Creating a board game based on RTS games.

[X3M]

Ehm,...

I am experimenting with some new gained knowledge.

 

...I don't know...does any one have some suggestions or comments on if this is done right?

 

 

[criver]

Nice hexagons btw.

What do you mean by done right?

[D2k Sardaukar]

I find those in post #194 more clear and 'happier' than the one in post #195. What I remember from other games, like The Settlers of Catan, is that the board pieces are simplistic, yet clear, colourful and a little cartoon/child style instead of very artistic or realistic.

 

The center-thingy (small hexagon) is not very clear to me. Perhaps make the lines thicker? Where is it for? What does it add? You could also experiment with borders around the hexagons.

 

The information you add on the hexagons needs to be readable to players on each side of the board? Perhaps add text 'circular'? Is the information like a look-up-thing that all players have (and will slowly be remembered during playing) or is it different on each tile/hexagon (with the same type of ground)? ...etc. I can ask millions of questions if you like. :)   I don't play board games a lot but if I do the manual is always too unclear. Or the special abilities of an unit/species are too shortly written and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

[X3M]

Thank you for replying both.

 

@criver

Well, I meant with that. If the whole board was done like those 3 hexagons attached to each other. Would it be playable?

The smallest board would be 2 hexagons :D.

 

@D2k Sardaukar

The ones in #194, some are redone in #195. And yes, cartoon style is better. However, I am very bad in arts. You remember the previous generation? They too are in this forum. Yet insufficient since those would force players to count, then calculate. Over and over again. And counting is a bit hard. The resolution was very low as well. Now I have a resolution that is 15 times higher.

 

The center is still to hard to tell?

Please look at the unhappy lonely tree texture in #195.

That is the one I applied now.

If you zoom your screen that a side of one terrain hexagon is about 4 cm.

The diameter from corner to corner is 8 cm.

Then you need to tell if you still can see the center dot.

I can make it bigger, or cut out a smaller hexagon. Which also makes the center bigger. If you can tell me what size it should have, I can adjust better. In the current print outs the black center hexagon is about 3,6 mm. The white with the asterix is about 1,8 mm.

Perhaps also making the asterix thicker would help.

 

The centers have a main focus point in the game. To determine the line of sight. The corners and sides of hexagons are in this too. I want to remove discussion during game play as much as possible. Thus the center dot. When there is a fight. projectiles fly from center 1 dot to another. All the hexagons that are in this line, count as damage reducers when they own tree's, hills and rocks. Even if it is just a corner of an hexagon that is over the line of sight.

When the side, or border, is exactly on the line of sight. Both hexagons count both for 50%.

And perhaps you are right about adding more clearness on these borders as well.

 

Since a maximum of 6 players is possible. I could add the tekst on each side. Best would be only the top and bottom. Since that is applied simple with paint. But it makes hexagons look flat. Thus it is 1 corner, or all around indeed. The bad think about paint is that you cannot add a 60 degree turn. Only 90 degree.

 

The information about hexagons could still be a look up. But I realized that I could have millions of these just like units. While units will remain look ups. The terrain it self would start looking like each other sooner then one might think. The best examples in this are different amount of tree´s and different altitude of the hills. And stuff like that.

Thus for terrain, I need to put the numbers somewhere on the hexagon.

Or revert completely back to cartoon like hexagons. But then with a better touch in art. It would still mean that terrain would have more equal worth than when putting the numbers on the hexagons. With numbers on the hexagons, I can have "3600" options for only amount of grass. Well, the smallest opening needed for game play currently is 60.

 

Some same looking terrain still can have different numbers, even though this difference is small.

I hardly doubt that some terrain are remembered slowly during game play.

 

Ask as many questions as you like. It keeps me thinking and reviewing.

 

The manual...

Yes, you are right in that. And I know that my manual is also still very confusing. Not only that. But I still have to rewrite some things etc.

I also need to track future expansion plans without removing current balance of the game. This takes time though.

 

A manual is just a list of rules in the best example. And players need to remember these rules.

[D2k Sardaukar]

Unhappy tree hexagon center is indeed more clear, hehe.

 

I think designing the hexagons should not be limited by the design program (paint in this case) you use. So I suggest trying a different program (I mentioned inkscape, but perhaps paint.NET suits you better and can do 60 degree steps?).

