A current post caused me to wonder whether the 'mood' towards hexes is changing with the popularity of To the Strongest and the Commands and Colors and Square Bashing type games that seem to be getting more mainstream coverage on forums and blogs these days.
The grids are particularly suited to the smaller scales, as you can have a smaller grid, so can play in a smaller space or have a bigger battlefield.
Are gamers here using hexes / squares or at least warming to them or are we tethered to the open table, which in most cases is at least aesthetically more pleasing and less mechanical looking (I say that as a hex fan!)
To the Strongest and For King & Parliament have converted me to this type of gaming. I did try PBI years ago at an old club, but never really warmed to it. I think they work best for quite linear styles of warfare.
I'm still not keen on them. Rommel is the only game I'd play that has a grid, and even that one is low down on my list of gaming preferences.
The only grid-based games with 3d terrain I play are Mars Attack! and the Firefly minis game. Both are boardgames that still use proper LoS calculations (and both use squares, not hexes). I don't mind that, but I would actually prefer changing the movement rates to distances & doing away with the grids...
I quite like the look of the modular 3d terrain hex systems, but haven't actually played any games with those.
I dislike the look. Don't think that'll be changing.
Quote from: Norm on 21 June 2018, 10:02:00 AM
A current post caused me to wonder whether the 'mood' towards hexes is changing with the popularity of To the Strongest and the Commands and Colors and Square Bashing type games that seem to be getting more mainstream coverage on forums and blogs these days.
The grids are particularly suited to the smaller scales, as you can have a smaller grid, so can play in a smaller space or have a bigger battlefield.
Are gamers here using hexes / squares or at least warming to them or are we tethered to the open table, which in most cases is at least aesthetically more pleasing and less mechanical looking (I say that as a hex fan!)
Absolutely, likely to be the 'go to' for 10 and 15mm gaming for me. So far 'Hordes and Heroes' and Commands and Colors are the rulesets I'm getting familiar with. The type of table makes no difference to me, after 30-odd years of open table, time for a change ;)
If I can get a streamlined set of hex rules for horse and musket and WW2, even better (haven't delved into C&C H&M yet or Memoir 44). Looking like all my armies above 15mm could get archived; having said that I'm experimenting with Hordes and Heroes for 28mm. Always good to have something other than painting to mess about with!
Hi FK. I understand your viewpoint, but they are not always very intrusive. If that nice man Mr Leon helps me overcome my technical incompetence and posts a photo here then I think you can see they can be quite tricky to spot. This is a 15mm (sorry, Leon!) game of Chotusitz 1742, where I am trying out some amendments to For King and Parliament. The mat has a 4" square grid, marked only by little crosses at the corners of the squares. I am now a complete convert to grids, having started with To the Strongest, and then gone on to co-author FK&P, and finally playing C&C in its Ancient, Napoleonic and AWI variants with figures on hex boards. I now find it hard to remember why I ever gamed without them!
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1805/41129632790_2cf0b43869_c.jpg)
I agree that the grids do not need to be intrusive. I've trialed dots to mark the corners etc and I barely notice them once the gaming gets going.
Well I like grids and currently own four different gridded cloths, plus my massive ungridded fleece cloth. It very much depends on the game I am playing. Square Bashing (and Walter Schnaffs), To the Strongest and Tin Soldiers in Action are three of the ones I currently play. However I also find the grids very helpful when laying out scenarios for games which use rulers, particularly Honours of War, They Died for Glory and Longstreet. Don't use them at all for BBB, but likely to use for laying out Alter of Freedom scenarios. I don't find the grids I use the least bit intrusive.
Although I use hexes for Ancient and Armada period naval, for WW1 air games and for combat in RPGs, for some reason gridded land games leave me cold.
Except Heroes of Normandie ... I love Heroes of Normandie.
Inconsistent? Moi!? :) :) :)
Oui!
