We had a thread about grids yesterday.
Considering both square grids and hex grids have pros and cons, I've tried to come up with alternative grid systems that could work for a RPG or skirmish game with a focus on tactical combat.
Here are the results. They're a bit small since I've worked on A4 format so that I could print and test them easily.
Thoughts?
The node grid is basically a square grid 45° rotated with "diagonals take more" movement rules in effect.
I'm trying to imagine in what situation the radial grid would be good, but my brain is failing me.
node grind is killing my eyes,but otherwise looks pretty decent,but you just reversed the standard square tiles problems of diagonals.
i dont know if its my early morning brain playing tricks on me but i can not understand for the life of me, how the radial works
When you say "by angle"for the radial one what does that even mean? I appreciate that someone is thinking of interesting alternatives though. I never liked the traditional hex/square grids for tabletop but I have a burning need for precision in combat positioning.
OP here.
I understand that the radial grid may look confusing at first. The green lines define spaces, and like with the spaces of a square grid, you can move from one space to another if they share an edge or an angle.
It makes diagonal movement and distance measurements more straightforward if they go directy towards or away from the centre.
The node grid isn't much different from a square grid, but the black nodes make diagonal movement and measurements a bit more straightforward and change a little how melee engagements work.
I'm still experimenting a little.
For a better look, here's the A3 version
Why not just go with a true hex grid instead of that ripoff on the bottom?
Because a hex grid sucks hard when it comes to represent spaces within perpendicular walls, and doesn't allow you to move in perpendicular directions.
Ah I see. I'm an idiot, I thought the empty spaces were where you positioned things, not the vertices. It's an interesting idea but seems like it better serves smaller parties. Parties of 4 or 5 would be a little awkward
Also it seems a bit odd that someone in the center vertex must move twice in order to cover a distance equal to a different point which requires one move
No wait, you were right, you place things in the empty spaces defined by the green lines. Instead of being square they are curved and they have a radial disposition, but it works the same way as a square grid, so a movement takes you to any adjacent 'space' that shares an edge or a vertex.
I'm sorry if my explanation has been a bit confusing, English is not my first language and I'm not entirely sure I'm using the correct geometrical terms
Ohhhh. I see now. That does make more sense. I'm curious about why you chose to have this specific level of granularity. Why not have more "spokes" ?
Here's another one.
It's a zone-based grid. These nodes represent the center of a zone. With one 'movement unit' you may move from a zone to another. When you enter a free zone, you go to the center; when you enter an already occupied zone, you have to move adjacent to another creature that's already in that zone. Creatures are adjacent when their bases/tokens are physically in contact; this may lead, in case of large and cramped melees, to creatures being adjacent while being in different zones, but it's fine - the zones serve just as a movement/distance unit.
The brown circle with the 'Medium' tag is the size of a 2.5 cm wide token for a medium creature.
Isn't this essentially just a hex grid though
This is actually similar to how Fate abstracts a grid. There's no set map since one of the points is that players can add details, but the GM will establish several zones where the action is happening and the relations of each zone to the others.
It has six directions of movement, but it's a different kind of grid. The nodes (the clear star-like forms) act as the center of a 'zone', and a zone can host several creatures, up to an entire melee. It's more abstract than the other grids.
Doesn't such a level of abstraction somewhat defeat the purpose of having a grid in the first place? And doesn't this still pose the same problems for things like perpendicular spaces as hex grids do?
Perhaps. I want to find out, so I'm going to have some playtest sessions with my group. I'll try to put there battles that force the characters to move around a lot (area effects, pushes, special terrain, shit like that) and figure out on which grid(s) it works better
And using a hex grid instead would make no difference. It is just the rules that have been tweaked a bit.
If you mean I could have done the same thing with large hexes instead of nodes, then you're right, but I don't see why you would be pointing that out. If you mean it's exactly the same thing as using a hex grid where each hexagon is the space a model/token occupies, then you either haven't read my explanation, or you lack reading comprehension.
He's right, it's fundamentally equivalent to a hex grid with multi-hex base movement units and limited movement precision.
Yeah, sure. And by the way, hex grids are basically the same thing as an offset square grid, with the exception that the latter works well in square dungeon configuration while the former just sucks.
Yes, you can use an offset square grid in place of a hex grid for anything you'd use a hex grid for. And vice versa.
I'm loving the radial grid though I'd like to know the math behind it.
If you wanna go alternative try my doublehex tentative for gurps, i had some sucess with gurpsgen help, the rules worked but me and my players had headaches every single game.
This one was supposed to help it didin't
This looks like a right mindfuck. Why on earth would you do this. I can't conceive of what benefit this offers
I see what you were going for with it, it's quite interesting. Although is even more headache-inducing
It doesn't look that bad over a background, but still, its mindbogling somethings when you ae trying to figure out range by counting hexes.
Because of shit like this, it ads a whole new level of movement, handling with sizes, tactics on skirmish level combat, you can stand 'btween' hexes and walk only half distances, the benefits are neat but its too much bullshit to deal with because of how easy it is to get lost while trying to play on it.
If you don't see the problem with regular hex
That's fairly easily circumvented by making them three-hex entities. Which also makes more sense than "is very wide".
>three hex entities
and now you have positioning problems where you can only look straight on 6 directions. I love gurps but hex sucks because of the limitations
btw now we are just measuring the ditance btween eveything, fuck grids.
I've only played attack wing once, but it has my favorite movement model of all time. It doesn't really work that well for an RPG, but maybe somehow it could be made to?
I don't see a problem. It isn't a problem about a creature size. It is a problem about your miniature base.
Even if you have a huge round base you can still visualize the front and back side in your mind depending on the direction miniature is facing
I've read about half of Fate's manual Where's this?
The node system is literally just an over explained square grid where you can stand on corners.
Battletech has an old infantry scale tactical game that uses a plain map with an array of dots on it. I forget how movement works, but it's basically dot to dot without a real grid. Distances also measured dot to dot for the purposes of range, iirc. The biggest upside I can think of is that you could adapt literally any map to that system by just adding dots.
This one makes me feel closer to Ba'hee Pris Dimmie.
Its referred to as 'Zones', so if you look for that it should be easy enough to find.
It also goes into the relatively obvious next step for zone-based combat, and talks about 'enemies as zones' - things big enough to climb on.