 

What I get from your post is that numbers on the hexagons is overall better than multiple images. Some nice colourful hexagons for game style is nice, but the main required "game data" needs to come from the numbers.

 

Is this perhaps an idea (because you mentioned line of sight, perhaps each sector of hexagon has different properties?):

 

 

 

[X3M]

Hey, odd thing.

I actually got paint.net on my computer :D

I will try things out there.

 

The Unhappy Tree. A good name for that region :D.

 

 

What I get from your post is that numbers on the hexagons is overall better than multiple images. Some nice colourful hexagons for game style is nice, but the main required "game data" needs to come from the numbers.

That is correct. And we are talking about 3 numbers and a code for the number of tree's and rocks/hills

 

Something like:

3000-0000-0600-3T2R

Mostly grasslands with a bit of water and 50% is forested (25% space reduction) and 33% are rocks (+33% space reduction).

Now players still have to calculate the true space though. With 2,5/6th of space of any number.

3000 would become 1250 for land units and

600 would become 250 for boats.

 

So I am not sure about the numbers either. There are tree jumpers and rock climbers in the game who ignore the last code.

Thus the 3000 and 600 remain. (There is 1500 space for hoovers and 3600 space for shinobi).

 

---

 

That white looks better then black though. But there are very light regions. Thus perhaps it is better to do a negative instead.

Which program allows for selecting multiple parts and make them negative?

 

---

 

Just tested panning pictures in paint.net

I noticed how 60 degree's does not return the correct 60 degree's?

 

I look at every pixel as a square around the singularity.

When I take the numbers 29 width and 26 hight for a triangle, this one can be turned 120 degree's and fit. According to my theory. Or did I make a huge mistake... again?

 

I must there for print some hexagons. That group of 3 regions, print it twice, cut them out, and test my theory.

[X3M]

 

Isn't that just great. Again I find out that I did something wrong.

I am clearly not an artist.

 

I applied

15 (+14 #) x 26 (+25 #)

But it had to be

16 (+15 #) x 27 (+26 #)

 

I applied the pixel rule in the wrong direction!!!

[X3M]

Ok, I have now hunted for new options regarding the right amount of pixels for my triangle basis.

Of course going into the right direction this time. There are 3 rules that I apply for this. Since I am getting the hang of this.

 

Rule number 1

With my calculator I went for the most accurate numbers possible. Thus on a 21x21 hexagon map, the pixel miscalculation would be under 0,04 pixel for every line that is drawn in a triangle. That´s right 4% of 1 pixel is the allowed fault.

Panning a complete map that is 1 meter wide, would result in a mismatch of just a little less then 1 mm.

To my surprise, even 0,03 pixels or lower was possible. Thus obvious less then 1 mm.

 

Rule number 2

However, I also remembered that there might be uneven sequences or asymmetric sequences.

I am talking about the number of pixels that shift when making a diagonal line. 

For example a 121 line means going upwards 1 dot, then 2 dots, then 1 dot. While going sideways 1 dot at a time. This line can be turned 180 degree´s and fit itself.

If you have 12131. Then this line cannot fit itself when turned 180 degree´s.

 

Rule number 3

Of course I can't make the lines super big. I still have to see pixels while seeing the triangle in a whole. While completely zoomed in. On my screen.

 

Summary:

- Accuracy of 1 mm or less on a 1 meter map.

- I need lines that can fit themselves when turned 180 degree´s.

- I need the triangle to fit on my screen with maximum zoom.

 

I narrowed down my selection to 3 with these rules:

 

Size; +26 x +45, 27 x 46 pixels

Inaccuracy on 1 meter; 0,74 mm   :)

Sequence; 131213131312131

 

Size; +41 x +71, 42 x 72 pixels

Inaccuracy on 1 meter; 0,20 mm  

Sequence; 1312131313121313131312131

 

Size; +56 x +97, 57 x 98 pixels

Inaccuracy on 1 meter; 0,05 mm   :O

Sequence; 1312131313121313131213131312131

 

The one's are 1 pixel.

The two's and three's are groups of 2 pixels. A 2 is 4 pixels in total and A 3 is 6 pixels in total.

If you add a sequence up, you will see that they are the width in pixels. If you add them up and counting 4 and 6 instead of 2 and 3. You get the hight in pixels.

The + numbers are what you add in pixels when you place 2 triangles on top of each other or against each other.

