Napoleonic Wargame Club

The Rhine Tavern

*   NWC   NWC Staff   NWC Rules   NWC (DoR) Records   About Us   Send Email Inquiry to NWC

*   La Grande Armée Quartier Général    La Grande Armée Officer Records    Join La Grande Armée

*   Allied Coalition   Allied Officers   Join Coalition

*   Coalition Armies:   Austro-Prussian-Swedish Army   Anglo Allied Army (AAA)   Imperial Russian Corps

 

Military Books, Magazines, Games for sale (see other items)

Forums:    ACWGC    CCC     Home:    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Hexagon Dimensions
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagon
https://rechneronline.de/pi/hexagon.php

Consider the following image: If the soldiers are assembled in a 100m line on the short diagonal edge of a hexagon firing at an adjacent opposing line of soldiers the distance between forces point to point (equal to hexside length) is only 57.74m. If each file of a 100m line were a pace or 75cm apart 133.33 men could fit in a rank. 399.99 men could fit in a 3 rank line. The distance between moving from one short diagonal in a hexgrid to a symmetrical position in an adjacent hexagon is 115.47m (long diagonal distance) which would be the integer of every additional hexagon ranging from a firing point (hexside + long diagonal). Range 2 fire would be 173.21m, 3 would be 288.68m, etc.

If the distance between opposing soldiers point to point is increased from 57.74m to 100m then the linear distance of the short diagonal edge will be 173.21m. At one pace per file 230.95 men could fit in each rank and 692.85 in a three rank line. The distance of moving between hexagons would be 200m. The distance between a firing point 2 hexes away would be 300m, range 3 at 500m, etc. I like these patterns alot better than the first example.

If the point to point adjacent hex firing distance were 75m then the short diagonal edge is 129.9m. 173.2 men per rank and 519.6 men could fit in a three rank line at this scale. The long diagonal distance between hexes is 150m. At range 2 225m, range 3 375m, etc.

The firing resolution distances assume that the opposing forces are facing each other though. I'm leading up to dropping 2-rank line and skirmisher nonsense in order to better simulate light infantry. A central aligned short diagonal formation is more natural but, this forward offset allows for increased distances beyond adjacent positions. It is also how the isometric sprites are displayed. What do you think about the hexagon dimensions?


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hexagon Dimensions
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 953
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Geoff McCarty wrote:
What do you think about the hexagon dimensions?

They are fancy?

Really what's the point about this, is it movement rates, fire casualties, global warming or what?

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Christian Hecht, Corps Commander
La Grande Armée - 3éme Corps d'Armée
"Vive la révolution, vive la france and vive L’Empereur!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hexagon Dimensions
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
>he doesn't dream about hex porn
It is some idea I was kicking around. Could model closer firing distances and further travel distances as I stated. I plan on using it to validate scenario parameters. Normally I had thought of the opposing adjacent lines as 21.13m further back from these hex positions so that they were 100m wide and 100m parallel to each other. I never thought of the angular differences of travel and how that may help specifications.
Geometry isn't my strong suit. I don't believe the distance between points of symmetrically placed lines on the short diagonal edge of a hexagon would be twice the the hexside length. Believe the image below is actually the correct dimensions. Not as great a deviation as I hoped for.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hexagon Dimensions
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 953
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
I'm not sure you get anywhere if you try to bring pure logic & math to an abstract system of hexes, turns, etc..
Modeling firing distances in this engine? Well turn of the OR "Optional Fire Results" to have less average results, by this you get more high or low results that could stand for a variety of factors including small/large distance of units in bordering hexes.

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Christian Hecht, Corps Commander
La Grande Armée - 3éme Corps d'Armée
"Vive la révolution, vive la france and vive L’Empereur!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hexagon Dimensions
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
Every good game should be logical. The best games are card and tabletop classics which are built on totally logical sets of rules despite their representations being total facade. If I'm interested in reducing variations of unit placement, distance between firing units, unit density, and length of travel than I don't see what increasing the variation of firing results might add. It's worth considering though. A 20 digit rand(time) range is better for hit chance resolution than 'damage' I believe so, I prefer OFR on. I'd really like wilder melee resolution except the attack/defense ranges are 80 and 120 digits respectively. That guarantees silly outcomes no matter how the equation is solved at the fire effect end so, OMR is generally better for gameplay and plenty wild. The skewed effect of the optional resolution results presents less abstraction and better simulation overall.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr