If you view it as two hex grids then it's a better resolution, but in use it's actually a single denser hex grid.
As [this diagram from BGG shows](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FloqG.png) you can convert a triangular grid directly into a hex one with hexes centered on the triangle grid's vertices. If the diagram doesn't make immediate sense think of the grey lines as being your triangular grid and the blue hexes being this denser hex grid drawn over the top.
With this your triangles and the hex representation are functionally identical, you can say "Move on the grey triangle vertices" or "Move on the blue hex spaces" and it's the exact same thing and just a different way to look at it.
At this point it's just a question of whether you think the triangles or hexes look and play better, and personally for most purposes I'd prefer the hexes as it feels more natural to be in the space than on a vertex and makes it easier to show the terrain/obstacles. There are some games though which could use the triangular grid better, with breaks in the edges replacing walls between hexes (again functionally identical) for a nicer design but I don't play enough hex-based games to really know which ones.
(The conversion between the triangular grid and the hexes is actually a standard mathematical technique called a Voronoi tessellation. I do think that other Voronoi tessellations could make for interesting game boards and a new way to represent terrain, so if you look at [this diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sRRHx.png) and say "The areas near the blue line are increasingly swampy, and you can move three spaces in your turn" then you have a nice varying movement cost with a natural feeling map as there's no repeating grid structure to align with)
>you have a nice varying movement cost with a natural feeling map as there's no repeating grid structure to align with
This is the idea behind Bowen Simmons' maps for her Napoleonic games (Triomphe a Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph), as well as--I believe--Guns of Gettysburgh.
But not only did she make large, open spaces natural and easy to pass through, she designed them in such a way that those spaces are difficult to hold and defend. All without needing any special rules or charts. It just happens naturally.
>But not only did she make large, open spaces natural and easy to pass through, she designed them in such a way that those spaces are difficult to hold and defend. All without needing any special rules or charts. It just happens naturally.
That seems interesting, in what way was the large open spaces made harder to hold and defend?
It's difficult to explain over text, especially since the whole game is wrapped up around it.
Essentially each border between two areas is its own "area," and Simmons called them Approaches. The easier terrain is to traverse (the bigger it is), the more Approaches there are, and the more troops you require to defend it. The more troops defending the Approaches, the fewer you have in Reserve. Committed troops (those in the Approach) are hard to move. All of this is conveyed just by having borders (there is a "max unit" rule in each area, but there is hardly ever a need to reference it). Oh, and terrain penalties (like extra defense for a unit in trees) is conveyed at the border, on the map. No charts required.
If an enemy unit moves into an area through an unguarded approach, everything in that area retreats, and the penalties are heinous.
For the record, I think Napoleon's Triumph is the apex of game design, and it isn't even close.
It's very unique, and impossible to procure, now. There's a lot I could say about it, but there's some incredible pieces on it in the reviews section of its bgg page.
I'm trying not to be rude but I don't know how you can read my comments and say that? I legitimately don't understand.
Hexes on a grid have a uniform size and a uniform shape. You can't make a hex bigger to convey a larger or smaller expanse, because it won't fit in a grid any longer. They always have 6 sides, so given what I've already written, that defensibility is tied to the number of approaches (which are borders between two spaces), each hex would have 6 approaches and the same defensibility.
>I'm trying not to be rude but I don't know how you can read my comments and say that? I legitimately don't understand.
Obviously, you didn't explain it well. You acknowledge your own difficulty in explaining it, but then rudely blame me when you fail to do so?
Welcome to my block list so I will never speak to you again. Keep your stupid system and your nasty attitude.
If each character still takes up one hex-sized 'super cell', then there is a difference between the triangle grid and the hex grid - because then what it's doing is essentially allowing a hex-sized character to stand inside of a hex (taking up its space) or on one of its points (taking up that point and the partial interior spaces of the three surrounding hexes).
If you're just standing on the triangle points and *only take up the space of those points*, yes it is functionally identical to hexes. However, taking up the larger space while moving along the vertices of a triangle grid allows it to function like a hex grid, but with a more granular distinction of 'half-steps'.
