HASL Map Feedback

Chas

Forum Guru
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,590
Reaction score
2,087
Country
llUnited States
Gents,

Several years ago I started a discussion about hex size of HASL Maps. The general opinion was that for a very large map .75" hexes were fine.

To take this a step further. If a map were say ~ 60 x 45 hexes, what is the opinion on 1" hexes if the map were in 3 sections, and for the most part scenarios would be confined to one map at a time, and a few 2 maps.

What this comes down to is would players prefer 1" hexes or an overall smaller map size using smaller hexes.

Thanks,
Chas
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Large hex for HASL map is great.
Many counters like level of buildings, smoke etc... don't fit really well in generic hex of the geoboards map. (don't understand why they didn't them large from the beginning!)
Especially if the map is cut into 3 section, large hex is better in my opinion!
Also because in HASL CG the cluttering is huge. (wreck, shellholes, trench, fire, blaze etc...)

Large is better!
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,565
Reaction score
3,592
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
it does depend on the terrain. A close city fight a la Red Barricades then bigger is better. On a map like Stoumont then smaller is preferable. The longer LoS checks eliminate any benefit from the larger hexes.
 

Geoff White

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
299
Reaction score
55
Location
Dublin
Country
llIreland
it does depend on the terrain. A close city fight a la Red Barricades then bigger is better. On a map like Stoumont then smaller is preferable. The longer LoS checks eliminate any benefit from the larger hexes.
I agree with Vinnie regarding size versus terrain type. However it would be great if some overlays were published with the HASL maps to allow for the systematic land development which happens over the course of a campaign game, e.g. rubbled buiidings, trench lines, etc.

G
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,734
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
it does depend on the terrain. A close city fight a la Red Barricades then bigger is better. On a map like Stoumont then smaller is preferable. The longer LoS checks eliminate any benefit from the larger hexes.
Vinnie has a good point.

I would hope that any hex size does not go below the 0.8" of a geo-board. That is the minimum without undue interference between adjacent stacks. 0.75" is getting too cramped for fumbley fingers like mine.
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,165
Reaction score
2,629
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
If the actions in question had very low counter density (which I doubt, given that they would be BFP actions), you could go as small as the Hell's Corner map hex size. However, I think standard geo-board size would be better.

I will certainly say, though, that for me, fitting a map conveniently on a gaming table is a higher priority than large hexes, so a colossal map with colossal hexes is not very appealing to me.
 

Kenneth P. Katz

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
287
Reaction score
329
Location
Enfield, CT
Country
llUnited States
In general, mapboard hexes should be no smaller than those on the regular geomorphic mapboards. For a map where high counter density is expected, the hexes should be larger.
 

jwb3

Just this guy, you know?
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
261
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Country
llUnited States
Many counters like level of buildings, smoke etc... don't fit really well in generic hex of the geoboards map. (don't understand why they didn't them large from the beginning!)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Because back in 1975, there were only two sizes of hex grid at Avalon Hill, and they were already using the larger one! Couldn't just push a few buttons on a computer and resize the hex grid to whatever they wanted...


For the present BFP project, I agree it's all about counter density. I consider 1" hexes a necessity for anything with RB-size large stacks, and standard geo-board size a must for anything with vehicles or guns on a 5/8 counter.


John
 
Last edited:

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
310
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I will certainly say, though, that for me, fitting a map conveniently on a gaming table is a higher priority than large hexes, so a colossal map with colossal hexes is not very appealing to me.
I would have to agree with this - the only way that most people can play with really large maps is using Vasl.
 

MrP

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
4,866
Reaction score
418
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Country
llNew Zealand
I would have to agree with this - the only way that most people can play with really large maps is using Vasl.
Disagree 100%, VASL sucks for big maps, unless you have a big map sized screen or else it's like looking at the map through a letterbox......

And I agree with Vinnie and Fort on hexsize.
 

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
310
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Disagree 100%, VASL sucks for big maps, unless you have a big map sized screen or else it's like looking at the map through a letterbox......

And I agree with Vinnie and Fort on hexsize.
Just as Big maps suck if you do not have a BIG table.
 

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
310
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Collapsable table, 20 quid from Costco (yes I bought one), big monitor way more :)
I suppose it is all a matter of preference - however it is no good having a Big collapsable table if you do not have the room to set it up (or maybe a family that requires the space for something else). I am not too sure that a large monitor is required for big maps on Vasl - the latest zoom and scroll features allow you to zoom out or in to any level - I can play reasonably easily on any size map on a 19 inch screen laptop.

Just expressing an opinion that when publishers are thinking about map size the physical constraints of actually putting it on a table should be considered - I played GDWs Third World War (using all the maps) once and had to commandeer both the dining room and a spare bedroom for several weeks - even then there was little room for the charts and dice rolling.
 

Paullus

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
385
Reaction score
54
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I will certainly say, though, that for me, fitting a map conveniently on a gaming table is a higher priority than large hexes, so a colossal map with colossal hexes is not very appealing to me.
I agree with Pitman on this. To make the map fit on a gaming table is more important than hexsize.
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,703
Reaction score
1,161
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
it does depend on the terrain. A close city fight a la Red Barricades then bigger is better. On a map like Stoumont then smaller is preferable. The longer LoS checks eliminate any benefit from the larger hexes.
This pretty much covers my opinion as well. I will add that the hexes should NEVER be smaller that the standard geo boards- to hard to see/remember what is underneath.
 

Chas

Forum Guru
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,590
Reaction score
2,087
Country
llUnited States
No way we would make them smaller than geo hexes. I thought they were .75 off the top of my head, maybe they are .8.

The different between .8 and 1" with a 60 hex map would be 1 foot. If divided among 3 maps, that would mean 4" less on each one on the longest side with .8 as compared to 1" hexes.
 

olli

Forum Guru
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
8,404
Reaction score
2,038
Location
Scotland
Country
llGermany
I would prefer the larger hex as I always enlarge the maps for the scenario areas by 100% Dasl VoTG - really good to play on. Just think of the Manila map blown up 100% or the RB / RO maps combined :-o
 
Last edited:
Top