[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hexagon pattern dungeons

We experimented with a few facing patterns at first, then settled on...


...to keep it simple.
On May 3, 2018, at 8:02 PM, Craig Barber <craigwbar@comcast.net> wrote:

I don't want to answer for him, but I recall one of the early D&D versions had facings defined for squares... if my Jurassic Memory serves.  

2.65 huh?  Thanks!  That's a really USEFUL number, "one that I'll remember for as long as I can."  (To quote Moon Unit Zappa).    -- Craig B. 

On 5/3/2018 5:43 PM, David Bofinger wrote:
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.


On 4 May 2018 at 09:20, Rich <sca_rickard@yahoo.com> 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"