Home Forums General Game Design Do you like / dislike hexes

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #64607
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    I was just wondering whether some modern designs such as Commands and Colors and Battle-Cry etc, have brought many new people into the cross-over area between figures and hexes.

    there used to be a tangible divide between boardgame mechanics and figure games,  but with the likes of  To The Strongest by Simon Millar and the up-coming Rommel game, played out on a square grid, are getting a great deal of interest and both seem to defy the old notion that a grid system could not be commercially.

    The trend towards smaller table and collections can be seen at the game shows, will the use of grids become more mainsteam?

     

     

    #64608
    Avatar photoMike Headden
    Participant

    I use hexes for some naval and air wargames but dislike them intensely for land warfare. Consistency is not my strong point 🙂

    There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

    #64609
    Avatar photokyoteblue
    Participant

    If playing a board game I like them. Not so much for a miniature war game.

    #64612

    I use them for a sci-fi ruleset that I was testing as well as trialing them for some Portable Wargames type games with a friend.

    #64615
    Avatar photoJeff Claxton
    Participant

    When I began playing in the late 70’s (fantasy, Der Kriegspielers), the terrain and board were hexs. I have fond memories but prefer my game mats now.

    #64616
    Avatar photoPhil Dutré
    Participant

    I am a big fan of hexes. Esp for miniature wargaming, I think hexes have gained significant popularity since the Kallistra terrain system was launched a little bit over 10 or 12 years ago. In any cases, gridded games have been a part of miniature wargames for over 50 years, just look at the games designed by Morschauer.

    Hexes are only a game design factor, just as much as a ruler or dice are, and you have to consider the resulting game mechanics carefully for the chosen period, scale of figures, unit footprint size, etc. As with other game design elements, the hexes have to be part of a coherent gaming engine. Moreover, for miniature wargaming, the esthetics of hexes are important as well.

    I won’t go into summing up all possible pros and cons of hexes (these have been debated to death already), but let me just mention some of the issues which are think are crucial in whether hexes do work with miniatures:

    – what are the hexes used for? Movement and range are obvious, but perhaps line of sight is not? Esp in skirmish games using single figures, this is an important consideration. Decoupling los from the hexgrid allows to have a finer terrain resolution than the hexgrid.

    – orientation and facing. Can be eliminated by using clever rules dealing with arcs of fire and flank attacks.

    – Hex resolution. Irrespective of size of the gaming table, the hex size should be such that have a significant number of hexes along either dimension. The C&C boards measuring 9 by 13 hexes work because the gaming mechanics are designed for that type of playing area. But for a more general approach, as is traditional in miniature wargaming, a larger number of hexes is needed. A 6 by 4 table filled with kallistra hexes does the trick. Going to smaller table sizes, you should make your hexes smaller.

    Anyway, saying that hexes equate a boardgame is a bit missing the point. Miniature wargaming is defined not by the lack of hexes or counters, but rather by the framework of having a generic set of rules, and using setups and scenarios independent from that set of rules (and of course the esthetic of having a nice gaming table, which is the whole point after all). It usually provides a much more open environment, rather than a boardgame, which is more often a closed environment. Playing a boardgame using the plastic figures in the box does not make that game a miniature wargame. It is simply is a boardgame with plastic playing pieces resembling toy soldiers 😉 I have seen C&C games in which gamers pick up the figures in a hex , squeezing them all together, and plopping them in the target hex in a big bunch, irrespective whether they would even stand upright. You would never see that in a miniature wargame. 😉

    #64621
    Avatar photoMartinR
    Participant

    I like grids in general, they speed up play and  eliminate all that boring, fiddly and potentially contentious measuring and even worse, various angles of wheeling.

    I prefer squares for more linear periods (say,  up to 1870 ish) or high intensity warfare on narrow fronts (Somme, Verdun, Kursk, any allied offensive in Normandy in 1944 etc) and hexes for more fluid stuff, although both can  be made  to work  for  any period. Grids also allow for a far  more realistic representation of the effects of modern weapons in more tactical games- principally an area effect.

    My Hexon terrain was probably the most cost effective thing I ever bought, even  if the upfront cost is high, otherwise I have  a load  of griidded cloths etc.

     

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #64627
    Avatar photoMike
    Keymaster

    I am not a fan of the aesthetic, but can appreciate how they can remove some ambiguity from the game.
    I don’t see myself ever buying hexes.

    #64635
    Avatar photoPhil Dutré
    Participant

    My Hexon terrain was probably the most cost effective thing I ever bought

    Second that.

    #64636
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    …how they can remove some ambiguity from the game.

