Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatWyrmGold]

How did I forget inertia?

Also, you're forgetting the most important reason, again.

[Toaster]

Screw Newton.


45 degree turns would be lost if we switched to hexes, so ships would almost certainly need to start turning faster (60 degree turns instead.)  Whether this is a good or bad thing is up for debate.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hm...hypothetically, we could also do 30 degree turns, if we had the inclination.

[Thearpox]

The ranges would be indicated either by sectors (for MGs) or by straight lines (for cannons). Is the enemy ship inside this sector? If yes, it can be fired upon. Pretty easy, if you ask me.

You forgot the difficulty increase as the range does and the special effects and the obstacles.

I still entirely fail to see the problem. More range = larger sector. Obstacles = ...uh, it's easier to draw.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So what is the problem?

Okay, I'm done here with this particular problem. I'll let Piecewise answer.

The game rules are an abstraction. They also don't implement, for example, us having internal organs, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.

Doesn't change the way it feels. Currently it feels very separated. And when you have rules contradict the feel of the game, without changing the reason for why it feels that way, immersion suffers.

Wait, weren't you advocating for a square grid just now?

Hexes to be precise, but yes. I am advocating for them. I just want the rules to be consistent with the feel of the game.
PS: If we would change to measurements, I would of course support a normal cannon arc.

[piecewise]

For the record, the instant turns are (semi?-)justified by the Lodestones. I can believe that they could turn nearly instantly, or rather close enough to prevent aiming of cannons during a turn. It makes as much sense as anything else that lets us turn that fast.

You forget about inertia.

The game rules are an abstraction. They also don't implement, for example, us having internal organs, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.

Doesn't change the way it feels. Currently it feels very separated. And when you have rules contradict the feel of the game, without changing the reason for why it feels that way, immersion suffers.

Wait, weren't you advocating for a square grid just now?

The ranges would be indicated either by sectors (for MGs) or by straight lines (for cannons). Is the enemy ship inside this sector? If yes, it can be fired upon. Pretty easy, if you ask me.

You forgot the difficulty increase as the range does and the special effects and the obstacles.

I still entirely fail to see the problem. More range = larger sector. Obstacles = ...uh, it's easier to draw.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So what is the problem?

The problem is this:

"Turn right 22.5 degrees, tilt up 15 degrees, reduce speed by 1."

So then I have to translate a sector upwards across several levels of 3d space as represented by 2d planes. And I have to do that while taking into account the 3d grid movement of the other ship, laying in their plane transversing movement sectors and looking to see if, at any time during this simultaneous but uneven speeded movement, one or more lines of fire intersect. And lets not forget momentum, modifiers for difficulty of hitting while moving, and a dozen other things that will inevitably come up.

Thats not the game I want to create and it's not a game I want to run. I'm not aiming for warhammer, if anything I'm aiming for something more like Dust Tactics. I want something that is satisfying but is also relatively simple. I do not want this to devolve into people fighting spreadsheets with a 50 page list of tables to consult.





And thearpox, would you mind showing me what you want movement and shooting to look like on a hex grid? Because Moving north in a straight line seems like a problem.

[Thearpox]

And thearpox, would you mind showing me what you want movement and shooting to look like on a hex grid? Because Moving north in a straight line seems like a problem.

Fair enough. I just want somebody moving North to be moving North faster than somebody moving NorthWest. That's my main problem with the square grid. Do you have any ideas on how to fix it?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Or possibly west, depending on orientation.

I've got a couple ideas, just let me see if I can find some kind of hex-grid pictures to base them off of...

[Thearpox]

Octagons? Magically ignore the empty squares and just move through the big ones?
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D0&q=octagons&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=I4XxUb__Jojo8gSeh4GIAw&biw=1280&bih=923&sei=JYXxUb2fM5OE9QTexYDIDA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=octagons+grid&oq=octagons+grid&gs_l=img.3...6544.12414.0.12620.9.7.2.0.0.0.230.873.2j4j1.7.0....0...1c.1.22.img..5.4.362.inZDKZPE2F4&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49784469%2Cd.eWU%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.MpiVkF51mpA.O&fp=53a021071fbac8c0&biw=1280&bih=923&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=fWzgElg0TJCI2M%3A%3BZrCk3F5Wb8_y9M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforum.profantasy.com%252Fextensions%252FInlineImages%252Fimage.php%253FAttachmentID%253D2376%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforum.profantasy.com%252Fcomments.php%253FDiscussionID%253D3490%3B400%3B297

The reason I'm including a full url for this, is just because of how hilariously and needlessly long it is. Obviously it's not supposed to be copied.

