Re: Diagonal Movement

Russell Boggs (
27 Sep 1994 09:59:16 U

Reply to: RE>Diagonal Movement

RE: (Hexes would be an even better way
to do that, with less weirdness, of course.)

You know, offset squares work really well, too. They might be easier to
program than hexes, too. (Offset so that the boundary line in row n+1 is at
the middle of row n. Used in Zocchi's (sp?) Battle of Britain game, if you
ever saw it.)
Date: 9/26/94 6:46 PM
To: Russell Boggs
Received: by with SMTP;26 Sep 1994 18:18:13 U
Received: from by isis (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA06704; Mon, 26 Sep 94 18:10:28 PDT
Received: (from bin@localhost) by
id UAA25697 for design-real; Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:32:28 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with SMTP
id UAA25695 for <>; Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:32:18 -0400
Received: from ( by
id AA24688; Mon, 26 Sep 94 21:14:19 EDT
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 21:14:19 EDT
From: (David desJardins)
Message-Id: <>
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA20430; Mon, 26 Sep 94 21:14:17 EDT
In-Reply-To: <> ""
Subject: Diagonal Movement

> From:
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 20:13:59 EDT
> Diagonal movement makes sense. It's more intuitive. If you want to reduce
> travel speed, there are other ways to do that.

I'm somewhat agnostic on diagonal movement---I'm not strongly opposed to
it, although I think it clearly can't be retrofitted to the existing
game---but I definitely disagree that it makes sense or is more
intuitive. It is much less intuitive in that, for example, two units
can cross paths without ever passing through the same location. The
*only* thing that it gains is that game distance is more closely
proportional to Euclidean distance. (Hexes would be an even better way
to do that, with less weirdness, of course.)

David desJardins

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links