    The opposite effect is possible if the grid (or more importantly: where a unit exists within it) represents a more vague ‘zone’ than a precisely defined location.  Where, exactly, a unit may be (and how long it would take them to reach another position) is not known by the players on either side.

    #64637
    Avatar photoBlackhat
    Participant

    I prefer grids to hexes – and I have moved a lot of my gaming to gridded games as they make things so much easier.  Also I am gaming a lot more in 54mm and smaller 54mm units can look odd on a table but, for some reason, look fine in a gridded game.

     

    Mike

     

    #64645
    Avatar photoirishserb
    Participant

    I’m not a fan of grids or hexes for use with miniatures games.  In my experience, in land battles, these are usually used at the expense of rolling 3-D terrain, which for me,  is the primary draw to the miniatures game over board games.  Some terrain systems use 3-d modular hex systems, but these aren’t necessarily scaled with any particular rules that I use, so offer me no utility.  Additionally, depending on the size, they can be tedious to set up and maintain on the table top during play, depending on how klutzy the players are.

    In sea, air and space battles, I find them less invasive, though generally prefer turn templates and rulers or tape measures for movement and ranging.  I just don’t find the measuring to be very burdensome.

    All that said, I expect to see the use of grids and hexes used with miniatures to increase in the mainstream.  As the gaming community evolves and grows to include a wider cross-section of people, it will include more people, who are not as tied to researching/building/painting.  There will be a greater segment who are just interested in playing/having fun/socializing without all of the other investment that some of us enjoy, and the use of grids/hexes can be one of those things that reduce the work and investment of bringing the game to the table top.

     

     

    #64648
    Avatar photoVictoria Dickson
    Participant

    In my experience, in land battles, these are usually used at the expense of rolling 3-D terrain, which for me, is the primary draw to the miniatures game over board games.

    I think rolling 3-D terrain is the exception rather than the rule.  More often it’s still a green cloth with a couple of hills stuck on top and pieces of felt showing where woods are.

    Making a grid, be it hexes or squares, can actually result in better looking terrain that the average non grid game, at least it forces you to put some thought into it.

    #64649
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    I like hexes and have a huge supply of GHQ Terrainmaker hexes that I use to make fairly realistic landscapes. They allow me to easily create differently shaped hills, have negative features like streams actually sunk into the terrain, and give a huge amount of flexibility at a reasonable cost in ease of use. The effect, apart from the appearance of the visible hex grid, is much more realistic to my eye than the usual scatter terrain. My table is built with a lip at the edge and a felt surface so the hexes do not move at all in play.

    I have not used my hex terrain to adjudicate movement, etc. yet. I do think of it every so often, and I have enjoyed some grid-/hex-based rules, but not doing so is more a function of the rules I have seen rather than the concept itself.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #64657
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    The opposite effect is possible if the grid (or more importantly: where a unit exists within it) represents a more vague ‘zone’ than a precisely defined location. Where, exactly, a unit may be (and how long it would take them to reach another position) is not known by the players on either side

    As a mechanism, the point of hexes is that it should not represent a vague zone. The whole hex is clearly defined as something i.e. a woods hex or a building hex. Whatever is in the hex is simply in the hex, location is not an issue (unless you make it so as Phil suggested for Line of Sight purposes – something that I would avidly avoid).  So if you have a single woods hex, a unit in it can be seen and fired upon from all aspects / sides. If you had a cluster of wood hexes, then line of sight would not get past the first woods hex to enter a second woods hex, because the woods hex blocks line of sight to anything beyond.

    The boardgame industry has been doing hexes for nearly 60 years and their games enjoy the principle of one hex one location.

    #64660
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    Part of a Gettysburg battlefield that I did with rolling terrain.

    #64661
    Avatar photoirishserb
    Participant

    Hi Victoria,

    You are probably right about the rolling terrain being the exception.  By chance, each group that I’ve gamed with since the late ’70s happened to use 3-D terrain, so I guess my expectation/assumption is that that is typical, but I think you are right.

    I guess that because of the groups that I’ve gamed with, I’ve never played using felt of other constructs to indicate an area of effect.  Forrest has always been represent by lots of individual trees, city by individual buildings etc.  Incorporating areas of effect defined by rigid geometric shapes strikes me as atypical, or maybe counter-intuitive,  in the miniature landscape.  I don’t mean that critically, I’ve just been conditioned to approach the board/terrain from perspective outside of that presented with grids/hexes.

