tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post5005259650375219458..comments2024-03-28T01:22:13.683-03:00Comments on Battle Game of the Month: Mock UpRoss Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-47825253427933429332012-11-10T18:05:55.082-04:002012-11-10T18:05:55.082-04:00By George, I think you've got it...By George, I think you've got it...MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-23992439310506780742012-11-10T17:51:27.818-04:002012-11-10T17:51:27.818-04:00I know the ones you mean Jeff, I hadn't consid...I know the ones you mean Jeff, I hadn't considered but will, especially if I do an Afghan board. For the veldt I may just do sky and clouds.Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-60920266250703744322012-11-10T17:50:27.705-04:002012-11-10T17:50:27.705-04:00I'm think of counting each diagonal in a move ...I'm think of counting each diagonal in a move or fire path as 1.5 so by the shortest path it would be 5. ( 2 diagonals x 1.5 and 2 orthogonals x 1. The actual distance from the center of the front of the firing hex to the center of the target hex is 10 inches compared to 10.5" to the 5th square directly ahead. <br /><br />Arc of fire is an issue even without a grid, given that an arty unit will be at least a battery if not more, I suspect a 90 degree arc is too wide but its damned convenient so I'll probably let it stand.<br /> Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-91137817694092087462012-11-10T17:07:56.038-04:002012-11-10T17:07:56.038-04:00What about artillery ranges (for example)? How far...What about artillery ranges (for example)? How far away is a square which is 4 forward, 2 to the right? Not "square root of 20", presumably?MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-37219001527068405052012-11-10T14:30:45.579-04:002012-11-10T14:30:45.579-04:00Ross, in terms of your "3 sided backboard&quo...Ross, in terms of your "3 sided backboard" . . . have you considered making these along the lines of the Major General's Afghan hills?<br /><br />If you don't know what I mean, take a look at the hills in photo of mine:<br /><br />http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=30139647#editor/target=post;postID=8753982773859504718<br /><br />There are spacers between the levels to provide places for figures to stand.<br /><br />If you use the "Way Back Machine" apparently you can get to the Major General's website which has a nice tutorial on how to build these.<br /><br />They would not only help to stabilize the board, but would provide an excellent backdrop as well.<br /><br /><br />-- Jeff<br />Bluebear Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05171345165563779232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-68515858700057979322012-11-10T12:46:53.391-04:002012-11-10T12:46:53.391-04:00Ross Mac,
Diagonal movement on a squared grid is ...Ross Mac,<br /><br />Diagonal movement on a squared grid is problematic BUT it is not insurmountable. For example, moving on a diagonal could 'cost' twice what it costs to move orthogonally UNLESS the move is on a road, where the 'cost' might be as per normal orthogonal movement.<br /><br />This is the sort of compromise I am thinking about using.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-24926631254109592262012-11-10T12:00:53.827-04:002012-11-10T12:00:53.827-04:00the short answer is "I'm not sure yet&quo...the short answer is "I'm not sure yet". I like hexes for non-linear warfare but my experiments with cutting my own modular hex shaped hills quietly finished that. For linear war, say up to 1880's or maybe later, on hexes you can either have straight battle lines or straight movement not both so squares become easier to justify since you can have both and movement on an angle is awkward as it should be.<br /><br />I am currently contemplating 2 options. <br /><br />a) Since movement is short and less than what could be done, ignore it.<br />b) Allow straight forward movement at full speed but penalize any other move by a reduction of something.<br /><br />There is also the problem of moving on the diagonal between 2 enemy units which will hopefully be handled by a ZOC sort of prohibition. <br /><br />Why is easy not? Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-89215933201857769882012-11-10T11:22:53.952-04:002012-11-10T11:22:53.952-04:00Ross - looks a nice basis for a game - good size. ...Ross - looks a nice basis for a game - good size. Interested that you have decided to allow diagonal movement (and ranges?) - how will you deal with this? I've steered away from square grids exactly because of the evil Pythagoras - if a diagonal move is taken as square-root-of-two times the distance moved then the game gets weird - you can, of course, count it as 1.5 and round up or down, to taste. The alternative of making a diagonal move equal to 2 x distance moved (assuming that it is actually 2 orthogonal moves) is closer to the spirit of Morschauser, but feels like just as much of a distortion to me.<br /><br />Every time I go through this thought process I finish up back at hexes!<br /><br />This is deja vu all over again, I know.MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.com