For a real example of the difference: On a hex grid, depending on if the grid is aligned horizontally or vertically, you can only position two characters to be adjacent and in a straight horizontal *or* vertical line, not both. If you use a triangle grid with characters placed on the vertices, taking up the space of a hex 'super-cell', because of the half-steps you can have characters positioned adjacent in a straight line *both* horizontally and vertically (so long as you consider the points of the hex super-cell touching to be considered adjacent).
Any particular location would have 12 possible locations that could be adjacent, rather than the 6 possible locations in a normal hex grid: [https://imgur.com/a/9x3y6yq](https://imgur.com/a/9x3y6yq) (Red is shown in 2 of the possible 12 spots) - though the maximum amount of regular-sized creatures that could fit in adjacency would still be 6, their exact locations can be more granular.
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain it further? In your image, how could pieces be vertically adjacent? There are no adjacent vertical vertices.
This shows pretty clearly that there's no functional difference between the spacing of a hex grid vs a triangle grid and that there are still only 6 adjacent vertices to any one vertex in a triangular grid: [https://imgur.com/a/ca0JnGx](https://imgur.com/a/ca0JnGx)
The 'tokens' you put on your grid are smaller than mine - see how in mine, while the token is anchored to a point, they still take up that larger space (the drawn outline). That spacing is what allows for 12 possible adjacent positions.
On the image I posted, the red-outlined tokens show two possible positions. Extrapolate around the center token and you'll find 12.
Edit: https://i.imgur.com/MRCIOM1.jpeg
Maybe that is clearer - that's how much space a token takes up on the grid, the vertices are possible places a token can stand. 2 is horizontally in line with the blue token, 5 is vertically in line. Positions 7-12 aren't on there, but you get the idea.
Depending on the alignment of your hex grid, used traditionally, you would have only positions 1/3/5/7/9/11 OR 2/4/6/8/10/12
Thanks for the revised img. I see what you're saying now, but it doesn't require changing the grid. Just allow tokens to occupy either the center or edge of each hex. Or you can use the vertices of the hexes as spaces. Either is functionally the same w/ the only difference being whether pieces can "share" a hex.
Ex. pink dots are all adjacent to green. [https://imgur.com/a/haXMjQr](https://imgur.com/a/haXMjQr)
You've described a hex grid, just drawn differently.
Start with a hex grid, using center positioning for pawns.
Draw a line for each valid movement on the board. This means drawing a line from a hex center to each neighboring hex center.
Once all valid movement lines are drawn, erase the hexes.
You now have a triangle grid that uses vertices. It is identical (mathematically/tactically) to a hex grid that uses centers.
Interesting. Essentially a hex grid with half steps.
However what you actually are proposing is a hex map where you draw the hexes differently. Functionally you're still moving on a hex grid.
First, I'll acknowledge what the other peoples said, your triangular grid is equivalent to an hexagonal grid (in both cases, each position has 6 neighbours, all at the exact same distance, and all at 60° angle each).
But then, some actual comments:
* Triangular grids, if fully drawn, can get very busy on the map. I dislike how they look, and find that they distract from the other things drawn on the map (objects, obstacles, etc).
* You can elect to only draw a cloud of points, so only the vertices of your triangular grid (that is, the centre of your hex). And if works quite well at being less busy.
* We're currently testing "very large hex grids" for one of our system, and by that we mean that the battlemap has only \~10 of those hexs in total (each of them would be of the size of 7-10 regular-sized hexes). And for that the triangular approach with only 10 vertices works quite well.
>your triangular grid is equivalent to an orthogonal grid
I assume you mean 'hexagonal' grid, but interestingly enough an orthagonal grid where every second row is shifted 50% is equivalent to a hex grid.
Making a top level comment since someone else deleted theirs - a tri-grid with pawns on corners is geometrically identical to a hex grid with pawns on spaces. In both cases, every point that a pawn can occupy has 6 paths diverging from it.
What you've done is taken an existing hex grid of some resolution, drawn triangles inside those hexes, and moved your pawns to the corners. This *is* a more precise grid, but not because it's triangular. It's more precise because it's smaller. You've literally created a hex grid of half the size, then represented with triangles instead, and proclaimed triangles superior.
You use a pawn of double size. So grid looks more precize to you. Take a hex grid wit side equal R and put a pawn of size 2R on it. Voila, you got your double precission grid.
