rbodleyscott wrote:Yes, the engine allows diagonal movement and shooting, and takes the laws of geometry into account.TheGrayMouser wrote:Hi RBS, can you address the use of squares vs hexes? I have concerns this might be one of those “sticking points “ that comes up over and over ( like in PC FOGAM where the abstract nature of BG’s having no “size” came up over and over again…)
Ist I am assuming BG’s can moved and shoot “diagonally” ?
If so , based on pythagoras one is moving and or shooting at a greater real range along diagonals that along “flats” in a square based system. And its not a small amount either, if a square is 2 units of measurement along a length, the center of one square to the center of the 4 squares on flats is also 2 units, however its 2.83 to the center of the 4 squares diagonal….
It might not matter for most weapons and slower moving units, but it might be weird for artillery and or units like cavalry that have high movement rates.
For movement purposes the engine uses the approximation of treating diagonal movement as 1.5 times as far as orthogonal movement.
For shooting ranges, the engine reduces the diagonal range but not quite as much as geometry would dictate. e.g. Troops with a shooting range of 4 can shoot 3 squares diagonally, but troops with a shooting range of 2 can shoot 2 squares diagonally (because reducing the the diagonal range to 1 square would be equally inaccurate and a bit harsh).
So the issue of diagonal movement is fully accounted for, and the issue of diagonal shooting is partially accounted for.
you guys are the best and have clearly thought of everything