squares

Equilateral triangles

Hexes.

Wargamers use hexes because they have more sides than the other 2.

Because it is the shape with the maximum number of sides.

But what if there were a shape with more sides that actually worked? Obviously we would be using that instead!

The thing about hexes is that you can only move in 6 directions. I hope to use technology to increase that number of directions and continue to play turn based games.

As for this "Airborne Assault" game, is this a computer game? How about a link to the site.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 24
- 5/7/2002 7:06:00 PM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]As for this "Airborne Assault" game, is this a computer game? How about a link to the site.[/QUOTE]

Ok, here we go:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/aa/index.html

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 25
- 5/8/2002 12:49:47 AM   
Ludovic Coval

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Toulon, France
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98
[B]There are only 3 shapes suitable:

Squares

Equilateral triangles

Hexes.

Wargamers use hexes because they have more sides than the other 2.

Because it is the shape with the maximum number of sides.

But what if there were a shape with more sides that actually worked? Obviously we would be using that instead!

The thing about hexes is that you can only move in 6 directions. I hope to use technology to increase that number of directions and continue to play turn based games.

As for this "Airborne Assault" game, is this a computer game? How about a link to the site. [/B][/QUOTE]

Joe,

Before all, square are not used for distance purpose (moving along diagonals of a 1x1 square yields an effective distance of square root of 2).

Wargames are played for more than 40 years now, and AFAIK, no one ever found a managable polygon to implement grid. In others words the problem is a mathematical one with no (computer) technology solution.

Regards,

LC

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 26
- 5/8/2002 12:50:17 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Two quick points:

ALL games are based on a grid of something, the question is not "hexes or no hexes" but what is the best denisty (or granularity) for that grid. Hexes are normally based on the area of ground a unit can control and allows abstraction of the precise location of the unit with in the hex. (zones of control extend this "tactical mobility" beyond a hex). This is MORE realistic, in context, than only portraying a unit as occupying the space its men extend to and trying to depict the detailed kinematics (that are typically neither controlled, not understood, precisely.

Not to pick on Airborne Assault too much, but what good is a 4m "grid" when the typical unit occupies an area of hundreds of meters sqaure? Not sure of the mechanics, but I don't see the "area" the unit occupies "flow around" or become "shaped" or "skewed" by this high degree of terrain resolution. Roads seem the sole exception (units "stretch out" along roads, but don;t seem similarly impacted when skirting slopes or urban areas. Maybe I just missed it? Corect me, please if I'm mistaken!

If the game is "averaging" it over the area the unit occupies, then you are basically "carrying your hex with you", a concept of dubious "realism".

THe point I take most serious umbrage with is the idea that "closer to 1:1 is more realistic". That assumes that we can model, indeatil the kinematics of the battlefield.

We can't, and likley never will.

The reason is impact of human variance in decision making time and execution time. When someone can tell me how to predict how long it will take me to get my car backing out of the driveway from the time I yell "its time to go", I will beleive its possible.

The fallacy of 1:1 minis rules and typical computer wargames is the "if I can do x, y and z in 1 minute, then I should be able to do x,y and z EVERY minute" THis results in "miniature-itis" in wargames, the assembly, approach to contact, vigorous battle to the last man, and mopping up, all occuring in 20-30 minutes of game time.

In reality a platoon taken under fire can spend that long just resuming movement! But having units pinned ofr 20 or 30 turns is hardly condusive to a fun game, so "time dilation" is assumed. Once you assume "time dialtion" then the game is no longer 1:1 and the "realism" of 1:1 game mechanics are disproved.

Whether hexes and turns are "realistic" depend on how they affect play. In operational games "realistic" continuous time, hexless can be shown to be UNREALISTIC because it doesn;t allow for abstactions in position, comand and control delay and subordinate initiative that hex-based, tunr based games can depict. IT also tends to provide a degree of synchronization of forces that are "unrealistic".

So my "short" but long-winded point is that hexes or turns don't "Make a game unrealistic" any more than lack thereof makes it "realistic". ITs how they are integrated into the game concept and how the game mecanics allow course of the battle (at whatever level) to be accurately (or inaccurately) portrayed.

That is why we are working on both hex-based, turn-based Combat Leader, and the "hexless continuous time" Close Assault. At the higher echelon of combat leader "alternating formation movement pulses" is "more realistic" in context, than continous time that has its advanatges when protraying the lower echelon combat in Close Assault.

The same is true of higher level games. Uncommon Valor is a "hex based, turn based" game that I challenge anyone to demonstrate would be significantly enhanced by eliminating its hexes, or abandoning turns. Thats because the "progress" of units from one hex to another across multiple turns is accounted for and the turns are subdivided into a large nuber of incremental phases that the computer handles in the background. ITs "plays" like its hexless and continuous time, despite using both conventions.

BOTH hex-based, turnbased games, and hexless, turnless games have a future.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 27
- 5/8/2002 1:35:42 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Paul you are quite right on everything else, but...

[QUOTE]Not to pick on Airborne Assault too much, but what good is a 4m "grid" when the typical unit occupies an area of hundreds of meters sqaure? Not sure of the mechanics, but I don't see the "area" the unit occupies "flow around" or become "shaped" or "skewed" by this high degree of terrain resolution. Roads seem the sole exception (units "stretch out" along roads, but don;t seem similarly impacted when skirting slopes or urban areas. Maybe I just missed it? Corect me, please if I'm mistaken! [/QUOTE]

..you just have to play the demo to see that the units change their `shapes´ depending on terrain and mission orders. There are no other `zone of control´ than the area the unit controls and the surrounding areas that its guns can fire.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 28
- 5/8/2002 2:11:59 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Yes, but they seem to do so "uniformly" ie the rectangles change width and length, but are always "quadralaterals" You never see a "barbell" shape through a chokepoint, or a "shear" or "triangulation" when part(s) of a force get impeded by something. I don;t zoom in a lot, so it may be a function of not zooming in enough to see it?

The effects of the disruptions asociated with these things aren't communicated to the player (ie "bad terrain" slows me down, but doesn't appear to cause C2 problems. This means that the biggest effect of terrain variations on a battalion or larger unit - the seperation of subunits and loss of synchronization may be "in there" but as a player you don't know what effect they are having. AS a game designer one of teh cardinal rules is sort of analogous to the tree falling in the forrest, if I have a game system in the engine, the impact of which is not communicated to the player, its like its not there...I get the impression a lot of "stuff' is going on, but its difficult (or impossible) to figure out the effect it has.

This results (for me anyway) is that "random choices" in setting modes and picking pathing choices seem to result in "good things happening" about as often as when I "try" to play. If my decisions as a player, don't seem to have a significant impact on the outcome, then I tend to lose interest.

Like I said, its a game you "want to like" but so far it has been a bit fustrating to me. Then again I had teh same problem initially with TOAW (and never did figure out how some people got 5 or 6 combat phases in a turn :eek: )

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 29
- 5/8/2002 2:25:40 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Well, it is only a beta demo, and there´s no informative manual yet. The game relies on highly `skilled´ ai to avoid micromanaging I personally hate. Did you notice how the ai staff uses reserves in attacks and defense. Quite imprerssive, and realistic too. But you CAN micromanage every factor you like in that game, so even the most hardcore pighead grogs can have they way.

[QUOTE]Then again I had teh same problem initially with TOAW (and never did figure out how some people got 5 or 6 combat phases in a turn )[/QUOTE]

That can tell much of about your playing skills...

...just kidding :D

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Consign hexes to dustbin of history Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734