Having been a life long boardgamer, my brain simply does not see the hex during play, but does read the table in a sort of positional and familiar manner .i.e. it doesn't see the hex but reads the table in a hexed way. I don't see zig-zags and do see zones of control wherever they are. In contrast, Squares, which are not common to most board wargames (I mean going right back to 1957 here), throw me, I do see them and I see their diagonals - I find that odd, though the effect is real enough. This must surely be an eye to brain thing that has evolved over years. It's a bit like rolling dice, you don't need anything as laborious as actually seeing the numbers as numbers and then adding them up in our head to get a score, rather, regular players are more likely to see shapes, recognise combinations of shapes and their resultant values. So two shapes that look like squares (two fours) will be 8, if you see how fast you can roll two dice, sum them and then re-roll and sum them ..... repeat, the result is surprising.
Taking that further, if I set up my Hexon terrain simply to get a terrain contour effect, say of a very long ridge, but then play the game without any regard for the hexes, as an open game, my brain doesn't seem to cope, the hexes stick right out and its as though I can't rationalise why the units are not exactly fitting the hexes and moving by hex count .... it's just all wrong! yet an open board for figures I find increasingl aesthetically pleasing, which to this mind is of course form over function with the regulation and the precision of the hex abandoned to a fancy
I am now laying down in a very dark room after all of that :-)
They've found rather more acceptance in traditional air and naval games.
I'm quite a fan, but think they become relevant when representing larger battles.
In fact I'm working (on and off) on a set for Napoleonics, and the gridded genre poses some interesting questions for the designer.
If you have 3 to 8 manoeuvre units, you'll be more interested in details like formation, skirmishers, flanks and support form adjacent units.
Analogue movement, terrain and rangefinding work well here.
Once you're representing a larger army, issues like continuity of lines and locations of reserves take precedence.
Grids - whether squares or hex - work rather better in this context.
Rules like Battle Cry, Square Bashing, To the last gaiter button, To the Strongest and the Sabin ancients rules take advantage of that.
PBI is something of an exception since it represents a small-ish battle with a lot of free movement possibilities.
I'm actuallly looking at getting some of my games converted to hexes. I have a spare memoir board and am toying with making it a "travel set" for when i go on holidays.
Been trying to get it to work with 2mm troops. Need more research ;D
We've played gridded games quite a bit in the last year or so. Firstly Rommel (operational level WWII) and more recently For King and Parliament (ECW). I think to our group's surprise they play really well.
Our first game of Rommel took a bit of adapting, I think we were all over-thinking it a bit. But after that they just work. It does really speed up big parts of the game, no faffing measuring, and re-measuring, then adjusting the angle of the unit, so its just right, etc.
As shown on some of the photos the grid can be very subtle, just marked at the corners, or with some of the printed mats, the grid lines are so fine, they disappear at any distance. One thing we have found when using grit or bushes to mark the corners, is that if they move a bit it doesn't really matter, as its still clear whats in one square or another.
The only bit we have struggled a bit with is working out LoS for long range shooting in FKaP - but its not too much of a problem as long range shooting for artillery is so ineffectual no-one is too bothered if a unit is targeted.
Quote from: fred. on 21 June 2018, 08:17:10 PM
The only bit we have struggled a bit with is working out LoS for long range shooting in FKaP - but its not too much of a problem as long range shooting for artillery is so ineffectual no-one is too bothered if a unit is targeted.
Interesting. Would it be easier working out lines of sight without the grid?
Its probably just what we are used to. We are very used to putting down a tape measure from the centre of a unit to the centre of another, and seeing if there is LoS. Then there is some negotiation over whether its a clear shot or not.
I think in FKaP as long range shooting is quite rare, we just haven't really got our heads round it. I think the main one that is a bit confusing is where a unit is in a box along the line of sight. As the unit only takes up some (say 30-40%) of the box its less obvious that this box is blocking LoS compared with if it contained a wood.
