Combat Spaces: Squares, Hexes, or Zones?

[Tun Kai Poh]

There are issues that can come up with both hexes and squares; sometimes I wish staggered squares had caught on more than they did.

Staggered squares - aren't those functionally the same as hexes?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Staggered squares - aren't those functionally the same as hexes?

They avoid most of the issues with right angles discussed above; they cut through the middle of half the squares, but since the transitions are still along the flats, you don't get the artifacts, and the diagonal issues that can come up with squares are, effectively, nonstarters.

They don't eliminate every possible issue with either, but they do seriously reduce them. Unfortunately, they never caught on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Despite the aforementioned problems with interiors, it does seem that hexes have a fair number of interesting perks to them, especially involving diagonal movement. Have people come up with work around solutions for indoor hexes?

They absolutely do; there's a reason games like RQ, Hero and GURPS have traditionally used them. There's no obvious fix for the indoor problems, though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I prefer hexes, but games I play in seem to always be stuck on squares.

The idea that squares are better for buildings really only works if you're willing to suspend disbelief and think that right angles are some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon. If real simulation is the goal, you should have to regularly rotate the squares to account for angular shifts. And if you're going to be rotating the base grid, you can do so just as easily with hexes.

Most people aren't going to draw maps with other than 45 degree angles at worst, though, and though that can be an issue with squares to some degree, it still comes up with most map designs far less than the regular problem with hexes.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

They avoid most of the issues with right angles discussed above; they cut through the middle of half the squares, but since the transitions are still along the flats, you don't get the artifacts, and the diagonal issues that can come up with squares are, effectively, nonstarters.

They don't eliminate every possible issue with either, but they do seriously reduce them. Unfortunately, they never caught on.

looks at a Google Image Search

So they are the same as hexes.

 

[uzirath]

After playing GURPS for a while, I came to prefer hexes, even for buildings and dungeons. But I also prefer creating my maps without a grid and applying a grid later—the layouts feel more natural. In the past four years of playing DFRPG, we haven't encountered any serious complications, whether using a hex battlemat or a VTT. A nice thing on a VTT is that you can rotate and adjust the grid layer for different areas of a dungeon level if you want a particular orientation. Normally we treat partial hexes as full hexes (unless it's just a sliver).

 

[Thomas Shey]

looks at a Google Image Search

So they are the same as hexes.

Except in the regards to which I mentioned? Not having 60 degree angles on facings makes some pretty big practical differences.

 

[Thomas Shey]

After playing GURPS for a while, I came to prefer hexes, even for buildings and dungeons. But I also prefer creating my maps without a grid and applying a grid later—the layouts feel more natural. In the past four years of playing DFRPG, we haven't encountered any serious complications, whether using a hex battlemat or a VTT. A nice thing on a VTT is that you can rotate and adjust the grid layer for different areas of a dungeon level if you want a particular orientation. Normally we treat partial hexes as full hexes (unless it's just a sliver).

You'd notice some of the issues less with GURPS because movement is relatively slow in terms of hexes-per-action; it becomes much more obvious with games that use hexes but have faster movement. As I said, its an artifact of the fact that if you have corridors, some of them will be going down the flat and some down the sides; if you're actually counting the movement lines in the latter they take longer even though the distance is avowedly the same.

(And I'll note not all VTTs allow for easy rotation, though all the ones I know of allow shifting scale relatively easily).

 

[Deset Gled]

As I said, its an artifact of the fact that if you have corridors, some of them will be going down the flat and some down the sides; if you're actually counting the movement lines in the latter they take longer even though the distance is avowedly the same.

This is only an artifact if you assume that the map was drawn for a square grid and then converted to hex. If you assume that a map is drawn for a hex grid and overlay a square on top of it, you'll get similar issues. It's only the fact that players are taught to draw maps on a 5' grid that leads to these conversion artifacts.

If you draw an arbitrary map without any grid and then overlay a pattern on it, you will generally have less errors with hexes than with squares. The key word here is "arbitrary", in terms of lengths, angles, and rotations. The real world does not actually align itself to 5' increments or right angles.

 

[dragoner]

Hexes outside, squares inside is my preference. I have used zones, they are fine, ranges, and even just theater of the mind, is esp useful in the situation is just going to be a couple of rounds. I like maps, make a bunch, love using them; that said, grids should be light, to almost non existent.