Well the idea was that units wouldn't have to mesh exactly, once the "octagons" that each puts down overlap they are in range to attack each other. The victor doesn't move into the tile its opponent occupied because there are no tiles.

But its ackward all the same, we might as well stick witht he 7 and 5 square tile system.

We are talking about a computer game, not a board game. There shouldn't be any reason for the player to calculate how many moves he have. Just have an option (pressing a key) to light all squares where the selected unit can still go during its turn, taking also into account that he will walk on roads or swamps or forest, whatever. Would also be cool to have the option to draw from you unit to the destination you want and see the computer showing the fastest path available like in Alpha Centauri.

I'm not really sure why we have squares at all.  Why not just have a map, with distances between two points?  Squares are useful for abstracting city creation, etc., but do they help with managing tactical combat, much less strategic movement?  I can imagine AI creation would be a lot easier with squares: it adds quite a more finite set of states, for starters.  But in terms of gameplay, do people on this thread think squares help?

Having a tiled map helps for a lot of things, not just AI.

When you animate movements and have characters that walk, uniform distances allow for cleaner movements.  Designing tiled maps allows for easier judgements on things like unpassable terrain.  If you have a control zone around units for instance, blocking a two tile wide access point with a unit that has a one tile control radius is simplicity.  Without tiles, you have to be careful of your measurements or your pass might be a pixel too wide.  It's the same for player controlled armies.  With tiles, it's easier to position them usefully, code for things like razing a building at your location is more simple, all kinds of stuff.

If you're not going with a tiled map, you want full physics, the works.  Otherwise it's not really worth it.

Heh...  HoMM games are on tiles.   They just have it defaulted to not show them.

There are a number of turn based board games that have real movement systems. Most miniatures games for instance. There is no grid. You move where ever you want, but you only have X units of range. You can engage anything within Y units of range, etc.

Might be more complicated though in implementation than it'd be worth.

Well, you say that.  But a lot of newer miniatures games use grid systems.    And some games (like pretty much everything wizards of the coast) that once were not grid-based are now switching or have switched to grid systems from regular measurements.   I suspect the only thing keeping warhammer and 40k from going grid is the 20+ years of not-grid system, and the only thing keeping other mini games from boing it, like warmachine, is the years of using warhammer terrain.

It's actually pretty easy. You have a ruler, you move the first guy in a formation based on that then move the rest to just liine up where they were. If it's not a game with hard formations (ie. pure skirmish) you use the ruler for each guy. However, they tend to be nearby each other so most of the time you just move the one again and eyeball it for most of the others.

Also much of the time you're not moving your full amount, just enough to attack or reach the edge of the forest, etc. So you can often just sort of swing the ruler over a bunch of guys and go "yea, they can all make it to the fort entrance" and just move them.

As someone mentioned, some skirmish games (WotC primariliy) have gone grid, but most miniature games still are free form.

As for squares vs. hexes, I don't really care much. I've played enough board games with squares (e.g. chess) where the board is a pretty distant abstraction from the landscape that the movement part of things doesn't bother me. Hexes might be more accurate for distance, but that's just one small part of a large number of gameplay items. Plus, you can get "closer" to accuracy if you do something like 2 points to move horizontal/vertical, 3 points for a diagonal.

I for one prefer hex grids for sci-fi games and squares for fantasy, just because I always thought that shapes with side numbers divisible by 3 look high-tech (go figure). But I would be happy with either one.

That about sums it up for me as well.

Sammual

A game is a game.  hex or square.   I'm sure I'll have fun either way.

Why not triangles?

OK see if I can write this without power going out in house again.Was much longer and more in depth, but scratch that.

Squares vs. Hex in relation to calculations and AI, VERY much doubt has any significant impact on gameplay.

Squares force more units to be affected by AOE events.

Hexes force advancement or retreat on every move, this can have a large influence on gameplay. Two units on opposing sides just want to move up one space, this movement may force them to get 2 spaces closer to each other (1 per side, draw it if you have to ).

Squares allow for much easier placement of square structures, which most structures are. Formations are easier and I imagine... easier for an art team to design battlefields.

Hexes better calculate movement in 6 directions, however VERY poorly in 2 (up and down)

Squares allow for more flanking opportunities.

Squares are easier to relate to.

Any other shapes...

Triangle... a square represents two isosceles right triangles and a hexagon is 6 equilateral triangles....so we really are using triangles.

Octagon... is what square grids usually REALLY are in a game, just the holes are filled in visually.  And every unit in the game has the ability to warp past the holes.