# Re: Hexagon pattern dungeons

• To: tft@brainiac.com
• Subject: Re: Hexagon pattern dungeons
• From: David Bofinger <bofinger.david@gmail.com>
• Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 09:43:19 +1000
• Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MzmM6zkqh1QJbmbT43cjtXHTqFdQCoBwzxTvLbDSCgw=; b=PBInCttIMsfXUskxtt2ChuT1eazWSE/LRe9wDHe49UH3amAZ8A7kDspM5IGySKyP6q WO+/teUiINQYlUnbdajgFbIo7D2/Rsx4o2l/pl+amlEy6Dx5OigrPo9W/oxXcGQdycg6 Ts7rH08NXwwCgjI+nJifynz1voQ5lDUWk136agYOYveRkbVvbzFvJx6OjsAmmm+Bp9De 67RXJVUQbF0qNCOhJtGGt/bE6x9whTsl94WU/ccdKvJWlmTgTLEX1KWuIiWNww58ci3/ Gz09r6GpiCT51zuyQb236sl2fUbe1rQB5YLAPGOpQXHBxMmdZ1W0FIEXaeX/9rmxnI41 HILQ==

I guess that leads to similar effects. The distance between two adjacent megahexes is sqrt(7) = 2.65 times the distance between adjacent hexes. The average distance between two adjacent megasquares is 3 times the distance between adjacent squares. Not too different.

I'd be tempted to say that diagonal moves cost 1.5 but maybe that isn't essential.

A diagonally adjacent character is quite a lot further away than an orthogonally adjacent one.

How did you handle facing? Maybe three front squares, a square where you can attack with a one-handed weapon but not use a shield, a square where you can use a shield but not a weapon, two side hexes and a rear hex?

I think hexes are better than squares in natural environments, but squares are better in artificial ones.

--
David

On 4 May 2018 at 09:20, Rich wrote:
Risking being shunned here. ..  I switched to squares:  squrares replacing hexes, with a 3 sq. by 3 sq block replacing megahexes.   It works well.

Sent from BlueMail
On May 3, 2018, at 6:51 PM, Craig Barber <craigwbar@comcast.net> wrote:
`And if I understood another comment correctly, then yeah, I frequently laid out hexagon pattern dungeons, enough so it was probably right around 1/3 , 1/3, 1/3: about 1/3 hexagon, 1/3 square, and 1/3 "other", like ferinstance Death Test (R) style.I always liked the hexagonal dungeon layouts because they felt *very* TFT to me.   I always liked the square ones because they felt traditional "white box" and 1st Ed.  D&D, even back in 1985.   Just visceral reactions...The only problems with squares were that 1) range got messed up on diagonals to the grain and 2) they didn't really offer an easy use for megahexes, the only problem with hexes was that villages and towns didn't usually have rows and rows of lozenge shaped buildings!Megahexes were a GREAT aid to speed play.   "Wait, was that 14 hexes or 15 hexes range? Count again!"   TFT could be a light light system partially because of the megahexes.After I invented the square megahexes, it was easy to have *both*  of my cakes and eat them both too.   Any square grain dungeon could be played on megahexes from then on.I hate to rehash an old old discussion (when did we talk about this?) but here goes.  Out of curiosity:  how many people here largely avoided hex grain dungeons?   Does anyone ONLY use hex grain dungeons?   Does anyone love them  like I do or does anyone hate hex dungeons?-- Craig B.=====Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body"unsubscribe tft"`