    #64662
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    As a mechanism, the point of hexes is that it should not represent a vague zone. The whole hex is clearly defined as something i.e. a woods hex or a building hex. Whatever is in the hex is simply in the hex, location is not an issue…

    I agree that that is the way it is usually done/treated, but it is not the only way.

    It is just as correct to say that a hex represents a variety of terrain effects within its boundary, and that a unit’s exact location within a hex is not determined/indicated by its placement in the hex.  Used this way, ambiguity for both terrain effects and movement) is increased – if that’s what is desired, of course! ; )

    #64663
    Avatar photoVictoria Dickson
    Participant

    Yeah, it makes a lot of sense that what you are used to will impact on how you view grids.  I wish I had the opportunity to play on realistic terrain, I might even give up my grids for that. 🙂

    I wonder if how a person gets into wargaming has an impact on how acceptable visible grids are to them.  I started off with Avalon Hill boardgames, so hexes are kind of in my blood now.  When I play a hex based computer game with the option of the grid visible or not I always go for visible, I like the look better that way.  I’m sort of aiming to make my grid based games look like a video game rather than reality I suppose, now that I think of it, not sure if that’s a good thing or not. 

    #64667
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    I agree that that is the way it is usually done/treated, but it is not the only way.

    Hi Don – from a practical aspect, it is the only way. To do it any other way (i.e. as you describe) is to basically make the table top an open game that just happens for whatever bizarre reason to have hexes on it. As you say it would simply produce ambiguity and I know of no rules that do that or set out to do that.

    I am not being argumentative on the point, I simply want to avoid giving an impression to non-hex users that hexes throw up these kind of problems, when they don’t if used properly.

    By way of illustration, a couple of years ago I had a 1066 game published as a hex and counter game. The link below gives an AAR, which includes photographs of the game. Every hex has independent terrain which is clearly identified, being brook, morass slope or hill or ground level (the brook and  morass terrain types have identical effects, so where they are combined it is for aesthetic effect only and the effects are as though they are either brook or morass, it just so happened the morass had a brook flowing through it). The units each occupy one hex, they always face a vertex, so their front, flanks and rear are always defined. There is simply nothing in this sort of game that can create ambiguity, to do so would be a design failure and this game is pretty much a stock style for a hex and counter game. If a designer steps outside of this frame-work then there MUST be rules present to prevent ambiguity – though I have never seen it.

    LINK

    http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/hastings-anniversary-replay.html

    #64669
    Avatar photoGone Fishing
    Participant

    I have to confess to not liking Hexon at all – while I love (love!) the overall look, as in the Gettysburg photo above, in practice I found them fiddly to assemble and quickly sold them off. Having a permanently set-up table might make all the difference. Having said that, I quite like grids of all sorts – there’s something freeing about not having tape measures lying about, safe in the knowledge that infantry moves two squares, cavalry three. It’s nice.

    Like Mike above, much of my gaming these days is in 54mm, and agree that there is something about the big toys on grids that just looks right. Maybe it’s the slight “toy” element. I’ve played a number of games with The Portable Wargame and have been amazed what fun can be had with so simple a set of rules. One of its delights is the use of grids (either squares or hexes can be used).

    Fascinating discussion.

    #64670
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    …from a practical aspect, it is the only way. To do it any other way (i.e. as you describe) is to basically make the table top an open game that just happens for whatever bizarre reason to have hexes on it. As you say it would simply produce ambiguity…

    Producing ambiguity is the point of using hexes in the way I described, not an undesired byproduct.  With that (ambiguity) as the objective, such a system would not only practical, but successful  insofar as it met design goals.

     

    It is assumed that applying the original hypothesis (The opposite effect is possible if the grid (or more importantly: where a unit exists within it) represents a more vague ‘zone’ than a precisely defined location. Where, exactly, a unit may be (and how long it would take them to reach another position) is not known by the players on either side) requires that the hex size be large enough (ground scale-wise) that it allows for the desired ‘vagueness’ of unit location/orientation.

     

    I am not being argumentative on the point, I simply want to avoid giving an impression to non-hex users that hexes throw up these kind of problems, when they don’t if used properly.

    I’m hoping to not come across as argumentative as well, and simply want to avoid giving the impression that hexes/grids -by their nature- impose a lack of ambiguity, but can instead be used to inject ambiguity as a desired facet of the game.

    #64672
    Avatar photoPhil Dutré
    Participant

    The whole hex is clearly defined as something i.e. a woods hex or a building hex. Whatever is in the hex is simply in the hex, location is not an issue (unless you make it so as Phil suggested for Line of Sight purposes – something that I would avidly avoid).

    In our house rules, we have used both approaches (although not in the same game ;-)).