[Toaster]

The next link over is to a page with the totally apt title "Making Wargames More Complicated."

[GreatWyrmGold]

Only the one picture is actually needed, despite my thoughts that the other couple I prepared would be.

Straight-line on the hexes would be obvious. Most turns should be obvious. The only tricky bit is when you need to go 30 degrees off the obvious paths.

This is easy for even-numbered movement. Odd-number requires a bit of fiddling, I suppose. It's not ideal...

Another option is to have a "momentum" like that one spaceship game had: The ship is going at a rate of two spaces west and one northwest, for instance. Only issue here is that facing is a bit of an issue.

And even if you don't want to do those, ask yourself: Is not being able to go north or south really that much worse than not being able to go north-by-northeast?

Ninjas.

Octagons? Magically ignore the empty squares and just move through the big ones?
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D0&q=octagons&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=I4XxUb__Jojo8gSeh4GIAw&biw=1280&bih=923&sei=JYXxUb2fM5OE9QTexYDIDA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=octagons+grid&oq=octagons+grid&gs_l=img.3...6544.12414.0.12620.9.7.2.0.0.0.230.873.2j4j1.7.0....0...1c.1.22.img..5.4.362.inZDKZPE2F4&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49784469%2Cd.eWU%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.MpiVkF51mpA.O&fp=53a021071fbac8c0&biw=1280&bih=923&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=fWzgElg0TJCI2M%3A%3BZrCk3F5Wb8_y9M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforum.profantasy.com%252Fextensions%252FInlineImages%252Fimage.php%253FAttachmentID%253D2376%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforum.profantasy.com%252Fcomments.php%253FDiscussionID%253D3490%3B400%3B297

The reason I'm including a full url for this, is just because of how hilariously and needlessly long it is. Obviously it's not supposed to be copied.

Equivalent to squares with diagonals allowed.
Also: http://forum.profantasy.com/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=2376

The next link over is to a page with the totally apt title "Making Wargames More Complicated."

Amusing.

[Thearpox]

Equivalent to squares with diagonals allowed.

Except that the diagonals actually have you moving less, and someone going in a straight line can catch up to someone going diagonally. That's all I want.

And I like octagons better than forcing the ships to turn.

The next link over is to a page with the totally apt title "Making Wargames More Complicated."

I love the part when he makes map with different square rules, combining hexagons and octagons, to make the inconsistencies cancel each other out.

[Toaster]

That dude has put way too much thought into board game design.  Some bits of that are thick as molasses.  I'm sure he's pretty smart, but it's hard to tell.


EDIT: Here is his 3D gamespace idea.

[Thearpox]

That dude has put way too much thought into board game design.  Some bits of that are thick as molasses.  I'm sure he's pretty smart, but it's hard to tell.


EDIT: Here is his 3D gamespace idea.

((Hey, if he run a forum campaign for me, I'd jump in. As long as he bore the brunt of the explanation. (Did you actually read his stuff?)
But honestly, I think this stuff would translate really well into a turn-based computer strategy game.

Also, it's a bit like reading Moby Dick. Now I want a story based around explaining those concepts, like Moby Dick is an excuse to explain whaling to the masses. That would be awesome.))

[GreatWyrmGold]

Equivalent to squares with diagonals allowed.

Except that the diagonals actually have you moving less, and someone going in a straight line can catch up to someone going diagonally. That's all I want.

Common solution: Diagonals cost double.

And I like octagons better than forcing the ships to turn.

...Better than what?

The next link over is to a page with the totally apt title "Making Wargames More Complicated."

I love the part when he makes map with different square rules, combining hexagons and octagons, to make the inconsistencies cancel each other out.

Indeed.

That dude has put way too much thought into board game design.  Some bits of that are thick as molasses.  I'm sure he's pretty smart, but it's hard to tell.

EDIT: Here is his 3D gamespace idea.

If his stuff is hard to follow and makes sense, it's probably genius.

Probably.

[Toaster]

That dude has put way too much thought into board game design.  Some bits of that are thick as molasses.  I'm sure he's pretty smart, but it's hard to tell.


EDIT: Here is his 3D gamespace idea.

((Hey, if he run a forum campaign for me, I'd jump in. As long as he bore the brunt of the explanation. (Did you actually read his stuff?)

Until my eyes crossed and the words all ran together, yeah.