 

I don't know which one to choose yet. Perhaps I should take a look at the sub sequence.

Red is the center.

While orange are sub centers, but only if the sub lines can fit themselves too.

Hmmm, seems I can even add sub+sub centers. YELLOW!!!

It is obvious that they increase in accuracy. And an accuracy of 0,05 mm on 1000 mm is ridiculous accurate. I sure hope that printers can be that accurate :D.

 

Of course I still need to test this in paint.net by panning 60 degree's ;)

[criver]

Still don't get why you work in pixels... Won't it be better if you work with vector graphics (you can have "limitless" precision)?

[X3M]

Still don't get why you work in pixels... Won't it be better if you work with vector graphics (you can have "limitless" precision)?

I am computer retarded.

So with what program can I do that?

[criver]

Check in see also at the bottom of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics

I believe this one is free: http://inkscape.org/en/

I usually do all transformations in code, and not with an editor so I can't say which is best, but counting pixels seems pretty crazy. You can always make your hexagons in a vector graphcis editing software then convert to a raster image too.

[X3M]

Well, counting pixels is a one time thing. And it's only checking 1 line to be perfect, that's 98 pixels at tops.

After that the field is done. And the hexagons are done in a jiffy.

A down part is that mistakes can be made without even noticing until the end. 14 x 28 became 14 x 25 while it had to be 15 x 26 for example.

An up part is that I learn really a lot about the nature of hexagons. And how they live in pixel land. I have started looking differently at pictures now.

 

Now 1 thing remains. Which program allows me to edit text and put that text in negative?

In other words. The numbers that I create will be a negative there where they are placed.

Can this be done with Paint.net? Which would make things easier since I want rotated (panning is something else apparently) text as well.

 

I use:

- Paint for making the hexagon cutters and cutting out the regions.

- Paint.net for making another test on the correctness of the hexagon. And rotate text 60 degree's.

- What? ??? for making the text in negative on the region.

 

If I rotate the hexagons 6 times. And save each time. The hexagon becomes blurred :(

Perhaps wanting to much is what is stopping me.

 

---

 

Editing so I hope it doesn't show on the main page again. I second that some might find it annoying that my posts are on top all the time.

 

I have choosen

Size; +26 x +45, 27 x 46 pixels

Inaccuracy on 1 meter; 0,74 mm

Sequence; 131213131312131

 

It is the smallest choice, so I can have multiple cutters more then the biggest choice.

The second choice isn't nice to work with. And 0,74 mm on 1000 mm is hardly noticeable.

Even if my friends plan on building one giant map that fills the room.

 

Even though I have little time. The Triangle grid is done and the main hexagonS grid is almost ready as well.

Before I continued. I took the liberty to test my new hexagon in paint.net.

And I have to see, a 100% fit once I turn it 60 degree.

I am satisfied for the moment.

 

I also calculated how big a 400 regions map would be in paint.

With a maximum safe size of 400 mB. Well, before the regions are placed, they are already PNG, thus only 200 mB.

Once the big map is saved as JPEG, only 20 mB.

 

For the sides I have thought of digital numbering.

Thus having the lines ready in such a way that the basic ring already has the 60 degree rotations.

And the numbers are all eights to start with. Except for the T and R. This is still black and white work.

Before the template is ready, the numbering that is turned 60 degree will have been sharpened.

 

So I can create hexagons with the picture, a center point, and a outer line with basic numbering.

 

But if any one can tell me how to invert the color of the numbers instead. Please let me know. That way the hexagons would look much cooler.

 

---

 

I have thought of a way of getting inverted colors on the info only.

This is how I should proceed for each region:

 

- I will be needing:

+ Primair basic template to cut out a hexagon of a picture. You have seen (the errored ones) these before.

+ Secundair basic template that has the default 8888-8888-8888-8T8R as a "digital" code from the 6 viewpoints.

 

- The primair will cut out the desired region.

- Then the secundair will be adjusted to the numbers that I need for that desired region.

- The secundair will be cut out of the desired region and saved in a second file.

- The second file will now be inverted in color.

- The second file will now be pasted in the desired region. And this one will be saved as a finished region. The desired region will be saved as a temporary default. So I can cut out different numbers afterwards without much hassle.

 

With this plan, there is a minimum and one time use of paint.net.