Quote from: fred. on 21 June 2018, 08:40:58 PM
Its probably just what we are used to. We are very used to putting down a tape measure from the centre of a unit to the centre of another, and seeing if there is LoS. Then there is some negotiation over whether its a clear shot or not.
I think in FKaP as long range shooting is quite rare, we just haven't really got our heads round it. I think the main one that is a bit confusing is where a unit is in a box along the line of sight. As the unit only takes up some (say 30-40%) of the box its less obvious that this box is blocking LoS compared with if it contained a wood.
Thanks Fred. By 30-40% do you mean by area, or by frontage? My units occupy about 90-95% of the frontage of a box, but only about a third of its depth. As a rule of thumb I would be inclined to make an assumption that the unit occupies the whole box for LoS issues. Of course, given we are not talking of explosive shell, but lumps of iron ploughing through terrain, any unit in a square between the gun and its target, other than immediately in front of and below a gun on a hill, will prevent it firing.
On boardgame maps, the terrain is printed in place and will never move, so sorting Line of Sight is pretty straight forward and most system will say that for LOS purposes the entire hex is considered blocked if it has any blocking terrain in there. Having said that, I have a tactical game that has both blocking terrain and degrading terrain. When degrading terrain is considered, it is only when the LOS goes through the actual degrading terrain feature itself (say one of a group of four single trees in the hex) that it counts. Measuring LOS is taken from the centre of the hex to the centre of the target hex and all hexes have a small dot printed in the centre to assist with this.
When using figures on hexes, it can be difficult to fit both terrain and units into the same hex, so the positioning of the terrain might get nudged a bit to allow the figures to fit better, or trees lifted so units can move easily through woods, because of this moving around of terrain, it is just simply more sensible to say the entire hex blocks regardless of exactly where in the hex a unit or terrain piece actually sits. Measuring still takes place from the centre to centre of hexes.
It strikes me that whatever a LOS looks like between two hexes at the start of the game, it should look the same at the end of the game, so that all situations throughout play are treated equally and fairly, giving neither player a greater or less advantage at any point in play.
Quote from: mollinary on 21 June 2018, 09:02:24 PM
Thanks Fred. By 30-40% do you mean by area, or by frontage? My units occupy about 90-95% of the frontage of a box, but only about a third of its depth.
Ours our similar.
I think it's the lack of depth when on the diagonal that makes what appears to be a clear shot, not a shot when you look at the square space carefully.
I'll try and find some photos to give a better example.
Norm - we have always played area terrain rules, whether gridded or not. Where a piece of terrain is defined by a fixed base, but the trees or houses on it can be moved to let the figures in.
Up until I read this thread I've always been anti-grids, mainly because they remind me of boardgames which I am not a great favourite of. However, the old Greek naval rules Trireme used an offset grid if memory serves and that seemed to work okay. Now I may even give them a go. Looking at that pic has made me think again.
I think hexes can look unobtrusive and if done with some decent art, can have some advantages as Norm said. See the GNW battle map on the below link:
https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2081519/fields-battle-volume-1-great-northern-war?size=large
Quote from: fred. on 22 June 2018, 06:36:37 AM
I think it's the lack of depth when on the diagonal that makes what appears to be a clear shot, not a shot when you look at the square space carefully.
I'll try and find some photos to give a better example.
