Grids?

Started by Norm, 21 June 2018, 11:02:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

d_Guy

Quote from: paulr on 24 June 2018, 01:43:50 AM
:-bd =D> :-bd =D>

+1 I for one rather like the "mechanical" look, Norm. Clean and precise!  :)
Sleep with clean hands ...

Norm

24 June 2018, 03:14:40 PM #31 Last Edit: 24 June 2018, 03:17:20 PM by Norm
The point about grids is that nothing should be open to interpretation or misunderstanding. If it is, then there is something lacking in the rules. :-)


Steve J

I agree Norm. So nice to think where I want to move my troops to, without having to worry about being a few millimetres in or out of a zone of control, or in base contact etc.

T13A

Hi

I must admit to having been anti grids on a wargames table for a long time, believing that they should only be used in board games. Then I came across 'To the Strongest!' rules last year.

For along time I prevaricated over buying them and giving them a go, mainly for similar reasons in other posts above. Anyway I eventually purchased them and gave them a go, making my own gridded cloth (easy peasy).

The look of a wargame is important to me and any concerns I had about how a gridded table (I actually only put 'dots' on the cloth where the corners of each 'box' was) would look turned out to be a non-issue. With terrain pieces overlapping some of the box sides slightly, the grid seems to disappear; the only important thing is knowing exactly what each box terrain wise represents. What was a real eye opener for me was how smoothly the game ran compared with certain other rules sets and how quickly I picked up the rules. There didn't seem to be any of the problems of players having different interpretations of the rules and constantly having to refer to the rulebook. In a surprising way the use of grids seemed to be 'liberating'. Another plus, was not having to rebase any figures.

All that said, I do think the question of grids v non grids will depend on the rules used. If you have a set that work well for you without grids and you are not endlessly discussing different interpretations of what is written in the rules, then great. I think with me it was the balance between the apparent smoothness of how the rules worked (with the slightly constraining effect of the grid (e.g. limitations on facing of units)) with grids and the 'fiddlyness' of certain other rulesets.

Just one further thought, I am completely baffled by people using figures/AFV's etc. (rather than unit 'counters' as in a normal board game) for the Rommel WWII ruleset by Sam Mustafa which uses a square grid with each box representing 1 kilometre. I have not played them, but as I said above, the look of a game and the visual effect is important to me (I like my close order infantry to be based in close order, I like my WWII troops and AFV's to be spread out). I am sure the Rommel rules give a very good game (I am a big fan of Sam's Blücher Napoleonic rules) but using figures? I have seen some photos of a Rommel game where tanks in adjoining boxes appeared to be fencing with their gun barrels!

As usual, just my tuppence worth.

Cheers Paul
T13A Out!

paulr

Quote from: T13A on 24 June 2018, 06:10:01 PM
...I must admit to having been anti grids on a wargames table for a long time, believing that they should only be used in board games...

The look of a wargame is important to me and any concerns I had about how a gridded table... would look turned out to be a non-issue...

What was a real eye opener for me was how smoothly the game ran compared with certain other rules sets and how quickly I picked up the rules...

In a surprising way the use of grids seemed to be 'liberating'...

I went through a very similar process, perhaps more 'not a fan' rather than anti-grid, my gateway was "For King and Parliament" :)

I've also had similar thoughts about Rommel, but to each their own ;)
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Steve J

Grids seem to work well for linear warfare periods, but I wouldn't use them for WWII. I tried PBI many years ago, but it just didn't feel right to me.

Norm

Hexes work well for WWII tactical (there are significant hexed WWII tactical  boardgame designs around), but perhaps squares less so. I wrote my own WWII hexed rules, perhaps eased by my familiarity with the boardgame side of things, but when I tried my hand at doing the same with squares, I came across all sorts of problems that I couldn't adequately resolve to my own satisfaction.

The success of the hex based Commands and Colors type games from Ancient through to WWII, suggests that the hex is a universally useful device across the periods, but I wonder whether squares are by nature more suited to the movement of blocks of trooops within a linear style of fighting.

The fact that one has 4 sides and 90 degree angles and the other 6 sides and 60 degree angles, must have enough subltle differences to matter.

Interestingly, one can start to see shapes and grids in an open non-grided game from the point of view that a linear formation with front facing and flanks takes on all the attributes of a square, while firing arcs of directly ahead have attributes of a square and firing arcs of the typical 22 or 45 degrees, by putting down a fixed and definative pattern of fire, in effect create another grid of sorts. So a typical napoleonic open game is invisibly using a square grid for unit position and ahead movement, regardless of facing, while using a flexible 45 degree grid for firing and movement that is not directly ahead, its just that its all invisible and rather dynamic in nature.


fsn

I was, for a while, thinking of going Kallistra (ooh! I feel like I said a naughty word) and going all in for their hexed terrain offering.

