The difference?
Octagonal >> 2 sq NorthEast = 1 sq North, 1 sq East.
What we have now >> 1 sq NorthEast = 1 sq North, 1 sq East.
Also, I loved the combination Octagon-Hex board. Not because it is usable in any way, but because of how hilarious it is. Especially with all the different colors.
Oh, so you count the squares as a movement but you can't stop on them...That leads to the problem that all movement values have to be even. If not you're either going to end up on squares, or you're not gonna be able to use all your movement points
I seriously don't understand what's so hard to understand here. You skip the squares and you don't count them for movement.
Whats hard to understand is:
Octagonal >> 2 sq NorthEast = 1 sq North, 1 sq East.
What we have now >> 1 sq NorthEast = 1 sq North, 1 sq East.
I was thinking in terms of movement not absolute relative location. I was wondering why you were saying that moving 2 squares north east would require you to move one north, then one east, rather then just moving 2 in the NE direction. I just misunderstood the context of what you were saying.
Now, in terms of this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta2hyjsaxc64grm/arc.pngThe reason I suggested it was because, as you can see, it somewhat simulates the turning arc of the cannons as the ship transitions across 45 degrees. Basically, if the ship is turning slowly as it moves along it's path, then it's cannons should sweep and allow shots from any of these angles. That way, even though, movement wise the ship is just going in straight lines, the cannons still turn when the ship turns, in an abstract way. Oh well.
I think I'll stick with a grid, but I'll fool around and try to figure out how to do it better.
Unless of course the whole "arcs" thing isn't something people like and they'd prefer just the straight lines and sharp movement, even though it's more abstract.