Hexagonal Grids are the best grids. This is a scientific fact.
>>46745066
Okay
>>46745066
oh yeah?
"okay, so go in a straight line and I'll flank around"
"c-commander! That's going against the grid!"
...
>>46745157
How do you move on that thing? Isn't it just a normal square grid turned on one side? I don't see the utility of the vertices. What do they help with, exactly?
>>46745569
It does not have to be perfectly straight
>>46745805
Essentially, yes. I just wanted diagonals to be closer to you rather than farther, even if it causes alternating columns.
I....THINK the vertices are there incase you wanted small creatures to fit on even smaller spaces.
>>46745805
>>46747841
Surely movement works like this? With every stop indicating 8 different facings that you can have?
>>46748526
yes, but I also considered setups where "medium" sized creatures like humans stay within the "squares" rather than the vertices, while "small" creatures like kobolds and such can use the vertices as well as the squares for more variety of choice and the option to go into Extremely Close Range, penalizing Reach weapons.
For larger creatures, you can use both squares and vertices to have more control over how much space they take up and how to differentiate body parts.
>>46745066
Yes, I'm sure a computer would tell you it's the logically superior choice out of all grid movement setups. I still hate it.
>>46748911
That's a hex grid for lazy programmers, mate.
>>46748940
Furthur reinforcing the natural superiority of Hex grids, yes?
From what I can see, a hex grid would only allow you to move six directions instead of eight, as the tiling doesn't put any of the hexes corner to corner as with squares.
So it's an attempt to allow more freedom of movement which ended up accidentally outwitting itself, basically.
>>46750607
But they're all equidistant from each other, unlike a square grid, where you move a further distance diagonally than you do orthogonally. Furthermore, you can only move "six directions" if you only consider each move between individual hexes individually. If you can move two hexes, then you have six more "directions" you can move in. Three hexes, 18 different directions, and so on.
The argument about squares having slightly more arbitrary directions you can move in out of a literally infinite number of directions is wildly reductive and I never understood how anybody could be stupid enough to try to argue it reasonably.
>>46750718
>But they're all equidistant from each other, unlike a square grid, where you move a further distance diagonally than you do orthogonally.
Counting 1.5 squares diagonally is more complicated than replacing the grid with fricking hexagons?
>Furthermore, you can only move "six directions" if you only consider each move between individual hexes individually. If you can move two hexes, then you have six more "directions" you can move in. Three hexes, 18 different directions, and so on.
If you move only by hopping in multiples of two in those directions, sure.
>The argument about squares having slightly more arbitrary directions you can move in out of a literally infinite number of directions is wildly reductive and I never understood how anybody could be stupid enough to try to argue it reasonably.
>Cardinal and halfway between cardinal is abritrary
>>46745066
What's the appeal of hexagon grids?
>>46754428
They're for people who don't like being able to move in four equidistant cardinal directions despite that being a hard-coded preference in the human psyche.
>>46754428
The center of each hex is equidistant from all of the hexes bordering it, so a hexagonal grid allows you to maintain consistent measurements.
>>46754428
It's something to do with the laws of physics. It's simply the most efficient way for nature to fill/divide a space. If you stick multiple soap bubble's together they'll start forming hexes in the center and it's no coincidence that honey combs are hexes.
Hexes are just, natural.
>>46756214
Even Saturn loves hexagons.
>>46745157
best grid type coming through
>>46745066
The only game that I've played that uses hexagons is Hero System. It's fun and not hard at all to use.
>>46750960
The distance to a diagonal square isn't actually 1.5 though, which can matter in certain games unter certain circumstances.
We just play every game on square battle mats, because that's what you get around here and the squares and miniatures are just there to help you get a better feel for the battlefield. That's why taking a step in every direction counts as the same distance - it's a simplified representation and it works out.
Hexes are certainly nice, though. Too bad you can't really design games with them in mind, though, because most people won't have access to hex mats.
Has anyone here every played The Unholy War?
It's a turned based game that turns into a 1v1 Deathmatch between the two units that get into a fight.
You can use a lot of different abilities out of combat, and each character fights a lot differently too.
The story is that the Teknos invading the world of the Arcane. You can imagine what those two factions are like based on their names.
Triangle grids are equally good: Every edge and every corner border another triangle, so you can go in six directions just like a Hexgrid.
>>46756317
/thread
>>46754428
>What's the appeal of hexagon grids?
They are closer to not having tiles than square ones.
Before you think about it, triangular, square and hexes are the only possible ones
>>46757443
any triangular grid game?
>>46758864
triangular grid tetris would be easy to exist
>>46758864
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_checkers
I'm going to use an isometric grid and you can't stop me.
>>46759214
superior isometric grid coming through
>>46750960
> Counting 1.5 squares diagonally is more complicated than replacing the grid with fricking hexagons?
The distance between the centers of 2 diagonally adjacent squares is sqrt(2) squares, not 1.5.
Yes I know it's quite close but THE MATH, DAMMIT.
>>46745066
I'm inclined to agree...
On a related note why are there no images of anthropomorphic hex grids?