I did take a photo of the game at the point in question (or at least close to it)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/0BvL3kFjoRmed2xP8d-aIBJ9CieKdVkEN3w_G_qWaGjHy1u2J58e9LRteIBNjIS-Gn5Ty2mg4l7AE81sSp4WLoVQDEMbw_Tk6Da_G5EmT46LD7gvK1aKODbJyoA1LwRE8MfjnHBsa4xfKTOv3-fyMJDlzlK5r75npA2eL2nMqQb75-1q1EdYe7Kq01IZqJ6dmuV7qBW1p8_V043vQbvpPiVWgzIkwyXzCP06QSPxcG_nnysk8DRuvJvqVt8K-ytiDJtHxIJChWEFt6fpFXFPMGKp15wZl5zb3tgovibOjReXUhLF9UzeLxYRXYs-j7jFZC4yftKkqYi8dFTzrT87JZxYe5DoyhBs5R1n67sqFdM-sOF6KjBkcKCDxo_EIxLyS_efGTERBXYHCuCKmbD7LPesSsA1m3ZXSqYJTRLC5HkvmpyZx-7wb0qwVD77uNAwPgPAR8NM0wAbl6qNIlhf_s_XrjRz7OWWtcmE6XCx93gR3NTLimpurhP8sVdOPbyOslOs5clunFmMfXAFsjOzmdHr6DZugeKxIXPXQUuyoFZi11YC3NTww3xQTi-2hATOtKbVLU7IYigz266KGdU1hPBc5NxLynkkW96CPpoVPtcWd9DH3xkfbzVXB1vx-Yo4kst5P-0X6V2HW4IoSLPOhCOIB6kRt7w7JA=w1433-h1063-no)
The artillery is just out of shot nearest the camera (the edge of its movement tray can just be seen). I was trying to shoot at the enemy cavalry to the left of the T junction, or the foot unit on the T junction
This is a sketch of the situation
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SxQFYuxGSlcO6b3dwwSo_ZUYJppFx-dJYaa52dnh5l96eVtINnXpzoTWIN3fmDfZ0HHnB5Gj1USUkiZzbaoU0ng7z-A3L4y11PHW2v3RqEnHcfpcWoMkaoajKHaJXgoE73thH_bWcNJHau0xudqeDHNS1wkSpNJJ1WYfFFmjdGKW4sH3yiywQ3xU8z3dsU0XOkONyxhtcGwm7hsWIRwUz8XvUkPit-w0_FLsnDARP1q8fH-UNNW28DrMpOy1qJu9hPJvvA4iyaiP5XDQDeA5NaQV8s9MHIt5gM0JEOecg85MqCmkDjaJ-06-M_ECMKVGuo7MFaixCIGGaL7hoq9B6hqpz1ayF3wFlJlRS3IWnVIphkZsIjquGtrVmcB6nNnScZr3oElcjwUaIWTUEr9EyPBmgjA-vpMjn9pVc-cxqfyCEDBtK8TCEL8iaynXGK12LT1jjwokhByadzpndReOOFFU9kFfgU5FbstDX2rzlkxoplwOAcfRp-uXYSeCFwIrKJctsBYBCATq2jtKYJoVVYp2WkgHexQrC_YNKMbY8RDg4zFUvpQGA-RjxPa6pEToAlwLzmNlQHEcOYpq6HSfZJ4fOMfJPfHDBUcHWvGjPZT-ZJItW2M3Kw91u59JG7xh7Iw2AhajFnIydFQ4xHt13jG9OwWJlwAHqQ=w1039-h1063-no)
Ignore the hedges around unit b - that was my careless drawing.
So drawing a line centre of box to centre of box, unit 2 seems to be a valid target, with the merest touch of the box unit b is in.
Unit 3 was the one we were least sure of, there is a slight clip of unit e's box, but I'm not sure we noticed that in the game. The problem was unit 4, this is clearly in front of 3 so blocking shooting 3. But 4 isn't a valid target due to my unit c. But it hardly seems likely that my gunners would worry that unit 4 is partially blocking unit 3. This is where it felt a bit odd. And took a long time to work out what was going on. Having sketched it out this morning, its a bit clearer, but even then is quite marginal.
Fred, thanks for putting up the picture and the diagram, very useful for understanding what is going on.
I like squares (or hexes) since, in mind at least, they elimate many of the problems that arise in discussions about what is possible. I use a very rigid, all or nothing interpretation. The actual placement of unit(s) in the square (save their relative position to each other) is irrelevant. Likewise area terrain is homogeneous within the square. It's the square, the whole square and nothing but the square. I think all of this has been said in one way or the other. This interpretation is admittedly more boardgame-like but it's a matter of what you want to spend time doing when you play a game.
