Although some of my regular blog readers are happy with my suggestion that I turn my 3 x 3 hex grid through ninety degrees so that the the corners rather than the face of the hexes were at the top edge of the grid, other are more resistant. I have therefore gone back to look at the original layout both without ...
... and with the full-size Reserve Areas added ...
... and then with half-sized Reserve Areas added to the centre column ...
... to see if the suggested use of half-hexes works with it. The result looked like this:
My first reaction was that the end result was rather ugly and ungainly, so I made few changes. I turned all the Reserve Areas into half-hexes and removed two half-hexes from the central column, thus:
I think that the end result looks far better and returned to a 3 x 3 grid arrangement, albeit that the central column is made up of two full-size and two half-size hexes.
I am not sure which of the two orientations (point of the hex to the top vs. flat side of the hex to the top) will work better than the other ... but it will give me something to think about over the next few days.
After I thought that I had finished writing this blog post, I was struck by the fact that in the section immediately above this paragraph, I was trying to compare two versions of a 3 x 3 hex grid that were not really comparable. I therefore altered the left-hand grid by reducing by one column in width. The end result looks like this ...
... and has the same number of green half-hexes as the right-hand grid.
Despite being smaller, I still think that it looks better than the alternative.
.jpg)
To be honest, I still not entirely grasp why you would want a 3x3 grid? Most of the fun of miniature wargaming lies in the manoeuvring and movement of troops. Using a reduced grid limits the movement options considerably. So why go for a 3x3 grid?
ReplyDeleteYou could use smaller (but more) hexes if you want to keep the physical size of the playing area within certain limits. But then your footprint of the units might become too big ... ? Perhaps you should look into having units spread over different grid cells instead, if this issue (footprint of units vs grid cell size) at the core of your thinking?
Phil Dutré,
DeleteThe 3 x 3 grid is great for fighting battles generated by a campaign. It has certainly worked well in that capacity for quite a few people, including myself.
That said, it is by no means perfect and does not appeal to everyone. What I've been trying to do is to see if I can make a better hexed version of the 3 x 3 Fast Play Portable Wargame.
My thinking is to use single-based units rather than units with two or more bases. I know that the bases that I use for infantry, cavalry, and artillery will fit into a half-hex and it is something that I would like to explore a bit more.
All the best,
Bob
I think I like the flat side to the top. It also allows for units to move and shoot directly forward without the use of half hexes. That said I think my preference for 3x3 games remains squares. After experimenting with off set squares I think I'll go with straight rows. I do really like the idea of the reserve area being divided by three.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteUndertaking this exercise has been interesting ... but I am coming to the conclusion that the square 3 x 3 grid (with a Reserve Area) is probably still the best option. It is simple to create and easy to use ... which to my mind trumps any advantages the hex grid has.
All the best,
Bob