

I'm in the process of designing a Board game, A traveling/ Quest Type Game, By using a real Map, What would be better to use. Squares or Hexes to mark out the movement of the players.?

Todd Warnken
United States Harrison Ohio
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
Happy grandfather!!!

Hexes, it avoids worrying about diagonals.

Jim Cote
United States Maine

You can use square spaces, but still retain hexstyle topology by offsetting every odd row like bricks.

Patrick McGill
United States Kentucky

I think Hexes simply allow for greater diversity of movement and flexibility of game design.



Hexes, for sure. They just lend themselves better to the task of representing multidirecionality. Plus, it doesn't matter what the game is about: if you see hexes you know you're wearing the daddy pants.

tom franklin
United States Garner North Carolina

CelticPaladin wrote: I think Hexes simply allow for greater diversity of movement and flexibility of game design.
seconded.
...

Robert Wilson
Canada Riverview New Brunswick

If you are using a real map you might want to look at area movement

Neil Whyman
United States Danvers Massachusetts
I need more TIME

Somebody once told me that a square grid is more accurate than a hex grid so long as it costs 1.5MP to move diagonally versus 1MP to move vertically and horizontally. I haven't verified this by doing the math, but it can't be a difficult proof.

Jim Cote
United States Maine

nwhyman wrote: Somebody once told me that a square grid is more accurate than a hex grid so long as it costs 1.5MP to move diagonally versus 1MP to move vertically and horizontally. I haven't verified this by doing the math, but it can't be a difficult proof. That can't possibly be true since the distance along the diagonal is sqrt(2). 12 diagonals and you are off by more than a square.

John Bohrer
United States Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

Rhomboids

Kent Reuber
United States San Mateo California

Yes, the diagonal is sqrt(2) or 1.414. Close enough to 1.5. To prevent having to deal with fractions, you might consider making orthogonal movement worth 2 points and diagonal movement worth 3.



Wow, I didn't think there was that Much difference between the Two Except you can Move in 6 different ways. Now I Know what I'm going to Use.
Hexes.



I should divide map in areas. It is the best way to represent terrain. Forget about terrain costs. Flat terrain in large areas that allow to move farther and rough/difficult terrain in smaller areas that allow to move less distance. You can make some areas wider in one direction to represent more suitable terrain to move in that direction.



This has given Me more Ideas, as well. Making the Hexes different sizes, depending on the type of terrain. But My game will More or less follow Roads on a map.

David Bush
United States Radiant Virginia

ekted wrote: nwhyman wrote: Somebody once told me that a square grid is more accurate than a hex grid so long as it costs 1.5MP to move diagonally versus 1MP to move vertically and horizontally. I haven't verified this by doing the math, but it can't be a difficult proof. That can't possibly be true since the distance along the diagonal is sqrt(2). 12 diagonals and you are off by more than a square.
The claim is that this is still more accurate than using hexes. 1.5/sqrt(2) is about 1.06066, which means calling a square diagonal movement 1.5 is about 6.07% too long. If you move orthogonally one square and then diagonally at a 45 degree angle, this is called 2.5 but is actually sqrt(5), which is about 11.80% too long. By contrast, if you move two hex spaces, the second 60 degrees different from the first, the resulting distance is called 2 units, but the real distance is sqrt(3), which means you are about 15.47% too long.
Of course, conforming to true Euclidean distance is rarely a crucial design constraint. What matters is what works best for your game.
EDIT: Taking this to a ridiculous extreme, if you average the error over all possible destinations reachable in one to five movement steps, assuming each destination cell is reached in a minimum number of moves, a square grid where diagonals are called 1.5 produces an average error of about 7.97% and a hex grid has an average error of about 8.48%. But hexes look 600% cooler.

Jim Cote
United States Maine

twixter wrote: The claim is that this is still more accurate than using hexes. 1.5/sqrt(2) is about 1.06066, which means calling a square diagonal movement 1.5 is about 6.07% too long. If you move orthogonally one square and then diagonally at a 45 degree angle, this is called 2.5 but is actually sqrt(5), which is about 11.80% too long. By contrast, if you move two hex spaces, the second 60 degrees different from the first, the resulting distance is called 2 units, but the real distance is sqrt(3), which means you are about 15.47% too long.
Of course, conforming to true Euclidean distance is rarely a crucial design constraint. What matters is what works best for your game.
EDIT: Taking this to a ridiculous extreme, if you average the error over all possible destinations reachable in one to five movement steps, assuming each destination cell is reached in a minimum number of moves, a square grid where diagonals are called 1.5 produces an average error of about 7.97% and a hex grid has an average error of about 8.48%. But hexes look 600% cooler. Now I get what you meant. Yes, very cool.

James Boren
United States Mesa Arizona

Here's a really rough diagram showing how distances on a hex board can be different yet still take only the same number of hexes to travel. It would only be much of a concern for large maps, still, something to think about.

Jonathan "Gorno" Fashena
United States Westchester New York

As mentioned, offset columns of squarish (7:6 w/h) bricks ("RectHexes"), have the exact movement geometry of hexes but is easier to draw (although there are plenty of free options for getting hexes grids to overlay on an image (see other threads)). A nice understated thing to superimpose on a real map is a hexagonal array of dots, which represent the centers of the hexes: counters are placed on a dot instead of in a hex, and you just count the dots to a destination for the distance. This is less practical with playing pieces, where you want them to be clearly together in the same hexagonal "space."
Gorno


