Hexes, squares or measurements

[Biggle_Bear]

Hi everyone,

I am getting a tingling in my brain due to the hiatus of talking game mechanics. So I wanted to bring up a topic for discussion and see where it goes.

The topic that comes to mind is that of how to decide the best movement / measurement system for a game, and where overlap or exceptions exist.

How do you rate using squares, hexes or measurements? Where are the strengths of each?

I had the thought of staggering squares to simulate the animations of arcade games like golden axe where the sprites only face left or right. so attacks up or down aren’t animated as looking directly up or down but at an angle. I realised that that gives 6 joining spaces to each space and then realised that it would be just like a hex grid.

I have my own thoughts of them but I really do like getting into stuff like this with the more design minded members of Yaktribe.

 

[Fold]

I’ll bite!

Firstly may I point out you have missed an option here - templates that determine distance and also direction. As demonstrated in the likes of Gaslands.

Anyway, what I want to talk about is square grids. Obviously, the thing with squares is if you allow diagonal movement, then models moving in the diagonal cover more ground, which is a weird abstraction to say the least. I used to think it was an unacceptably bad “bug”, but have come to realise it can have a place.

I’m thinking of blood bowl here, a game I may have played more than any other. For the longest time, I thought about redesigning it to use hexes and banish the diagonal movement bug. But I eventually realised it’s a feature of the game that makes sure the attacking team can keep momentum. Whether this by design or happy accident I’m not sure.

To explain - the diagonal attacking run is usually the best means of penetrating the defending teams line and making progress towards the end zone for a touchdown. In this play, by and large the attacking team will move diagonally and consequently cover more ground.

Once the play is made, the defending players then need to get around the ball carrier to place themselves between the ball and the end zone again and prevent the touch down. By the nature of relative player placement and the existence of tackle zones around players that limit movement, this will almost always involve, to a greater extent, moving in cardinal directions in an L shape - back then across. With less of the artificial movement increase from diagonal movement, defending players in a nutshell are at a movement penalty.

This penalty is crucial to the game. Firstly, it contributes to a sense of real pressure on the defender (all other things - player ability and team rating etc - being equal). And as I mentioned above it’s crucial to game momentum. Without it there would be a lot of 0-0 draws and I would bet the game would never have been as successful and loved as it is.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I’ll bite!

Firstly may I point out you have missed an option here - templates that determine distance and also direction. As demonstrated in the likes of Gaslands.

Anyway, what I want to talk about is square grids. Obviously, the thing with squares is if you allow diagonal movement, then models moving in the diagonal cover more ground, which is a weird abstraction to say the least. I used to think it was an unacceptably bad “bug”, but have come to realise it can have a place.

I’m thinking of blood bowl here, a game I may have played more than any other. For the longest time, I thought about redesigning it to use hexes and banish the diagonal movement bug. But I eventually realised it’s a feature of the game that makes sure the attacking team can keep momentum. Whether this by design or happy accident I’m not sure.

To explain - the diagonal attacking run is usually the best means of penetrating the defending teams line and making progress towards the end zone for a touchdown. In this play, by and large the attacking team will move diagonally and consequently cover more ground.

Once the play is made, the defending players then need to get around the ball carrier to place themselves between the ball and the end zone again and prevent the touch down. By the nature of relative player placement and the existence of tackle zones around players that limit movement, this will almost always involve, to a greater extent, moving in cardinal directions in an L shape - back then across. With less of the artificial movement increase from diagonal movement, defending players in a nutshell are at a movement penalty.

This penalty is crucial to the game. Firstly, it contributes to a sense of real pressure on the defender (all other things - player ability and team rating etc - being equal). And as I mentioned above it’s crucial to game momentum. Without it there would be a lot of 0-0 draws and I would bet the game would never have been as successful and loved as it is.

That’s really good insight. I never thought of it like that. You’re right. Making L-shaped runs would be so slow and the advantage of tackle zones would decimate attacks. It would only work if the defender could only attack from one direction and lack dynamic movement.

 

[daveh]

one of our club members tried to make his game with concentric circles radiating out from each unit (like raindrop ripples on water). each circle represented a geometricaly greater distance than the last , although it was physically the same width.
for some reason the idea never caught on , i guess warp speeds didnt match up with cavalry and swordsmen

 

[Fold]

one of our club members tried to make his game with concentric circles radiating out from each unit (like raindrop ripples on water). each circle represented a geometricaly greater distance than the last , although it was physically the same width.
for some reason the idea never caught on , i guess warp speeds didnt match up with cavalry and swordsmen

This reminds me of an old theory about ground scale in 40k. Not related to the thread topic but interesting anyway.

It basically posits that 40k distance scale is exactly that sort of geometric progressuon, to explain why you have artillery shooting on the same battlefield as hand to hand and rifles have an apparently pitiful range.

I don’t remember the distances but it was something like:

12” - distance is measured in feet. The point at which pistol fire is feasible and troops charge and engage each other close up.
12-24” - distance is measured in hundreds of metres. Rifle fire.
24”-36” - distance is measured in kilometres. Tank and artillery range. Away from front line so troops move around quickly with abandon.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

In dnd my understanding is that squares are popular individual characters in dungeons and hexes are usually reserved for maps.

My first experience of hexes though is original Fallout, which looked so goofy when you are zig-zagging your way northward from a supermutant patrol in the desert on 5 hp.

I

 

[Biggle_Bear]

That idea in dnd makes sense as the dungeon favours straight lines and corners. It makes it feel more organic from a constructed ruin sort of way. Whereas the diagonal movement hack (hehe I like calling it a hack now, thanks @Fold ) would damage my immersion in a map based land travel situation.

Another option would be to have irregular spaces. That way faster areas to traverse would cover more ground, but that gets hard to produce without a lot of effort. And is in my experience hard to balance.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

Off set square idea

• Biggle_Bear
• Oct 19, 2025

I made a quick grid of offset squares. I think it could have a place in some game someday. I like how it touches six sides, which corresponds to a regular dice (I know with my logical brain that it’s actually a die but it will always be a singular dice in my heart). And maybe it will work better if around the edges some on the spares were half longer. That way walls would be straight.

This grid got used for an improv game of ‘robot vacuum’, which was just as frustrating to watch it get stuck in a corner as it does in real life.

 

[Trafalgar Law]

If you're using flat 2D maps then squares and hexes work well as they avoid any ambiguity (although this isn't an issue for most ttrpg as you have an umpire to make such rulings). I do think counting is slightly slower than using measurements though, as I find people tend to count twice or lose count while you tend to measure once. For anything more 3D you have to use measuring tapes unless everything is going to consist of very inorganic shapes.

Interestingly the angled movement you mentioned with regards to Blood Bowl is actually quite realistic. Watch a game of Rugby, the angled run to break through the line is very common.