However, when I saw in in "real life" I was somewhat put off. Didn't look right for me.
Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Norm

The only advantage that I can see that the square holds over the hex is that it is easy for gamers to make the grid themselves,  creating a hexed table is not easy, by the time I get to the last third of the board, the hexes are changing shape, just to keep the pattern semi going. So anyone producing a set of commercial grid rules, has always needed to use squares over hexes as the niche audience is then maximised.

Kallistra did at least give us the regularity and consistency needed (GHQ did the polystyrene hexes) and these days, mat printing is becoming pretty mainstream, so there is no real reason to favour squares over hexes unless you want to stay with a 'home made' playing surface.


I think there is a need for gamers who use hexes (me) to think of ways of making their tables look a bit prettier. Open games do not have the monopoly and nice looking tables as I have seen some pretty grim open tables and even at shows, you can still see a presentation that has a game cloth creased to death from storage folds and some undeserving terrain on it. That is not to say that such tables don't bring great games or that suddenly we should all become terrain snobs and forget the simple pleasures of the 'simple' table, but if we are going to judge hexes in terms  of aesthetics and do so against a ton of amazing eye candy on the internet (which few of us can actually aspire to as functionality often is preferable to form), then hexed tables themselves are going to need to up their game so they don't become a stereotype 'look' and get judged harshly simply because of that.

In the function over form argument, grids win absolutely outright. In the form over function argument open table win outright - getting that middle ground is probably something hex players have seldom been good at, where-as open table gamers do pretty much get it right. So perhaps the real challenge is grid gamers (hex players in particular) to think more about aesthetics.

T13A

Hi Norm

While I agree with you 100% about some grim looking 'open' tables, I have yet to see a commercial hex terrain system that looks any thing but awful to my eyes. At least with boxes you can 'blur' the edges so that they seem to disappear. That doesn't happen, for me at least, with hexes. Just my opinion of course.

Cheers Paul



T13A Out!

Norm

Paul, the hex is such a defined shape / pattern, that I agree, it is hard to dress is up to naturalise it and in particular to break up the outlines of the hex. But I would like to try some improvements to my layout. The square with just 4 corners does make it easier to accommodate a unit and a building in the same location, the sided hex makes that a tad harder. The downside with the square is that terrain in general conforms to two axis, though hexes only slightly improve on that artificial look and in fact can't handle crossroads and bridges as well as the square does. 

Because I do a lot of boardgaming, which can use complicated rules and of course hexes, i sometimes think it is best to have that as my hex fix just like to use my figures for a more aesthetic, relaxed, fun type of play and that would mean an open board for me for a bit of Old School :-)

T13A

Hi Norm

I forgot to mention that I was really struck by your earlier photo of McPhersons Ridge and how similar it looked to what you see on screen when playing one of John Tillers computer 'Battleground' games (hopefully I will not be put in the glasshouse for mentioning computer wargames on this forum) which also uses hexes and you can you can set it so that you do not actually see the hex sides. Are you familiar with them?

Link: http://www.matrixgames.com/products/product.asp?gid=319

Cheers Paul
T13A Out!

Norm

Paul, I did use some very early battleground stuff and the computer seems ideally suited as an antidote to having to collect, paint and store figures and armies and keeping this set up over several days (weeks!) and remembering rules :-)

I tend to stay away from computer games in general, for no other reason than I quickly fall to repetative strain pain, boo - hiss!   But then I paint insread!!!!!


steve_holmes_11

I recall a discussion on grids on a different forum.

Discussion quickly identified three different approaches.

1. Multiple units may be located/stacked in one grid cell: Avalon Hill, Square Bashing, Backgammon.
2. One unit per cell: Battle Cry and the Command and Colours franchise, Chess, Draughts, Ludo.
3. One unit (or its components) can spread across several cells: Perry's travel battle (I think), Battleship.

In the first case the cell represents a significant area, and the rules are vague about precise positioning of the units within.
This seems to work well for very large scale battles, and eras where combined arms operations were planned and executed.

I've rather less experience of actual wargames that use the 2nd and 3rd approach, but get the impression that they represent progressively smaller cell areas, with more emphasis on precise locations of units.


Macsen Wledig

old topic but what the hey....

I am investing a lot of time into gridded wargaming currently with several cloths bought (yeah I know lazy....) and trying out of several rulesets for the ultimate 'Dark Age' feel....even written my own set