Using a rigid interpretation, I don't thing either 2 or 3 are allowable targets. e blocks LOS to 3 and b blocks LOS to 2 (by a very thin slice).
In any event, looking at the picture, taking a shot would require greater precision then the field gun had (plus one or more of the COs of your forward foot units would likely come back and give your gunner a thrashing if he took the shot! :D)
BTW - I like the way you sabot your units.
Thanks Fred, that makes it much clearer. Dealing with the easiest first - unt 3 cannot be a target because the centre to centre line crosses the box containing unit 4, which blocks line of sight. Unit 4 itself cannot be a target because it is in the ZoC of unit c. I would say Unit 2 cannot be a target because the centre to centre line goes through the corner of the box containing unit b.. As a general rule I would propose that if it is really close, it is not allowed, for exactly the reasons d'Guy puts forward, hurling around large lumps of iron with windage and inexact ranging is a dangerous business, and not to be engaged in if friendly units are close to the line of fire. Long range artillery fire does not seem to have been a feature of ECW battles, apart from before they advance to combat, when both sides are quite happy to engage in an ineffectual bombardment until they get tired. After that, they only seem to appear when the enemy is directly attacking them, when they seem to have a mixed record at best!
Thanks both. That's very helpful. Both to understand from a game perspective and the history. As a group most of our gaming is fantasy or Sci fi, and it tends to be if there is a gap to see an enemy it will get shot at !
It's good to understand the limitations of historical artillery.
As I said above this is the only bit of the game that we have struggled with, the rest has flowed very well, and become instinctive quickly.
D_guy glad you like the basing, I discovered that I had lots of bases that already worked for FKaP.
Thanks Fred for putting the time in to draw this up & d_Guy & Mollinary for thoughtful comments
A good looking game Fred :)
The hexes are obvious and so is the terrain, but some may not like that. There is a certain mechanical nature to the board.
This is McPhersons Ridge, opening scene to Gettysburg.
(https://commanders.simdif.com/images/publish/simdif_0x130f3efc0.jpg?1529701441)
:-bd =D> :-bd =D>
Fred, in cases like that, i would suggest agreeing on a "minimum gap" before the game.
Say for example half the width of a suare. guessing a square is about 10 cm, make that a 5 cm gap. Keep a spare 5cm wide base handy. When in doubt, see if the base can fit through the gap you are shooting through. If you can fit it, you can ake the shot, if you can't the shot is impossible.
This is off course after you checked for things blocking line of sight as usual. only for those 'when in doubt' moments.
And why half the width of the square? if you are shooting at a regiment of 600 men, i think you have a viable target if you can see half of it. solid cannonballs just needed to hit a point of a regiment/battalion/troop/whatever.
Quote from: paulr on 24 June 2018, 12:43:50 AM
:-bd =D> :-bd =D>
+1 I for one rather like the "mechanical" look, Norm. Clean and precise! :)
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. :-)
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.
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
Quote from: T13A on 24 June 2018, 05:10:01 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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 :-)
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
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!!!!!
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.
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
Fraid grids just dont grap me....
Quote from: Macsen Wledig on 26 July 2021, 10:49:56 AM
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
I'm a fan of gridded games (and for that matter non-gridded ones!) our group really likes Rommel and For King and Parliament, we quite like To the Strongest, but just haven't played it that much. We did toy with a home brew gridded set, but found it didn't quite work - ranges and LoS were awkward once over a couple of boxes. But then we used some of the gridded ideas to help with the non-gridded version - principally defining the centre of formations, rather than worrying about individual models.
its not everyone's cup of tea and I for one am not going to ram it down other's throats :)
as I get older I am less able to handle complex numbers, complex rules and movement vagaries. The other thing is I am now heavily (and I mean heavily) into 10mm so feel that I want something that is pleasing to play and not overburden my old brain PLUS I can potentially use whatever base size and depth I like since I mainly play solo
Hi Macsen, thaanks for waking this thread up :D
Since this thread started 3 years ago, I don't think much has appreciably changed (Surprisingly to me). A raft of rule writers did not follow the 'To the Strongest' trend, but neither has the hex / square lost ground. Peter Pig are still supporting the square and Battlescale have started producing some nice 80mm resin tiles. To the strongest remain very popular.
