wfzimmerman
Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003 Status: offline
|
I have a mental block, I simply cannot adapt to the modern area based games for the computer and can only grasp hex based games. I wish I could overcome this block because there are a heck of a lot of area based games out there today, but so far no luck. The only area based games I ever remember liking are Diplomacy and SPI's 1812, a strategic level simulation of Napoleon in Russia. What I remember liking about those game was the nice big areas on the map, which makes me wonder if a lot of my problem with area based games is simply the UI on a computer. Those darned provinces can look pretty small and squiggly even on a good sized monitor, but I suspect I'd have an easier time with them on a 22 x 34 printed map (or on Microsoft Surface). quote:
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote:
ORIGINAL: micheljq The Empires in Arms map is one which is area based. I like it a lot. I don't see it as being inferior nor superior to hex based games, which I like also. I appreciate those 2 ways of having a map. Yes, I agree. It depends upon what is being simulated. Tactical land combat is best served by using a hex grid to simulate the combat unit occupying/controlling a fixed amount of territory. This also regulates movement, line of sight, range of weapons, terrain effects, and numerous other tactical details. Political and socio-economic simulations often find irregularly shaped areas to work well, without the need for the fine grain modeling provided by a hex grid. My philosophy is to start with a solid definition of what is being simulated, and then to determine 'unit' size, minimum time periods, and (lastly) geographic parameters, which includes the hexgrid versus area movement decision.
_____________________________
|