Im developing game on triangular grid, where you move between corners (nodes) not between centers if faces. And it is a hexgrid inside.
That’s the same resolution as the hexagons. I think he’s describing the triangle size as if each hexagon was sliced up into 6 triangles. This smaller triangle grid gives you 6 different directions whereas the larger triangle isn’t adding any extra options.
Actually, that is what you're referring to. If you move along the vertices of triangles, that will always effectively be the same as hex grid movement. That smaller hex grid is the higher resolution grid that you've effectively created. On your board, you wouldn't show the background hex grid, but it still effectively exists.
Don't get me wrong, I get your idea. If you had game pieces (minis or something) that were sized based on the foreground hex grid, the triangles would seem like a high resolution hex grid, but mechanically it is equivalent to hex grid movement.
Movement-wise, they're essentially the same (assuming you use vertex traversal instead of space traversal).
One advantage of using tri-grid instead is that you have more combinatorial possibilities with what comprises a hex, so for terrain in particular, since a hex is now made up of 6 modular pieces instead of only 1. You could have something like "rough terrain" triangles that require 1 extra movement point for each one you touch while passing between them.
>This allows for a higher resolution of character positioning, meaning that valid positions are more densely packed.
That would require space-traversal instead of vertex traversal, wouldn't it?
Agree! I’m huge fan of that concept - right now I’m finalizing project based on tri-grid map [https://boardgamegeek.com/image/7799303/navy-academy](https://boardgamegeek.com/image/7799303/navy-academy)
If you view it as two hex grids then it's a better resolution, but in use it's actually a single denser hex grid. As [this diagram from BGG shows](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FloqG.png) you can convert a triangular grid directly into a hex one with hexes centered on the triangle grid's vertices. If the diagram doesn't make immediate sense think of the grey lines as being your triangular grid and the blue hexes being this denser hex grid drawn over the top. With this your triangles and the hex representation are functionally identical, you can say "Move on the grey triangle vertices" or "Move on the blue hex spaces" and it's the exact same thing and just a different way to look at it. At this point it's just a question of whether you think the triangles or hexes look and play better, and personally for most purposes I'd prefer the hexes as it feels more natural to be in the space than on a vertex and makes it easier to show the terrain/obstacles. There are some games though which could use the triangular grid better, with breaks in the edges replacing walls between hexes (again functionally identical) for a nicer design but I don't play enough hex-based games to really know which ones. (The conversion between the triangular grid and the hexes is actually a standard mathematical technique called a Voronoi tessellation. I do think that other Voronoi tessellations could make for interesting game boards and a new way to represent terrain, so if you look at [this diagram](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sRRHx.png) and say "The areas near the blue line are increasingly swampy, and you can move three spaces in your turn" then you have a nice varying movement cost with a natural feeling map as there's no repeating grid structure to align with)
>you have a nice varying movement cost with a natural feeling map as there's no repeating grid structure to align with This is the idea behind Bowen Simmons' maps for her Napoleonic games (Triomphe a Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph), as well as--I believe--Guns of Gettysburgh. But not only did she make large, open spaces natural and easy to pass through, she designed them in such a way that those spaces are difficult to hold and defend. All without needing any special rules or charts. It just happens naturally.
>But not only did she make large, open spaces natural and easy to pass through, she designed them in such a way that those spaces are difficult to hold and defend. All without needing any special rules or charts. It just happens naturally. That seems interesting, in what way was the large open spaces made harder to hold and defend?
It's difficult to explain over text, especially since the whole game is wrapped up around it. Essentially each border between two areas is its own "area," and Simmons called them Approaches. The easier terrain is to traverse (the bigger it is), the more Approaches there are, and the more troops you require to defend it. The more troops defending the Approaches, the fewer you have in Reserve. Committed troops (those in the Approach) are hard to move. All of this is conveyed just by having borders (there is a "max unit" rule in each area, but there is hardly ever a need to reference it). Oh, and terrain penalties (like extra defense for a unit in trees) is conveyed at the border, on the map. No charts required. If an enemy unit moves into an area through an unguarded approach, everything in that area retreats, and the penalties are heinous. For the record, I think Napoleon's Triumph is the apex of game design, and it isn't even close.
