dinsdale
Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh In the latter case, you have more flexibility to do so, if you wanted to have drop off of, say, weapons effects at the 250, 350 etc. metre mark. Is this perhaps the type of thing he's getting at? I believe that is what you mean by granularity, anyway? Also flexibility of maneuver. The more "hexes" the more room to do things, regardless of scale. quote:
8m seems like a pretty good "grain" for this scale of combat, then. The old system was a 20 metre terrain grid; I think some game functions were on a 2 metre sub-grid, at least unit placement was. See that's what I don't understand. Is 8m where each vehicle/soldier is located, or vehicle/squad/heavy weapon? 8m seems (to me anyway) too large an area for 1 person and too small an area for a group. quote:
These are pretty deep details that most gamers don't get into; I must confess an interest in them myself, so the conversation is interesting to me. The only reason I bring it up is that it appears to be noticeable and jarring with the screen representation of what's happening. At least that's the way it reads. I couldn't get the demo to run on my machine, so I can't tell how it plays. Obviously as I play many games where divisions are stacked up on top of each other in a hex 10's of miles wide, abstraction doesn't always destroy the suspension of belief, I'm just curious how SF works because it doesn't "feel" right from reading. Obviously, playing it may be a different matter. quote:
So what is it we are saying about the strengths/weaknesses of the 8m grid? See above, is the 8m grid a location of an individual or group? It just doesn't seem to be a scale which suits either in a 1-1 small unit game.
|