Do not like squares

[martin goddard]

What do you think the reasons are for some players not liking grids/squares. They are becoming more popular but there is still a fair bit of disdain. Maybe I can tackle the problems if i know what they are?? (possibly not)

[Colonel Kilgore]

I think they can look (initially, until you've played them) very simplistic and constraining. You can't just move off in whatever direction you want.

If overdone visually, they can also look a bit Mickey Mouse - we want to play wargames, not boardgames.

I would of course not suggest that they also remove some opportunity for gamesmanship (fortunately not an issue with readers of this forum).

I am now a convert (in the right circumstances), and they're great for making games accessible to our younger hobbyists. Whilst allowing grown-ups to think more about tactics than the minutiae of measurements.

[pbeccas (Paul)]

In modern wargames you need to keep the game play fast and simple with minimum bookkeeping.  We are all time poor.  Squares can allow that to happen.  But if the game is still too complex the majority of the people won't take to it, squares or no squares.

[peterctid]

I think it is down to gamers loving their tape measures and all of the pointless bickering over distance!

Visually, I use chalk dots on a felt map, so it hardly disrupts the view.

I like the constraint of squares and they help me focus on tactics, not arbitrary rows over mm.

[Wardy64]

I think CK has given a good overview, once you get used to the style they play well. Its the getting used to that is hard for traditional gamers.

Miles did a very good job with his WW2 layout, that gave a more attractive table - along the traditional war games footing, where a table just laid out with squares with scenery placed in them is not as attractive to some.

Many war gamers have also grown up with their tape measures stuck in their paws and struggle to give it up for squares, it feels like something is missing in the game. Change is hard for people to adjust to, they have to understand why that change is happening and buy into the process.

Best to all

Wardy

[martin goddard]

This conversation might lead on to what the best size for a square is.

[Sean Clark]

I'm pretty sure we know the best size - 6". It does what it needs to do. It holds enough units in RoF without looking odd. It allows realsitic (to my eye) spacing of bases in PBI - same with Vikings and MoCB.

I guess it would be interesting to play a skirmish game for instance on 3"-4" squares. Whatever number we use has to go into 12" without any remainder to assist with having sensible table sizes rather than an odd number such as 3'8" x 4'7".

[Sean Clark]

For the record I really enjoy all the square based games - but equally enjoy the non square RFCM games. Civil War Battles is my favourite ACW set. Battles in the Age of War, Bloody Barons and Washingtons Army all are great games as they are. There is never any arguments over distances.

[Stewart 46A]

When deployed with the RN, I used a magnetic chess board and 6mm figures for PBI, I think the squares were about 1"

[Andoreth]

I missed this thread when it was first posted so apologies for the late reply.

I loathe squared off battlefields and rigid constraints on movement. As Col Kilgore said

"If overdone visually, they can also look a bit Mickey Mouse - we want to play wargames, not boardgames."

I usually set up games based on maps and these may not follow  straight lines for the most part, and I want my armies to take account of the ground they are fighting over. I will agree that a grid makes it easier to work out which units are providing support to which other and avoids arguments about facing but its rigidity and limits on mobility make it a deeply unsatisfying experience.

I still love Martin's figures and the vast majority of my 15mm stuff is Peter Pig but the only set of rules I play are AK47, although I do use some of the campaign ideas from the Viking rules so they were not a complete waste of money.   

[Leman (Andy)]

I really enjoy Square Bashing - my other favourites from the stable being Bloody Barons and Civil War Battles,
neither of which use squares.  For some reason I have not taken to the new version of Regimente of Foote. I much prefer the original game and particularly the original pre-game campaign. The new campaign seems very similar to the one in Blucher - a set of rules I have now ditched.

[Sean Clark]

The characters from the original campaign system in RoF live on as my fictional generals in my new ECW armies in the new version of RoF.

[grambo589]

What about hex grids? You either love them or hate them I think, but you can do much to improve the visual appeal. This is a 'Commands & Colors' American War of Independence variant I did a couple of years back using Peter Pig figures. Thought I would share a few images. What I like about grid games is they play fast and furious with no argument over move distances, ranges etc. C&C is an establishes boardgame system that plays out well with miniatures.

A few shots of the lovely PP figures on the board. All was made from scratch by myself and the grid was interchangable individual hexes!

[emphatz]

Hexs, Grids or even squares are not very attractive, non immersive and to me a dated mechanic,  I prefer my terrain to be as realistic as possible (or at least look it), with my miniatures using every aspect of the terrain, realistic movement, shooting etc.... and the rules I use enforce all of the above.

This is my 28mm zombie terrain:

[Colonel Kilgore]

Emphatz,

Very nice terrain.

Are yours Stealth Zombies? They're very well camouflaged...