    For larger-scale battles, using units, and in which 1 unit == 1 hex, then yes, the entire hex is one terrain type. Placement of the visuals (whether terrain, scenery, units) doesn’t matter within the hex.

    But we have also used Kallistra hexes for skirmish games (e.g. Wild West shootist games). Movement and firing ranges are still counted in hexes, but since you typically play with single figures, you want a higher resolution detail for your terrain. Hence, individual placement of the figure inside the hex is important (behind the tree, behind the house, …), and LOS is traced from figure to figure.

    BTW, here’s a typical Hexon setup I use:

    http://snv-ttm.blogspot.be/2017/03/dragon-rampant-elves-vs-chaos.html

    #64675
    Avatar photoPhil Dutré
    Participant

    I have to confess to not liking Hexon at all – while I love (love!) the overall look, as in the Gettysburg photo above, in practice I found them fiddly to assemble and quickly sold them off.

    I like the Hexon system especially because they are easy to assemble 😉

    But I do have a permanent table, with all Hexon paraphenelia close-by, so that helps. I specially ordered half-hexes as well, to fill up the gaps along the edges. And when I need my desert Hexon terrain, I simply put it on top of my permanent green terrain.

    Before my Hexon terrain, I had a large amount of Geohex hexes. Now that was a pain to setup!

    #64677
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    People in Wargames Developments were producing games and rules systems using hexes and offset squares with miniatures, literally decades ago. I can see the benefits re measurement and lack of ambiguity but I confess it misses the point entirely for me.

    I like boardgames and have owned and played lots over the years, but I like my games with figures to be less precise, to have a different feel to a boardgame and I just can’t suspend disbelief with a set of figures lurching forwards in a zigzag pattern.

    So a no from me I’m afraid.

    #64681
    Avatar photoA Lot of Gaul
    Participant

    I think that hexes work very well for boardgames. Having fewer surfaces, grids are less practical and more ambiguous than hexes. I personally dislike hexes and grids in miniatures games, to the extent that any game based on them is a non-starter for me.

    I like grids in general, they speed up play and eliminate all that boring, fiddly and potentially contentious measuring and even worse, various angles of wheeling.

    IMHO that is more a reflection of poor game design than the absence of hexes or grids. While some games systems are notorious for those kinds of issues, and any game requiring a micrometer and a wheeling arc is also a non-starter for me, a well-designed non-hex miniatures game won’t have those ‘contentious’ issues any more than a hex-system game, unless of course one just dislikes measurement and rulers on principle.

    "Ventosa viri restabit." ~ Harry Field

    #64682
    Avatar photoMr. Average
    Participant

    I don’t like or dislike hexes, really, but the clearly defined terrain boundaries are a nic feature. Most of. Gaming is at 3mm scale these days, though, for me, so my biggest problem is forests. I couldn’t say why but making nice forests at that scale just hampers me no end. But hexes are no big deal.

    Still, game mats are getting consistently better – offerings like from Tinywargames and Cigar Box Battles are superb and very flexible for making nice, rolling terrain.

    #64684
    Avatar photowarwell
    Participant

    I love grids. I find that they speed up my game play.

    I usually prefer square to hex grids for land battles (at least for pre-20th century)

    #64687
    Avatar photoNorm S
    Participant

    This week, I have set up a hex table and enjoyed the functionality of my hexes with 12mm. Then I did a 28mm game over open terrain and the aesthetic pleasure of the scale was lovely (more than hexes and small scales do for me), but the tape measure felt a bit ‘obvious’ to me at times (though that has more to do with my over familiarity with hex gaming than a real world problem, i.e. It is a mindset thing).

    My back plays me up all the time, so I find just plonking stuff in a hex easier than measuring out, especially over the middle of the table, and eye-balling ranges also helps, so I am afraid that I have my own conflict between the smaller scale with hexes being handy and the larger scale over the open table being beautiful and kinder on my older eyes. If I lived in a big place, I could probably support both …… but I don’t, and as storage space shrinks, I am increasingly finding myself with the difficult decision of where my focus needs to be for my gaming and as wed as I am to the hexes, I am still on the fence.

    #64689
    Avatar photoMcKinstry
    Participant

    I like hexes for some games including a fair amount of naval but have never played a gridded game that works for me. I’ve tried ‘To The Strongest’ but it just kind of felt like really attractive chess.

    The tree of Life is self pruning.

