To Grid or Not to Grid?

 

For large scale ancient naval battles I put the ships on octagonal bases and have used a lightly marked square grid to manage movement.  This has worked well.  The only issue with a square grid is that if movement allowance from square to square along the diagonal is the same as movement across the face of the square then you will move faster on the diagonals.  This is easily addressed by making movement along the diagonal cost 1.5 times the allowance for moving across a face by having every other square of movement along a diagonal cost 2 move points to enter instead of the usual 1.  

But, two questions have insinuated themselves into my mind.  First is whether a grid is needed at all?  Second is whether a hexagonal grid - with matching hexagonal bases - might be better.

The first was prompted by playing a game using 'Fire as She Bears', a Napoleonic era naval rule set.  This mounts ships on octagons but dispenses with a grid.  Ships turn around their base centre point and movement is measured out in blank octagons.  This removes the problem of differential movement on a square grid and saves the trouble of having to make or buy a gridded playing surface.

Illustration : on the left, movement on a square grid, on the right, movement using octagons.  Three squares of movement on the diagonal gives about 1.5 times the distance of three squares directly forwards.  Three octagons of movement is the same along any alignment.

How about a hexagonal grid?  That removes any question about differences in movement distance.  Any number of hexes in one direction will be the same distance as the same number in another direction.  It makes no difference if you use a grid or use spare hexagons to mark out movement.  

But, all is not plain sailing with hexagons.  Reducing the number of faces on the base changes the calculations for combat.  With an octagonal base, the group of ships represented by the base can attack or be attacked head on and they can also be attacked from seven other directions - the stern, two rear quarters, two beams and two forward quarters.  This is significant because the vulnerability of oared galleys to ramming attacks changes greatly depending on the aspect of attack, with those made beam on being the most threatening to the attacked ships and requiring least effort from the attacker.  With a hexagonal base, either there is no beam aspect - when the prows of the ships point to one face of the hexagon, leaving a stern, two rear side and two bow side aspects - or there is no bow and rear aspect if the prows of the ships face into a corner.

Illustration : Aspects of an octagonal base on left, alternative arrangements for a hexagonal base in centre and on right.

The trouble with a hexagonal base if the prows face a corner is that one needs extra rules to make clear when a base is attacking head on - a ramming attack - or making a glancing blow to try to smash oars.  I don't think it is good to add this complication with the attendant room for argument during the game.  Then there is a further point that all movement will be sinuous, rather than straight.  While this does not add real complications to game mechanics, it does offend aesthetically.  Multi-oared galleys don't wobble through the water like single seater kayaks.   So, if hexagons are to be used, best to have the prows pointing to one face and do without the true beam aspect.  The ram combat mechanism can be adjusted to determine whether the attacker gets the benefit of a true beam attack or only hits at an angle.  

It is true that when using octagonal bases on a square grid you have to deal with the question of how to place a base when it makes an attack on another along a diagonal.  Do you put it in contact with the enemy, so partly out of alignment with a square, or put a marker to fill the gap while showing that an attack is being made?  I favour the latter as it removes any question of placement of other bases in relation to the attacker.  Making and placing markers is easy.  It doesn't, to my mind, swing the balance towards using a hexagonal grid.

Whichever shape of base is used, a question common to both is whether one base can move through another?  My basic rules are:

A) no interpenetration of bases is allowed unless the bases are facing in the same direction (bow to stern) or the opposite direction (bow to bow); 

B) provided that rule A is met, a base can move through a friendly base if it has sufficient move allowance to completely clear the other base but it cannot use a fast move to do this and both bases have a reduction in agility if attacked during the same turn  - to reflect the careful movement needed to avoid collision with their friends and then the need to spread out again into effective combat alignment; 

C) no interpenetration of enemy bases is allowed unless the attacker has declared that they are making an attempt to pass through the enemy line (a 'diekplous'), has sufficient move allowance to clear the enemy base and has succeeded in the test required to do so.

These cover the case of one base moving wholly through the space occupied by another, but what about the case where only a part of one base would pass through a part of another?  With octagonal bases, this would arise when a base at a 45° angle to another wanted to move into an adjacent space.  With hexagonal bases, this arises if adjacent bases in the same alignment want to pass by each other.  The rule I apply here is that they can do so provided that there is no other base in an adjacent space that restricts the gap that the moving base could use.

Illustration : handling partial overlapping of bases.  On a square grid (left) the yellow base can move to space A past the blue base, but only if space B is not occupied.  On a hexagonal grid, the yellow base can move to hex A, but only if there is no other base in hex B.

On a grid, it is instantly clear whether conditions that allow a partial overlap are present or not.  Without a grid it is fairly easy to use a blank octagon or hex to check the clearance, but it does add a slight delay.  Over the course of a large game requiring movement of a lot of bases, such small delays mount up.  The same applies to measuring movement using blank octagons or hexagons if you dispense with the grid.  It can easily be done, but it is both easy and a little quicker to use a grid.  This, for me, tips the scales towards grids for these naval games.  Now I need to work through whether I am happy to use grids for land battles as well.

Once more onto the grid