But I note that the revised La Salle rules did not pick up a square habit, so author Sam did not think the merits of his Rommel would have enhanced the napoleonic game (which saw some quite big changes) and I can't think of another commercial set that adopted the grid since.
I still do a lot of boardgaming and at the moment I am after the figures side of my hobby providing a more old school visual approach as the counter-balance to the regularity of the grid - however, having said that, I am just waiting for the sun to go off the sun lounge, so I can get a game set up in there for a game and it will be on Kallistra hexes.
truly woken up....
I am looking at what rulesets/how easily can be converted to grid use. Of the ones I have scanned, Age of Hannibal by LWTV seems the most straight forward
There's an early version of the portable wargame for ancients available at http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/BlogFreeDownloads/FreePWAncients.pdf (http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/BlogFreeDownloads/FreePWAncients.pdf). Might be worth looking at?
thanks, appreciated
Do you have aa favoured period?
Hi Norm (and rest),
Thanks for the thread. Time ago I read it and arouse my interest in wargames with grids, so I read some rules and played Battlecry, Memoir 44, C&C Ancients and Strategos/Lost Battles.
Reading again this has renewed my interest. I feel they can be faster than traditional sets with rulers, and that would be great for me. Also, thinking about Strategos, it gives big battle commander point of view which focus on big areas so you don't need to manage exact positioning of every unit.
Apart from TTS and H&H does anybody know if there are any similar ruleset set in the Middle Ages?
Quote from: Macsen Wledig on 26 July 2021, 10:49:56 AM
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
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=19731.0
This may, or may not, be of interest.
Quote from: Edmund2011 on 26 July 2021, 10:38:52 PM
Hi Norm (and rest),
Thanks for the thread. Time ago I read it and arouse my interest in wargames with grids, so I read some rules and played Battlecry, Memoir 44, C&C Ancients and Strategos/Lost Battles.
Reading again this has renewed my interest. I feel they can be faster than traditional sets with rulers, and that would be great for me. Also, thinking about Strategos, it gives big battle commander point of view which focus on big areas so you don't need to manage exact positioning of every unit.
Apart from TTS and H&H does anybody know if there are any similar ruleset set in the Middle Ages?
C&C now has a Medieval module. I am not aware of any medieval figure specific rules that are designed for grids other than the ones put out by Kallistra. It might be worth scanning through the back catalogue a Second Chance Games for a true boardgame system that covers the medieval system and then taking that to your figure games.
Quote from: Norm on 26 July 2021, 02:25:10 PM
Hi Macsen, thaanks for waking this thread up :D
Since this thread started 3 years ago, I don't think much has appreciably changed (Surprisingly to me). A raft of rule writers did not follow the 'To the Strongest' trend, but neither has the hex / square lost ground. Peter Pig are still supporting the square and Battlescale have started producing some nice 80mm resin tiles. To the strongest remain very popular.
But I note that the revised La Salle rules did not pick up a square habit, so author Sam did not think the merits of his Rommel would have enhanced the napoleonic game (which saw some quite big changes) and I can't think of another commercial set that adopted the grid since.
I still do a lot of boardgaming and at the moment I am after the figures side of my hobby providing a more old school visual approach as the counter-balance to the regularity of the grid - however, having said that, I am just waiting for the sun to go off the sun lounge, so I can get a game set up in there for a game and it will be on Kallistra hexes.
The little set of grid rules that I regularly examine has shown little movement.
Strategos:
Isn't going anywhere.
Though I admire the concept, I find the writing and gameplay impenetrable.
Peter Pig:
My first exposure to grid wargames, and still a big supporter.
