I disagree, you could just print out the type of hex that is available
around the hex. You already do that with the present map. You give us the
direction, the length of travel and what province we travel to. The
description of the neighboring hexes need not be described. (perhaps
OBSERVATION skill might change that)
> There are other messy issues too: how many units can be in a hex at
> a time? How far can you see? Can you see over mountains, or should
> I throw in line-of-sight for good measure? Just what would a "castle"
> do in a hex system? Do I name hexes, or clusters of hexes? Ick.
How many units? Well, truthfully, this should be applied to "regions" also.
How far can you see? one hex around the one you are in. Unless you want to
apply hex-type values: (ie. Plains, 2 hex Forest 1 hex, Swamp, 1 hex, Mtns, 0)
Line of sight? Not necessary.
Name hexes or cluster? I would imagine only PRIMARY hexes need be named. You
might have a "name" associated with hexes for WARLORD purposes. This way,
ownership of hexes would be apparent. The name would be up to a faction and
all hexes owned by that faction have the same "name". This could be considered
a "region", but since the hexes need not be contiguous, it should be coined
> Let me clarify: one proposal is to make "forests" and "plains" interior
> features. These things might even be tardis-like subregions that you
> could enter and move about in. What do you think?
I like it. There would be a lot more to "explore". These subregions could be
hidden links until you "EXPLORE" the region.
> What do you think of making castles and the like more proper "locations"
> that can be entered instead of being stacked with?
What, you mean have a market within a castle? Sounds interesting, but could
you then have a "forest" inside a castle?