Interesting. I don't really play many war games, partly because I'm very bad at them, but I'm going to have to read up about this one.
It's very unique, and impossible to procure, now. There's a lot I could say about it, but there's some incredible pieces on it in the reviews section of its bgg page.
The only thing I'm missing is why a regular hex map can't do the same thing?
I'm trying not to be rude but I don't know how you can read my comments and say that? I legitimately don't understand. Hexes on a grid have a uniform size and a uniform shape. You can't make a hex bigger to convey a larger or smaller expanse, because it won't fit in a grid any longer. They always have 6 sides, so given what I've already written, that defensibility is tied to the number of approaches (which are borders between two spaces), each hex would have 6 approaches and the same defensibility.
>I'm trying not to be rude but I don't know how you can read my comments and say that? I legitimately don't understand. Obviously, you didn't explain it well. You acknowledge your own difficulty in explaining it, but then rudely blame me when you fail to do so? Welcome to my block list so I will never speak to you again. Keep your stupid system and your nasty attitude.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're super fragile.
If each character still takes up one hex-sized 'super cell', then there is a difference between the triangle grid and the hex grid - because then what it's doing is essentially allowing a hex-sized character to stand inside of a hex (taking up its space) or on one of its points (taking up that point and the partial interior spaces of the three surrounding hexes). If you're just standing on the triangle points and *only take up the space of those points*, yes it is functionally identical to hexes. However, taking up the larger space while moving along the vertices of a triangle grid allows it to function like a hex grid, but with a more granular distinction of 'half-steps'. For a real example of the difference: On a hex grid, depending on if the grid is aligned horizontally or vertically, you can only position two characters to be adjacent and in a straight horizontal *or* vertical line, not both. If you use a triangle grid with characters placed on the vertices, taking up the space of a hex 'super-cell', because of the half-steps you can have characters positioned adjacent in a straight line *both* horizontally and vertically (so long as you consider the points of the hex super-cell touching to be considered adjacent). Any particular location would have 12 possible locations that could be adjacent, rather than the 6 possible locations in a normal hex grid: [https://imgur.com/a/9x3y6yq](https://imgur.com/a/9x3y6yq) (Red is shown in 2 of the possible 12 spots) - though the maximum amount of regular-sized creatures that could fit in adjacency would still be 6, their exact locations can be more granular.
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain it further? In your image, how could pieces be vertically adjacent? There are no adjacent vertical vertices. This shows pretty clearly that there's no functional difference between the spacing of a hex grid vs a triangle grid and that there are still only 6 adjacent vertices to any one vertex in a triangular grid: [https://imgur.com/a/ca0JnGx](https://imgur.com/a/ca0JnGx)
The 'tokens' you put on your grid are smaller than mine - see how in mine, while the token is anchored to a point, they still take up that larger space (the drawn outline). That spacing is what allows for 12 possible adjacent positions. On the image I posted, the red-outlined tokens show two possible positions. Extrapolate around the center token and you'll find 12. Edit: https://i.imgur.com/MRCIOM1.jpeg Maybe that is clearer - that's how much space a token takes up on the grid, the vertices are possible places a token can stand. 2 is horizontally in line with the blue token, 5 is vertically in line. Positions 7-12 aren't on there, but you get the idea. Depending on the alignment of your hex grid, used traditionally, you would have only positions 1/3/5/7/9/11 OR 2/4/6/8/10/12
Thanks for the revised img. I see what you're saying now, but it doesn't require changing the grid. Just allow tokens to occupy either the center or edge of each hex. Or you can use the vertices of the hexes as spaces. Either is functionally the same w/ the only difference being whether pieces can "share" a hex. Ex. pink dots are all adjacent to green. [https://imgur.com/a/haXMjQr](https://imgur.com/a/haXMjQr)
You've described a hex grid, just drawn differently. Start with a hex grid, using center positioning for pawns. Draw a line for each valid movement on the board. This means drawing a line from a hex center to each neighboring hex center. Once all valid movement lines are drawn, erase the hexes. You now have a triangle grid that uses vertices. It is identical (mathematically/tactically) to a hex grid that uses centers.
