This is where the line between realism and speed really split me in two.  As a designer, I've conquered this mountain many times before - devising mechanics that are both grainy and swift to resolve.  I wouldn't bother with simulation if I couldn't pull it off.  But this grid thing is really chipping away at me.

Here's my problem:
The square grid is flawed because diagonal movement is longer than cardinal movement.  Also, I find it more realistic that 6 people surround you at close quarters than 8.  If we do a 5 by 5 square, then we either have an invisible force field or things get messy as multiple combatants occupy the same square.  DnD solves the first problem rather smoothly, but I'd really hate to hijack the game's rule completely.
The hex grid is almost perfect.  But that zig-zaggy movement in those two awkward directions really bug me.
A combat space without cells is perfect in terms of spatial realism.  But who the hell wants to measure every move?  I'm in the process of conceiving a method of movement without a need for measuring (also helps with modeling combat in 3 dimensions), but as of right now it's too reliant on GM judgment for my liking.  I want my mechanics concrete. 

What I care about is the most elegant way to incorporate realism and calculation speed in a concrete manner, so if you have any insights on how to accomplish this with any of the above three options, I'd love to hear it.

How much is the part of you that wants realism, willing to compromise? And how much is the part of you that wants concrete rules, willing to compromise? Also a GM saying 'you moved X squares/you can't move that far' seems relatively concrete to me. Yes, the GM makes up the number, but once made, it's a concrete number. If the character has a max movement of 12 squares, you also know the GM couldn't say any more than twelve (he would only say no).

The problem with measurement is that it's too much work and drama. The reason for why it's too much work and drama is that the rules of traditional measurement tape wargames are badly designed: they put a lot of significance in exact measurement by making the measurement a binary precondition of success. "If the distance is less than five inches you get your move and if it's not, then you don't." is an attitude that pretty much requires one to measure, measure and measure. All the more so in the games that require one to first estimate distances and then measure them only after the moves are declared.

The above issue can be ameliorated by using a wider range of tools in determining battlefield positioning and movement; the problem disappears when you replace the singular measurement-based rule type with a wider toolbox of approaches, out of which you can pick a suitable method for each situation. Perhaps the measuring tape has some role in some specific parts of the rules, but not everything has to revolve around it once you realize that the measurement tape does not need to be a paradigm-inducing device by its mere existence.

One simple procedure to use in measurement-heavy games is to replace all measurements by eyeballing done by the active player, with everybody else having a veto on it. Then, if the veto is exercised, you take out the measurement tape, penalize both the active player and the complaining player in some in-game resource and make a more exact measurement of the issue in question. By actively penalizing the use of the measurement tape you encourage quick, consensus-driven and flexible handling of the battlefield. Most of the time it does not in fact matter whether a move was exactly six inches as long as everybody is happy; perhaps that unit was slowed down by a lame horse and that's why the move fell a bit short?

A simple way to think of rules-design for grid-less games is to ask yourself: which rules do I need to actually predicate on exact battlefield positioning? Every rule that can potentially become a strategic linchpin will be played rigolously, so if your rules-set has a lot of linchpin rules that rely on measurements, then it's going to be important (and tedious) for all measurements to be exact. I'll invent an example to illustrate what I mean; here are two possible rules for how flanking might be handled in a hypothetical tabletop wargame:

• A cavalry unit can move six inches in a turn and then join battle with any unit within an inch of the figure base. If such an unit is already engaged in battle, give the new flanker +1 for each unit already in combat with the target.• When a pitched battle has been successfully established (perhaps only certain sorts of units can do this, or it takes a successful roll in some military maneuver or something), each turn the player may move any non-committed units to flank the battleline and join the battle. Unless the opponent immediately commits an equal number of their own units on the same flank to extend the line, any excess flankers get a +1 bonus to their combat as they reach an enveloping position.

