@RBS: Why squares with HEX oriented rules?

[MarkShot]

Richard,

So, I am reviewing of Chris Webber's guide material, and realizing there is always that tricky case of the diagonal: 1.5 movement, 45 degree rotation, the gap in ZOCs, the flank cutoff, and more ...

Although I have played PC games since the 80286/XT, I do not have a BG background, but for chess (and honestly it is computer chess). So, why didn't you simply go with hexes in the original design as so many fixed grid systems do? Would that not have simplified and normalized the rule set?

Richard, thank you to entertain my question. I know mainly people pose historic modeling questions, but I am fascinated by systems design, modeling, and UIs.

PS: I am not one of those PC snobs who feel all modeling must be physics/object based as opposed to statistics based. All models are y=f(x), and what is of consequence is "y" and not "f(x)". I clearly see how you and Gary Grigsby built complex systems that would have strained a CPU if physics based with no real educational/entertainment improvement.

[rbodleyscott]

FOG2 is based on the original analogue non-hex-based tabletop miniatures FOG, and not on the hex-based FOG1 computer game.

I was around at the time when hex-based games were first invented, solely (at that time) as a way to get round the fact that diagonal moves are longer than orthogonal moves on a square grid. Which caused big problems in manually resolved board wargames.

They were a solution to that problem, but highly un-natural to human perception. You only think that hexes are the natural way for wargames because that is how board wargames have been since the 1970s. For some reason, most computer game designers have not seen past this trope. Tabletop miniatures wargames (with some exceptions) have mostly stuck to analogue movement which certainly isn't hexagonal.

Apart from that cultural indoctrination, hexes are in fact highly unnatural for humans. In nature, hexes are for bees. Humans simply don't use them in traditional spaces or architecture. Real life armies use square grid maps, and do not think in terms of 60 degree movements. The cardinal and intermediate directions of the compass are equivalent to movement on a square grid.

So, now that computers can cope with the diagonal/orthogonal issue reasonably well, we can go back to the more natural square grid, and move troops in straight lines (like they did historically) and not in a silly 60 degree wiggle.

Whatever remaining advantages that hexes may have are outweighed in my opinion by the highly artificial paradigm they place upon the game.

If you leave the grid lines turned off, a FOG2 battle looks like the map of a historical battle. Hex games don't, and never can.

[Patrat]

I was around at the time when hex-based games were first invented, solely (at that time) as a way to get round the fact that diagonal moves are longer than orthogonal moves on a square grid. Which caused big problems in manually resolved board wargames.

Wow, and I thought I was old.

I remember playing Gettysburg games by AH, with both squares and hexes. That was in the mid 1960s or there abouts. Didnt kriegspiel have squares as well?

I assume you are referring to Charles Roberts era at AH and not Piet Hein in 1942.

[fogman]

Indeed there were 2 versions of AH Gettysburg.
https://molotovcockatiel.com/hexes-part ... f-history/

[MarkShot]

I am old enough to have played BG, but I was more into sports like hockey and football (American).

Thanks for the education on the hexes and squares. Richard is right, I just assumed and also am culturally indoctrinated to hexes.

I advise kids to go out and enjoy their bodies when they are young. You will not be able to take falls and hits nearly as well in your 20s and 30s. (By then, I was mainly bicycling.) But these day, I am inside playing PC games. A fall hiking on a mountain trail has been the turning point of many a senior.

[MarkShot]

Also, what Richard said in the manual about the best game AIs are written by expert players. This is very true. Your typical project starting a computer design (not based on a sequel) will have 3-6 months where there is a real playable beta. In short, even the game designers and programmers don't know how it will play until after release.

One of the best PC games I ever played under XP (DOSBOX) was 1830PC. This was a CGA DOS port of a famous BG. The game was designed by Francis Tresham and Bruce Shelly; also involved in the port.

A game of business based on RR, but the real focus was wealth growth and stock trading.

There was only one RNG at the start which was player seating (turn order). There was no cheating by the AI. It took me 3 games/day for 3 years to hit about a 70% win rate at hardest. (There were no bufs; simply the AI used more sophisticated play styles as complexity increased.) A tiny DOS game was so good, because the AI coders were expert players with years of experience. They were not discovering how to play post release.