[damrankomran]

Is it like warhammer 40k games?

[X3M]

It is a boardgame with a hexagon grid.

Warhammer has not a grid. But both are wargames.

[damrankomran]

Can you explain that hexagon grid?

[X3M]

I certainly can.

 

This is a hexagon grid:

 

 

And the kind of terrain that I am looking for is this:

 

Although, I have posted some maps of my own in this thread. Which I have played with my 2 friends.

 

The only goal remaining was getting high definition pictures with accurate information for the game.

But I am very busy lately.

[damrankomran]

Its look amezing. Remind me most succesfull rts game close combat series, wic is low about graphics but much more better than todays gameplay. I belive you doing good one.

[damrankomran]

You hawe to put more pics

[X3M]

You can google them. Those aren't mine. I am looking for using something similar.

For all that I got, please read this whole thread.

I know that english isn't your strongest point.

[damrankomran]

Check close combat maps, has same sytyle actually bht player cant see the grids. Terrain detailed as height, type weather etc.

[X3M]

In my oppinion. The posts from 22_7_14 untill this one should simply be deleted.

Further. Just so happens that by watching warhammer. I got the idea that producing on before hand is for long games. And having a game variant where you simply select the units that you want on beforehand.

Both are fun. But for the new game. I could recreate a dune version. No base or production. Only the battle. It suits arrakis if you ask me.

If someone can provide a good dune map. I could create a board out of it. It would be print and play.

[X3M]

Well, I decided that a Dune based board game would have almost(?) no interest. So I will mainly focus on the main game, which remains expandable in an easy way.

 

I changed rules regarding specific weaponry.

There is now a clear difference between normal units and structures. This enables me to make target specific weaponry more logical as well.

Dogs can't bite down Barracks any more (or other units like tanks). Snipers are nerved as well. 50% effect on most units. 200% effect on Infantry. So Barracks are once again more durable against them.

 

With play testing I have noticed that specific weaponry are now used later on in the game by my friends. Especially when a player has saved up several Event Cards.

But the new unit designs are used, and that is what counts.

 

---

 

Meanwhile, life is/was taking time. So I have not even found the time or will to get those regions done.

No one cared, so I won't care either.

 

All I know is that the big code is reduced to only 5 numbers when play testing with the simple maps.

And that forests and mountains can be stacked.

 

I due however want to pick up the "better" prototype plan again.

[X3M]

It took me an hour to get this done.

Then I find out that the original example takes about over 4 Mb. Thus I reduced the sizes by 50% for showing purposes.

So the quality is a bit lower. I do have an original high definition example for those who are interested.

I guess via email?

 

Any way. I have some time again in my life. And was toying around with my paint.

Here is the result of a capped maximum HD quality.

 

 

I don't know. I call these hexagons size 11.

- If I reduce them to 10, or 9 or lower. The nuke symbol in the middle gets bigger.

- Perhaps making the side lines thicker as well?

- he reason why I do this before I start adding numbers is the fact that I want to know for sure that the quality isn't toooo high. ;). Obviously too high. It takes a bit to much calculating energy for my computer.

- Another note during play testing is the nuke symbol in the middle of an hexagon. If the hexagon is turned 60 of 180 degree's. The nuke symbol is obviously different than the standard.

- I should not allow turning the hexagons.

- 1 Map should be transformed into a hexagon field. No separate hexagons any more. To much editing work. 1 Map obviously takes a way a lot of work. And the numbers can be put in later on. The new map can always be cut into pieces later on.

 

Where are those dune maps that I could work on guys? :D

[Luminar]

This is from google maps?

 

 

 

Nice photo btw... :)

[X3M]

Thanks.

 

Yes, google is a sort of friend in this case.

However, if I want to create pictures with1200 dpi. Then I need to keep things with a high as possible detail.

Further, having only A4 (perhaps A3) as options. I need to create larger map parts. Just having 1 hexagon in only great if the pieces can fit together nicely.

To get that, well, you need a thicker piece. Creating thicker pieces is really, really a lot of time consuming. And I do have work and private matters to attend to.

There is not even one shop selling hexagons that I search for. The ones to paste paper on.

Ordering online will not help me. Since I don't know if they are the right size and the right material for paper to stick to.

 

Still much work to do.

 

This was by the way the closest that I could get for a usable Dune map.