At first sight the first rule is more powerful and realistic, but it also puts inordinate weight on measurement: when my cavalry is almost close enough to flank but falls half an inch short, that's not going to be very fun. That second rule is a bit of a caricature, and it might not seem very realistic, but I'd like to argue that it's not so much less so than the first one; that second rule operates on the idea that units in melee contact will by necessity operate so slowly that once pitched battle (a special rules term in this game, clearly) has been engaged, the time-scale effectively freezes for those units while the still uncommitted units continue their maneuvers; therefore it does not matter whether my cavalry is six or seven inches away from the battle once it flares, it's going to get there soon enough to join the next round of combat resolution anyway. I can argue that the second rule is in some ways more realistic than the first one with its tape measure, and it's going to be much easier to play, too, once I build an entire game around it that interlocks with it logically. By consistently foregoing the binary condition of "if the distance between these two things is more than X inches you can't make this move" and using other rules instead I build a game that encourages overall less strict attitudes on measurement of distance. This can be a good thing when we remember that the world is not binary: the cavalry that gets there five seconds later will most of the time still be on time.

Callan,
By concrete I mean the problem is resolved entirely by the machinery of the game without any ambiguity.  For the sake of simulation and immersion, I do not want the GM dictating in-game logic. 

Furthermore, my problem stems from the fact that I refuse to compromise.  Yes, I do tend to blur out nagging details that really have no profound effect upon the resolution of events, but these choices never detract from immersion.  Currently, I am trying to blur out movement so players and GMs can stop fucking around with measurements or increments and just get things going, but I cannot implement such mechanics if it compromises tactical realism, as this game was designed to model what Renaissance combat may have been like.

Simply put, as a result of not compromising in the past, I've managed to design some very elegant mechanics.  I just need a few ideas to get a brainstorm going.

Hiya,

Perhaps a solution can be found by combining hex maps with linear movement. In other words, the characters don't see the hexes, hence are not constrained to move among them, and don't have to zig-zag in certain directions. To do this, one has to use a ruler for the movement and deal with movement units on the ruler, completely ignoring the hexes. But the hexes are what's used for targeting, radius, and anything else involving distance modifiers for actions.

I'm pretty sure I remember this from actual play ages and ages ago, but I can't remember any specific titles for wargames, RPGs, or what we'd think of as combinations of the two today. If one doesn't mind the handling time, or to put it differently, if the inherent logic is what's genuinely desired, then it does in fact work.

Best, Ron

finally someone agree with me...

yeah grids suck.  there's a lot of fancy words written here, but from a practical game play standpoint it drives the idea of grids forces the entire design process around them.

- you have to have mats with grids on them
- you have to have a table large enough to play some maps, which in smaller tables having ranged weapons can become useless
- you have to buy pre-made maps or expensive urethane cast scenery pieces
- rules in the game are all written around grids
- movement is arbitrated, meaning you can't run in a straight line
- to go back to a place you've been before you have to set up the whole thing over again
- keeping a scene means rolling up and traveling with the paper

of course don't tell anyone who plays DnD or pathfinder this, as they'll rip out your tongue for stomping on holy ground...

The easiest way to fix he problem is just use a damn tape measure...  that's what my game encourages.  And after playing table top games like 40k using a tape measure in NOT time consuming.  Its quick and easy.  People use tape measures on a professional basis every second of the day morning noon and night and if they didn't work they would find something better.  What sucks is counting out 20 boxes to figure range.

I've been tpoying with some ideas around semi-abstracted spaces.  Maybe your map is divided into polygonal zones, or regular boxes, something like that.  Then it takes one turn or a movement action (whatever) to cross a zone border, and one movement to cross a zone from edge to edge.  If you really want to you coulkd print in the box a set of numbers of movement actions to cross it, but that might be counterproductive, not sure.  At any rate, you then build your move-to-contact mechanics on the basis of simultaneous occupation of the same zone, or measure missile ranges by zones crossed.