I find the writing is idiosyncratic almost to the point of off-putting.
Also rather fussy about issues that ought to disappear when using grids (Grid size and unit composition).
To The Strongest / King and Parliament:
Extremely well written and presented, proving that grid does not equal a reading challenge.
To the Strongest seems to be suffering the fate of many competition ancients sets - constant modification.
This has turned a rather easy read into a challenge of referencing and indexing.
It remains to be seen whether version 2 can resolve the pile of updates into something as elegant as version 1.
For C19 and Napoleonics, "Bloody Big BATTLES!" works well on a grid. Since movement and firing are all calculated in 3" increments, it translates readily to 3" squares or hexes. I've seen both applied since lockdown forced us all to try remote gaming (grids are helpful for that too).
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
BBBBlog:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/
BBB on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 27 July 2021, 12:09:20 AM
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=19731.0
This may, or may not, be of interest.
thanks :)
I think grids are great. They certainly help get most of the rainwater off the streets.
Quote from: Leman on 31 July 2021, 08:35:40 AM
I think grids are great. They certainly help get most of the rainwater off the streets.
Nobby - coat for you to chew
Funny you mention grids, as I am trying to get back into wargaming with Bob Cordery's The Portable Wargame.
Quote from: Norm on 27 July 2021, 06:22:27 AM
C&C now has a Medieval module. I am not aware of any medieval figure specific rules that are designed for grids other than the ones put out by Kallistra. It might be worth scanning through the back catalogue a Second Chance Games for a true boardgame system that covers the medieval system and then taking that to your figure games.
Having done Ancients and Napoleonics via ZOOM my opponent wanted to try Medieval but he was mightily unimpressed. I think there are a few gridded rules, is not
To The Strongest one of those or is it
Lion Rampant?
To the Strongest is definitely grid based
Lion Rampant is not.
The Peter Pig rules, The Bloody Barons (which is Bloody Barons II) are my rules of choice for this conflict. They are an unusual grid based system as the grids are 12"x 9" on a 4'x3' table. Units/contingents/retinues operate together in battles, with a battle taking up a grid. They are very specific to the WotR and have cavalry rules pertinent to that conflict i.e. they only appear when a cavalry charge is launched, do their stuff (or not) then disappear. The commanders of the battles play an important role and the rulebook (available for download or hardcopy) has a scenario for every battle from 1455 to 1487. The rules are useable with any scale not just 15mm.
I was checking these rules out last night Andy, as I fancied some grid based gaming for this period. I might check them out if they're at Partizan this year.
Quote from: Leman on 07 September 2021, 09:22:55 AM
The Peter Pig rules, The Bloody Barons (which is Bloody Barons II) are my rules of choice for this conflict. They are an unusual grid based system as the grids are 12"x 9" on a 4'x3' table. Units/contingents/retinues operate together in battles, with a battle taking up a grid. They are very specific to the WotR and have cavalry rules pertinent to that conflict i.e. they only appear when a cavalry charge is launched, do their stuff (or not) then disappear. The commanders of the battles play an important role and the rulebook (available for download or hardcopy) has a scenario for every battle from 1455 to 1487. The rules are useable with any scale not just 15mm.
Has the new edition solved the problem of the unit commanders being almost impossible to kill so you end up with Unit commander bases slugging it out all over the table?
Unit leader bases simply show the quality of the unit. It is the battle leaders who take casualties. If in the grid rectangle they must save on the 5th hit (2+). However his presence (or her, if you throw Margaret into the mix) can be used to encourage melees. He can add one dice and saves on 3+, or two dice and save on a 4+ if present in a square. However if he is personally leading the meleeing unit then adding 1D6 reduces his save to a 4+ and 2D6 reduces it to a 5 plus. He still takes the 5th hit and he still saves on a 2+ in shooting (this chap is going to be wearing very high quality armour). Leading from the front does provide other advantages to a unit, thus making it worth taking the risk, after all the leaders of the time did this in almost every battle.