What do you think of figures games on a grid? Are they just boardgames with prettier counters? Do the grid markings detract from the look of the table? Or are they a convenient way to save time and avoid fiddling with rulers? Movement and range measurement are simplified to just counting spaces, but are also contrained to specific directions by the shape of the grid.
This topic seems particularly relevant after my last report on a gridded game [link]. Obviously that grid is as ugly as anything, just like my figures and terrain, but there are plenty of examples on the internet of subtle grids and beautiful models.
Grids seem most widely used in naval and air wargames. Perhaps the lack of specific terrain features lends itself to using a grid? There's no need to choose specific buildings just because they fit neatly inside one grid space.
On land, there are three options for the relative size of grid spaces and units: one unit fills a grid space, several units can fit within a grid space, or units span multiple grid spaces. The fine-grained grid (with a unit spread across multiple spaces) allows a closer conversion of distances from rules with free movement, but then forces units to align to the grain of the grid. This seems to be the least popular approach, but I've seen it used for linear formations on land (e.g. Strength & Honour or Morschauser's original rules) and for naval games (e.g. the Portable Ironclads Wargame) where a ship fits in two spaces (fore and aft).
 |
| Image (c) David Crook |
Multiple units in a grid space are more often seen, such as To The Strongest!, most Peter Pig rules or Phil Sabin's Lost Battles. In some games the grid also forms part of the command and control system, where an order can be given to all the units in a grid space. Effectively it's a way of affecting all units within a command radius, but without any measuring.
 |
| The Men of Company B, rules by Peter Pig RFCM |
Do you get a lot of arguments in "free movement" games, when pieces are nudged, or when a unit ends its movement exactly 3mm short of the enemy's range to open fire? I've played with people whose 6" moves were always 7" long. Only played with them that one time, mind you.
There are also rules that insist the players must not measure any distances in advance of announcing that a unit will move or fire, so the players have to practise guessing distances by eye. That's a philosophy that has no place on a gridded table, where any distance is trivially easy to measure by eye. There are also rules that use random movement distances (e.g. move 1-6 inches based on a die roll), but those are trivially adapted to a random probability of moving into the next grid space (e.g. on a 4" grid, roll 4 or higher to move one space).
What shape of grid works best (square or hexagonal, or maybe some other option)? Square grids are easy to draw and allow 8 directions of facing (to the sides and the corners), but have the unhelpful property that diagonal moves are longer than orthogonal ones by a difficult ratio (the square root of two). Hexagonal grids allow 6 directions of facing and movement which are all the same distance, but create a significant bias in the directions of movement. Forming a line in one direction runs straight along the hexes, but 90 degrees from that direction and it's a wavy line that steps forward & back. The forward hexes can be attacked from three neighbouring spaces, creating weak spots in the line.
Arty Conliffe's Crossfire is a special case. It allows free movement by an unlimited distance into the next area of terrain. I might argue that this is a gridded game with an irregular grid, the same shape as the scenery pieces. It could be the perfect compromise, with no need for rulers and no need to mark spacing on the table. Sadly it only works with a very busy table. There have been attempts to adapt it to pre-gunpowder battles in open country (e.g. [this] and [this]), but they have resorted to measuring distances (either with a ruler or with base widths). There may be an alternative with a grid of open terrain spaces (each maybe a hexagon 6" on a side), so that "the next terrain piece" is actually a fixed distance.
My own background of board wargames means that I am very comfortable using a hex grid, except that they are difficult to draw accurately on a tabletop for games with miniatures. A square grid is now my favourite, counting orthogonal moves as 2 steps and diagonal moves as 3 steps. That's close enough to the accurate distance. This feels great for age of sail naval battles, with the wind blowing either from one of 8 directions and allowing ships to travel maybe 6 steps in a turn. Does anyone else remember the Strategy & Tactics boardgame Fighting Sail that used this system? There's a great game report here [link].
 |
| Fighting Sail |
Until next time, health & happiness to you all.
No comments:
Post a Comment