But I'm really torn as to whether there should be maps and grids at all.  On the one hand, I think they generally detract from the construction of the IS; on the other, there are concepts and relationships that might be hard to discuss or describe verbally. On the whole I have played without any grid at all.  The above idea as aimed at trying to synthesize the two by allowing a lot of scope within a "grid" for narration based imagining of specific circumstances.

something i have done is take opaque white acrylic and cut it onto 1" wide strips.  you can then place the strips out when you want them and use a dry erase marker to mark where windows and doors are in the space.  I also have some pieces that are 2" x 2" that you can make be boxes rubble, barriers...  and larger tiles that can be cars, small boats, tanks, mechanical equipment...

whats nice is that i can just wipe the dry erase away and reuse them, and they are far more portable than a series of rolled up grid maps...

Ever think of doing something like World of Darkness, where there is no tactical grid or table top? They call it a "story telling game" because all the action is narrated by the players and "Story Teller"

Hold on, guys. The whole point, if I understand correctly, is how to use grids in such a way that it doesn't suck. Suggesting a completely alternative way is not what's being raised as a topic. Let's help the discussion by not getting sidetracked.

Best, Ron

Exactly.  In my original post, I explain the inherent flaws of implementing any method of determining spatial relationships.  The reason why I'm griping about grids is because I need that kind of concreteness for my game design, but the problem is that grids have a few [perceivably] irreconcilable inconsistencies in logic.  To reiterate, here are the difficulties I am grappling with:
1.  Realistically, a character should at least have the capacity to move in 8 directions.  However, there is no geometric matrix that allows you to do this perfectly.  An octagon - a shape that does allow you to move evenly in 8 directions - cannot be formed into a grid.  The square has uneven diagonal movement, although it can be reconciled via clever manipulation of the pythagorean theorem (DnD already capitalized on that; made easy with a 5x5 square), but certain things, like area of effect things, are handled awkwardly.  The hexagonal grid only allows movement in 6 directions.  I tried drawing a hexagonal grid over another to allow 8 directions of movement, but I inadvertantly managed to recreate a level from Q-bert.
2.  A completely narrative resolution of combat is counterproductive for the type of system I am designing.
3.  A no-grid tabletop is ideal for tactical immersion.  The problem is handling time.  However, one of my interlocutors assures me that a tape measure is a swift method of determining spatial relationships.  So if I must, I'll resort to my initial idea of using inches for spatial increments, but I'm really keen on pulling off a gridless method that requires virtually no calculation and is not reliant on the GM's judgment.  Why do I have such stringent guidelines?  Because all of the other rules of my combat system follow them.

it looks like one of your problems with a grid is aoe, why dont you try making some aoe cutouts? basically just a paper border that defines the aoe.

It's not necessarily AoE; that was just one point.  Besides, AoE can be handled quite well with a hex map.  It's primarily combatant relationship, especially when it comes to weapons, since they are so tactically-defined.  In a square grid with a weapon that has a range of 1, a combatant cannot reach another in an adjacent square that is diagonal from the attacker's position, which means that the combatant can only reach opponents in cardinal directions.  This does not make sense.  Furthermore, the square grid also implies that only 4 combatants, each in a cardinal orientation, can envelop you at close quarters.  This also does not make sense.
Movement is also important, because during the combat phase, combatants may only move in small increments, say to close the gap against an opponent with a longer weapon or to move back (give ground) while defending for an added chance of success.  Also, with the 1 range combat movements, I can allow combatants to flank or to avoid a flank without the need to design any extra mechanics; if you make it to the side of the combatant and he's used his combat action against another, then you are flanking him.  You can come flying at him during the movement phase, but he can also decide to move during that phase to avoid the flank, which makes the tight movements of the combat phase, and thus, spatial measurements, so damn important.  However, grids make position-jockeying difficult for me to model.  For example, in a square grid, if I may only move 1 range for my combat phase movement, then I cannot move diagonally.  If I switch to the hex map, then I cannot move left or right because I would end up occupying 2 hexes, which defeats the purpose of the grid: to have no ambiguity about movement and to calculate it automatically without GM adjudication or manual referencing.

Why not have it with a square grid and state that the players can use one movement to move to the corner squares and also allow fighting to have the same rule?