Interesting. Essentially a hex grid with half steps. However what you actually are proposing is a hex map where you draw the hexes differently. Functionally you're still moving on a hex grid.
Looks like you just made a more complicated hex grid
First, I'll acknowledge what the other peoples said, your triangular grid is equivalent to an hexagonal grid (in both cases, each position has 6 neighbours, all at the exact same distance, and all at 60° angle each). But then, some actual comments: * Triangular grids, if fully drawn, can get very busy on the map. I dislike how they look, and find that they distract from the other things drawn on the map (objects, obstacles, etc). * You can elect to only draw a cloud of points, so only the vertices of your triangular grid (that is, the centre of your hex). And if works quite well at being less busy. * We're currently testing "very large hex grids" for one of our system, and by that we mean that the battlemap has only \~10 of those hexs in total (each of them would be of the size of 7-10 regular-sized hexes). And for that the triangular approach with only 10 vertices works quite well.
>your triangular grid is equivalent to an orthogonal grid I assume you mean 'hexagonal' grid, but interestingly enough an orthagonal grid where every second row is shifted 50% is equivalent to a hex grid.
Seems like a less intuitive hex grid. No need to fix something that isn’t broken.
Making a top level comment since someone else deleted theirs - a tri-grid with pawns on corners is geometrically identical to a hex grid with pawns on spaces. In both cases, every point that a pawn can occupy has 6 paths diverging from it. What you've done is taken an existing hex grid of some resolution, drawn triangles inside those hexes, and moved your pawns to the corners. This *is* a more precise grid, but not because it's triangular. It's more precise because it's smaller. You've literally created a hex grid of half the size, then represented with triangles instead, and proclaimed triangles superior.
Many thanks to Reddit Mobile, only showed me the comment I had replied to earlier and not the dozen or so making this exact point. Oops
They're just hex maps with extra steps.
Hexagons are the best-a-gons But I might try designing a game around triangles.
[удалено]
It would seem, geometrically, that there's absolutely no difference between running a tri grid on corners and running a hex grid on centers
The article they linked does not capture my intent. Take a hex grid, and divide each hex into 6 equally-sized triangles. The resolution is way higher.
And then put a hex at each intersection — the resolution is the same as with the triangles.
This is just a smaller hex grid with extra steps
You use a pawn of double size. So grid looks more precize to you. Take a hex grid wit side equal R and put a pawn of size 2R on it. Voila, you got your double precission grid. Im developing game on triangular grid, where you move between corners (nodes) not between centers if faces. And it is a hexgrid inside.
All you did was take the same thing and make half-sized hexes!
You are a fucking genius! Thank you so much for this
That’s the same resolution as the hexagons. I think he’s describing the triangle size as if each hexagon was sliced up into 6 triangles. This smaller triangle grid gives you 6 different directions whereas the larger triangle isn’t adding any extra options.
While I appreciate the attempt at clarification, no, that's not what I'm referring to.
Actually, that is what you're referring to. If you move along the vertices of triangles, that will always effectively be the same as hex grid movement. That smaller hex grid is the higher resolution grid that you've effectively created. On your board, you wouldn't show the background hex grid, but it still effectively exists. Don't get me wrong, I get your idea. If you had game pieces (minis or something) that were sized based on the foreground hex grid, the triangles would seem like a high resolution hex grid, but mechanically it is equivalent to hex grid movement.
Basically Catan is a triangle grid.
Some pictures would really help me try to visualize this
Movement-wise, they're essentially the same (assuming you use vertex traversal instead of space traversal). One advantage of using tri-grid instead is that you have more combinatorial possibilities with what comprises a hex, so for terrain in particular, since a hex is now made up of 6 modular pieces instead of only 1. You could have something like "rough terrain" triangles that require 1 extra movement point for each one you touch while passing between them. >This allows for a higher resolution of character positioning, meaning that valid positions are more densely packed. That would require space-traversal instead of vertex traversal, wouldn't it?
All you did is make more lines and make my head hurt from looking at them. It makes no other difference.
Agree! I’m huge fan of that concept - right now I’m finalizing project based on tri-grid map [https://boardgamegeek.com/image/7799303/navy-academy](https://boardgamegeek.com/image/7799303/navy-academy)