Maps: hexes vs. squares

[WolvieFan9]

So, like other Trek fans here, I've been thinking about how you would
work the map piece of this -- do you have to work on hexes, or could you
keep the maps as square grids?

I think you can do it as a square grid and don't necessarily have to go
to hexes.

IF facing is an issue in the game -- and it might not be, though I think
you'll lose a lot of tactical reality if you DON'T have facing in the
game -- then you can divide the ship into quadrants and have front, left
side, right side, and rear quadrants. This would reduce the number of
shields and weapons you have to represent in the game.

Shields may not be represented by quadrants, though... shields could be
represented by a clickable dial showing shield strength, and a hit
anywhere on the ship would drop shields by "X" percent. (This would
actually match the way they talk on ST: TNG, "Shields down to 65%.")

Movement on a square grid could be accomplished like regular HeroClix
movement -- just count out the squares based on available power and move
that far, then the only time facing would come into the equation is how
you ended for your turn.

This would give WK the additional claim that this game isn't SFB when
the inevitable comparisons are made... "But look, SFB is played on
hexes, and this is on squares!"

[sgtregis]

I enjoy the tactical aspect of SFB though. For me hexes gives so much more in capabilities. I would imagine that some type of facing would be included in the rules, which imo would lead to a hex grid as opposed to a square grid. For arcs/field of fire, they had that in MW, printed on the base, so that part would be pretty easy.

I would vote for hexes. I will play no matter how they do it. But I think it gives us more options.

[Suttkus]

Hexes are better in every conceivable way. Squares where diagonal movement is allowed have always offended my mathematical brain. (Except the old D&D minis rule, which ended up being pretty close to correct, even if it got complex.)

[Norb]

Hex maps are just plain better.

[Harkonnen13]

My votes for hexes. As mentioned above they are more versatile.

[Frimmel]

I'm inclined to agree with hexes as well. But as long as we're playing on spaces on a map I'm good. I don't want to measure or deal with the problems arising from no grid playing fields.

I'd think the decision would be largely dependent on the chosen scale of the vessels.

I'd think another factor would be cost considerations. They may not want to print maps. I am very disappointed that the $28.00 Blackest Night starter had a mere one-sided map that wasn't even 36"x36". And as it is a space game you'll need a 'big' map.

[Suttkus]

Everybody seems to be talking about maps, plural. Space is, well, full of space. How many maps do they need?

Realistic space maps would be:


Empty with stars
Empty with nebula
Near an asteroid
Near a planet
Near a star


Realistically, most space maps should be pretty similar. Nebula would affect gameplay any, the "clouds of gas" in space actually have less dense gas than vacuums scientists can make here on Earth, unless you get into a proto-system. Any map would either have a gravity well or it wouldn't, and nothing else would do much.

Of course, Star Trek isn't really known for scientific accuracy, and they sure used nebula for hindering terrain in Wrath of Khan (and the Enterprise had Stealth!), but still, there just isn't going to be that much diversity of maps in this game.

[WolvieFan9]

You wouldn't even need different maps to represent "battlefield conditions" such as planets, black holes, asteriods, etc... you could just include counters (or little 3D models, even better) for those effects.