It eventually becomes uneven.  Over time, combatants would become penalized for choosing to move in a cardinal direction.  I've stated in a previous post that this can be circumvented via manipulation of the pythagorean theorem.  For example, if the square is 5 by 5, then the hypotenuse will be approximately 7, which means that moving 3 squares diagonally is roughly equal to moving 4 squares in a cardinal direction, so you would charge a double movement for the third diagonal square.  If you're only using combat phase movements, then you have to keep track of this for each character over several rounds of combat.  However, that would be completely absurd.

Form follows function; its difficult to invent new functions for a form that is already fixed.  The only other approach that I can think of is for each cell to be smaller than the things that move on the grid, but this is going to introduce a different set of problems.

Actually the small grid thing might be a good idea, it would provide a lot more freedom for movement (the kind of freedom you see with a ruler) The only problems that would need to be conquered are the grid obscuring the art and figuring out how movement values work, such as "How far does a movement of 1 get you?"

Ar wrote: It eventually becomes uneven.  Over time, combatants would become penalized for choosing to move in a cardinal direction.

...it's about your sense of how it 'should' work Vs your desire for a concrete, completely objective positioning system. Not some player being hard done by or something.

( Just extending and clarifying that sentence )

Ron wrote:
Hold on, guys. The whole point, if I understand correctly, is how to use grids in such a way that it doesn't suck. Suggesting a completely alternative way is not what's being raised as a topic. Let's help the discussion by not getting sidetracked.

Best, Ron

Lol.  My boxed set is gonna come with a handbook, a set of dice, some miniatures, and a bunch of pipe cleaners.  I may even throw some yarn in there just to fuck with the players.

Don't get me wrong - it's actually a very clever idea, and it makes measuring movement both realistic and really freakin easy - it's just that the imagery makes me laugh.

Yes, but you don't really care about such a penalty (after all, a character walking off a cliff faces a penalty yet are you bothered with that? No). What gets you is you find it unrealistic.

one easy way to take grids out of the picture but still use mini's for visual is help is the following:

use small strips of plastic like i described earlier.  Place the figurines around the table in a way that makes sense.  To determine ranges just write on the plastic strips the range from the PC character to the NPC.  Then place the strip connecting the two pieces.  If a PC is in melee range than just take the strip away and place the two figs next to each other.  This allows each player and the GM to keep track of the ranges for each attack possibility.  It seems like a decent hybrid method between grids and story telling.

And you can do it on a smaller table.

here is a concern with creating a new grid system.
Where would players get their hands on these grids.
Say you figure out a grid that gives you all the things you want
Some weird overlapping octagon design and you include this prefect creation in your game
where would Joe Everyman pick up a grid like this?
Printing out several sheets of paper and taping them together is a pain.
wet erase markers on a standard grid are great.
so with that in mind - might you want to bend your efforts toward making a standard grid work for you? if thats even possible.
personally I find that the biggest challenge when using grids is getting scale right.
some asshat always wants to point out that "these are really big trees? or a palisade isnt 5' thick it shouldn't take me a whole block to move through it".
that probably a deficiency on my part but still. I dont feel like breaking out my mechanical drawing scale when whipping up a quick impromptu battle ground.
e
Although I have a large dry-erase sticker (that I had printed) on the custom gaming table I built showing a handy dandy grid, I hardly ever use it because .. its just annoying - people ALWAYS disagree about whats seems natural because none of it - is natural). I usually do it more like what locke described (but more approximations instead of measurements) But it seems like you might need to figure out some way to work with one.. either that or change all your rules, which we know is the least likely thing to happen.

Good luck
Brent

That's why I point out the square, hex, and no-grid as viable methods for consideration.  I tried drawing all types of matrices, but they don't do anything that the hex or square cannot at best, and at worst do not interlock at all, like the octagon.  Besides, like you've said, there's also the problem of availability.

Here's an interesting article I've recently stumbled upon.  It really gets me thinking about how to design an intuitive gridless method.

Brent's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me, and is consistent with my suggestion in my first post (not sure if people actually saw that). I understand about it looking funny ... but then again, we are talking about "playing with army men"; I figure it already looks funny.

Best, Ron

Ar wrote:
That's why I point out the square, hex, and no-grid as viable methods for consideration.  I tried drawing all types of matrices, but they don't do anything that the hex or square cannot at best, and at worst do not interlock at all, like the octagon.  Besides, like you've said, there's also the problem of availability.

Here's an interesting article I've recently stumbled upon.  It really gets me thinking about how to design an intuitive gridless method.

I would like to do that.  No grid, albeit visual representations present, indicate a freedom of system.  Besides, the grid starts to collapse once you introduce large battle spaces and horses that can move huge distances in a single turn.  And since horses are such a big advantage, I expect them to be frequent in outdoors combat.
 
Currently, I am conceiving of ways to model tactical maneuvers and maintain the integrity of the game's weapons without the need for precise measurements.  For example, instead of representing small melee distance increments (range 1 for hth and dagger and small sword, range 2 for war swords, 3 for spear and halberd, 4 for pike, etc.), I can just have "melee range". 

In this model, if your weapon is longer than the opponent's, then your attack always counts first (in the instance of both opposing rolls being successful) and the opponent's attack suffers a penalty (or may not be able to attack at all if the disparity is great).  To alleviate this penalty, roll to close the gap, or after certain successful skilled maneuvers, you may close the gap freely.  The longer-ranged combatant may have to roll after this to make distance between the close range combatant, but I need to study more sparring videos of long range vs. short range weapons to determine how easy it is.

For larger scale battle you can just use a tape and use cm for movement = to 1".  Maybe I'm more comfortable with tape movement since I am also a table top player, but they work well, there is an abundance of off the shelf material and its quite ease.  With Galeforce 9 accessories and some cheap plastic its easy to create combat environments then break them down.

RK,
  One thing that I came across a while ago was the board game Air Superiority. In this game, it used hexes, but came up with a system for using the off grid locations to allow for 12 directions of movement (more interesting for an air combat game, no?).
  It took a couple of pages to diagram it and explain how it worked. but in play, it was fairly intuitive.

  It seems like you want a highly tactical game, and that is awesome. So, with that in mind, I would give this advice: Try and set your design priorities. And think about what an ideal play session looks like. What I mean is, sometimes you have to set aside (temporarily) some of your previous negative experiences (as well as some pre-conceived notions) and figure out, exactly, what you want from the system you are designing. If having a grid is a higher priority than realistic simulation, then you have your answer. If handling time is more important than authenticity, you have your answer. You are right though, you can design a system that hits all of the points of your design goals. If, you have concrete goals to design towards. If you have vague notions (like, "I want the game to be realistic"), then you may be undermining your own design.

  This is not to say, you are doing this. I probably don't have enough information to judge either way. But, I don know that when I hit a crossroads decision like this, it usually helps me to take a step back and look at my design goals.

  But, seriously, if you want a grid and want to approach it from a different angle, let me know and I can fill you in better on how Air Superiority handled it.

Ar wrote:
I would like to do that.  No grid, albeit visual representations present, indicate a freedom of system.  Besides, the grid starts to collapse once you introduce large battle spaces and horses that can move huge distances in a single turn.  And since horses are such a big advantage, I expect them to be frequent in outdoors combat.
 
Currently, I am conceiving of ways to model tactical maneuvers and maintain the integrity of the game's weapons without the need for precise measurements.  For example, instead of representing small melee distance increments (range 1 for hth and dagger and small sword, range 2 for war swords, 3 for spear and halberd, 4 for pike, etc.), I can just have "melee range". 

In this model, if your weapon is longer than the opponent's, then your attack always counts first (in the instance of both opposing rolls being successful) and the opponent's attack suffers a penalty (or may not be able to attack at all if the disparity is great).  To alleviate this penalty, roll to close the gap, or after certain successful skilled maneuvers, you may close the gap freely.  The longer-ranged combatant may have to roll after this to make distance between the close range combatant, but I need to study more sparring videos of long range vs. short range weapons to determine how easy it is.

