Slitherine

quote:

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.

Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.

quote:

So you are essentially going back to squares even if the grid lines are not shown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.

Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.

Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.

If you totally ignore distance you can use squares. Pixel to pixel is more accurate in portraying distance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

One interesting issue with having no tiles is "terrain fidelity"--what size are the terrain elements that can be placed on the map? One pixel for individual trees? Square blocks of a set size of various terrain types? Being able to draw terrain freehand of any shape? I forget how Command Ops does it, but IIRC it is the latter approach.

Having no tiles/hexes is actually the same as having many small tiles. Somewhere you have to draw the line, no pun intended, to how much detail can be made. Those small tiles, will be the basis of that game. Call them pixels on the screen, or in theory smaller, but in the end it has to be represented by finite digits. Hence squares.

If you totally ignore distance you can use squares. Pixel to pixel is more accurate in portraying distance.

I'd like to see an argument as to how pixel to pixel is not just another version of squares to squares?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
As long as computers work with finite numbers they cannot represent movement realistically...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So you are telling me the distance from one corner of a square to the opposite corner of a square is the same as the distance from one edge of a square to the opposite edge of a square? lmao.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I find some of these expectations amusing. For wargame scale and scope, one should consider the "two echelon rule" and game results over a period of turns. For example, playing the old PanzerBlitz or Panzer Leader boardgame. Movement from A to B was based on average movement rates and not perfect, but equal for both players. Combat with a platoon-size unit counter representing a group of tanks/squads versus another unit at some range was also based on certain averages and nowhere near perfect, but again equal for both players. What "exactly" happened to one unit during one 5-minute turn was not at all a realistic simulation, but over the course of a game scenario the overall results were considered believable. In this case, the two echelons means battalion-level operations, so for wargaming WWII battalion or brigade operations over a 1-2 hour battle, those old boardgames provided some decent results as well as some enjoyable gaming. For wargaming platoon or company firefights over 10-15 minutes, not so much.

My only point is that if you want to argue down to a gnat's ass if 'any' game results for a particular unit counter during a particular turn is perfect or realistic, then you're chasing your tail. Some aggregation and averaging is necessary for movement/combat effects at a unit scale at least two echelons below whatever you're trying to wargame. Clearly, one can go to ridicules extremes in pursuit of perfection and realism, such as trying to wargame all of WWII ETO with some massive PB/PL-scale game with platoon counters, 250m hexes, and 5-minute turns. But that would be stupid. Find a scale and scope that's most appropriate, movement and combat effects that work, and overall game results that are believable. And the wargame should be playable, and enjoyable as a game. I see far too many complex and complicated games that fail on both counts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
As long as computers work with finite numbers they cannot represent movement realistically...

Sorry, but I think you're being a bit...pedantic. Next you'll be telling us that according to Zeno, no movement is possible at all .

The fact is that for all practical purposes, in computer games movement based on pixel-sized (or whatever other tiny "square" you want to use) squares is indistinguishable from "realistic movement."

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
I dispute your "fact". But think what you will...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

I know many wargames want to simulate things like fuel usage and distance over time accurately but is there a way to make adjustments to things like fuel usage and time so that moving from corner to corner on a square-based map can be made more accurate in those terms?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
I dispute your "fact". But think what you will...

OK, I'll bite...please provide factual and *practical* examples of what you call unrealistic movement in say, a RTS, sim, or FPS game (ie, one which does not use standard tiles). I actually don't play many of these games, but don't recall ever reading player complaints about unrealistic movement (other than path-finding, which is a separate topic).

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Yes, I understand that path-finding can have lots of issues, but those involve where a unit should move, not the act of movement itself, which is what ernieschwitz claims is so problematic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
With today's computers and simultaneous execution of all aspects it is conceivable to run a real world simulation. It would likely take more computing power than the average user has and would not be financially practical for anyone to bother with unless there is a government contract involved. However, attempting to validate any simulation against a real world historical outcome is not likely. Far too many variables when you are talking about large numbers of individual decisions and outcomes.