    #64693
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    I can see the benefits re measurement and lack of ambiguity…I like my games with figures to be less precise…

    Apologies for mentioning the wounded (if not already dead…) horse once more, but:

    Hexes/grids do not impose a greater movement/position accuracy unless the rules say so.  If the rules say different, the position of a unit ‘somewhere in this hex/grid’ is much less precise than the position of a unit on an ‘open’ tabletop.

    I mention this only because dismissing or not preferring hexes/grids because of an implied imposition of accuracy doesn’t carry much weight, being based as it is on a false assumption.

    #64696
    Avatar photoAlexander Wasberg
    Participant

    While I can’t debate the usefullness of hexes, I can’t really see myself using them for purely aesthetical reasons.

    #64718
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    While I can’t debate the usefullness of hexes, I can’t really see myself using them for purely aesthetical reasons.

    While I agree it is an issue, the visual impact can be greatly reduced (especially from a POV of anything other than directly above) by marking only the vertices in a modest fashion.  Check out my avatar marked with two sizes of hexes for an example.

    #64786
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I can see the benefits re measurement and lack of ambiguity…I like my games with figures to be less precise…

    Apologies for mentioning the wounded (if not already dead…) horse once more, but: Hexes/grids do not impose a greater movement/position accuracy unless the rules say so. If the rules say different, the position of a unit ‘somewhere in this hex/grid’ is much less precise than the position of a unit on an ‘open’ tabletop. I mention this only because dismissing or not preferring hexes/grids because of an implied imposition of accuracy doesn’t carry much weight, being based as it is on a false assumption.

    Apologies for giving the equine the unwanted kiss of life once more – but if you aren’t using them for precision in measurement/facing etc – why on earth would you bother imposing such an odd geometric aspect to your terrain?

    #64789
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    …if you aren’t using them for precision in measurement/facing etc – why on earth would you bother imposing such an odd geometric aspect to your terrain?

    To introduce a lack of precision.  A unit placed in a hex wouldn’t be ‘right there‘ but instead ‘somewhere around there‘; its facing would be any of 6 (or 12?) options (“I want them facing East.”  “Fine, they might be…or they might not.“); and it would take one or three turns to move into a hex that would ‘normally’ be reached in two (- they could also go in the wrong direction).

    Ambiguity, fog of war – how much is injected is simply a matter of the variance allowed in placement, facing, and/or movement.  Too much would most likely result in a level of chaos that would remove enough control from the player to make the game more frustration than challenge.  Finding the Goldilocks spot would be a matter of personal preference tailored by the adjustment of the relevent variables.

    #64866
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Fair enough.

    I think I would rather go with no grid and rules that allowed or introduced that uncertainty – eg a random element in the move distance to cover unmodelled fluctuations in the terrain and directional changes through rough or unsighted (wooded/fog etc) situations. But I am happy to accept that your preference might vary.

     

    #64906
    Avatar photoDon Glewwe
    Participant

    …go with no grid and rules that allowed or introduced that uncertainty…your preference might vary. 

    My point exactly: Grids/hexes are not a determining factor in the type of game played, just a tool/preference.

    #65070
    Avatar photoPhil Dutré
    Participant

    To introduce a lack of precision.  A unit placed in a hex wouldn’t be ‘right there‘ but instead ‘somewhere around there‘; its facing would be any of 6 (or 12?) options (“I want them facing East.”  “Fine, they might be…or they might not.“); and it would take one or three turns to move into a hex that would ‘normally’ be reached in two (- they could also go in the wrong direction).

    Ok, but that is a very atypical use of hexes. Almost all gridded games use the grid to count distances and ranges. For positioining, a unit is in the hex, and the hex is the position of the unit. 1 on 1 mapping.

    The effect you describe can also be used without a grid, perhaps even easier …

    #65072
    Avatar photoirishserb
    Participant

    In thinking about this, it seems to me that both ruler and hex are simply physical mechanisms or tools that can be used to reach an end.  The mechanics or abstractions in the rules can be readily designed to produce actions of more or less precision. The ease with which it is accomplished is just a function of the perspective of the designer/observer/player.  If you are biased towards one side of the issue, you will probably perceive that to be the easier path to the end.

    I am clearly biased towards not using hexes/grids in miniatures game, but as I have read through this thread in recent days, I have pointedly considered their use in association with a lack of precision. It only took a few minutes to come up with a rules framework that would exploit “large” hexes accommodating multiple  battalion or regimental sized units to be gamed with, with a “lack of precision”.

    Much to my surprise, and given my bias at the start of this thread, I really think that the ease with which either approach is used, is a matter of personal bias.

    #65073
    Avatar photoMike
    Keymaster

    Not about the ease for me, but about the look.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 42 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.