Ar wrote: I am penalized not because my opponents have gained an actual, tactical advantage, but as a result of logically inaccurate design.  Can a combat system be played well with such a discrepancy?  Of course, but the rules-design for my game follow certain criteria in order to achieve an extensively immersive simulation.  If you disagree with the design methods that I employ, then that is a topic for a different thread, but this topic is solely focused on ways to rectify logical inconsistencies.

Arithine,
I've already devised the manner in which weapons and tactics operate.  The grid thing is really the last obstacle until I'm on my way to completing the combat system.  If you're curious about the crunchy stuff, post your thoughts and feedback here.

Callan,
Let me rephrase my original question:
I want one of these three grid methods (square, hex, no-cell) to allow me to implement my system's internal logic (even 8-direction movement, etc.) in an elegant manner.  How may I do this?

I've thought of a way to use the hex map for 8 directional movement.  From my observations, it appears that the measurements even out:
* When moving to that awkward spot between two hexes, you partially occupy both hexes adjacent to your original position, which costs half a movement.
* While you're in that shrodinger's cat state, it costs half a movement to fully move to one of those partially occupied hexes.
* You may not occupy that spot if any of those two hexes are fully occupied.

And presumably you have to end your turn in one or the other square?

Not sure what you mean with

* You may not occupy that spot if any of those two hexes are fully occupied.

To illustrate, lets say n,nw,ne,s,sw, and se are hexes that surround the center hex, which you occupy.  Going west causes you to end up partially in both nw and sw.  If either nw or sw is fully occupied, you may not occupy that in-between space.  You can pass through it, however; you can pass through any occupied space (unless if it's a complete obstruction, but if it's a human you can do that).  I might have it so that it would require some type of movement roll, else it costs twice as much movement to pass through.

Also, you can decide to end your turn in that in-between space.  For distance purposes, I may allow it that your 1 range weapon can reach the combatant occupying a space 1.5 hexes away.  It could represent a lunge, for instance.

(I wonder if there'd be any profit here from a tessellation of squares and octagons? Or am I just high on the goofballs?)

Brent's suggestion of flexible measuring sticks is not far from the solution used in more than one miniatures game of the recent past: essentially, custom-printed cloth measuring tapes with game-specific prints on them rather than standard measurements. Shadowrun Duels actually included a custom paper tape with each figure and printed colored bands on them for the range of each movement type and attack type. That might have been the only way those ranges were ever given, which is... rather elegant (a jarring thing to find oneself saying about that game in particular).

LMAO tessellating squares and octagons.

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/tess/bigoctsq.gif

Yeah I'd like a battle map like that, heh. Not the sexiest solution but definitely a mind-blowing one.

Kalandri wrote:
LMAO tessellating squares and octagons.

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/tess/bigoctsq.gif

Yeah I'd like a battle map like that, heh. Not the sexiest solution but definitely a mind-blowing one.

Mike wrote:
(I wonder if there'd be any profit here from a tessellation of squares and octagons? Or am I just high on the goofballs?)

Brent's suggestion of flexible measuring sticks is not far from the solution used in more than one miniatures game of the recent past: essentially, custom-printed cloth measuring tapes with game-specific prints on them rather than standard measurements. Shadowrun Duels actually included a custom paper tape with each figure and printed colored bands on them for the range of each movement type and attack type. That might have been the only way those ranges were ever given, which is... rather elegant (a jarring thing to find oneself saying about that game in particular).

RK,

I want one of these three grid methods (square, hex, no-cell) to allow me to implement my system's internal logic (even 8-direction movement, etc.) in an elegant manner.  How may I do this?

Another VERY easy way to do it is to use a small dry erase board.  Just make x's and o's for the characters and their placement.  Any environment can be drawn up quickly.  And distances can be easily adjusted.  If you want place figures on the board and draw arrows with ranges from here to there on it.  Very simple, very effective, very cheap...  works will all RPG systems except DnD 4th and maybe SW saga (I forget...).