Rethinking and new thinking: maps and movement

Taken from image gallery for
The Haunting House on
boardgamegeek.com

Whenever designers decide to make a game that requires movement, such as moving units or characters around a map, they are immediately presented with one question: How will you separate the map so that players can move from one spot to the next and, ultimately, across the map as needed? Maybe that question is answered quickly, but if one really thinks about it, there are many options or variations to address the conundrum.

I would guess (and could be wrong) that a inexperienced, American gamer would probably first think of just using squares. Certainly, traditional board games like Monopoly and Sorry used squares. There might be those who despise traditional, roll-and-move games with their squares, but that doesn't mean that squares should be dismissed outright. For example, the Haunting House is a game that uses squares in a fairly ingenious way.

In the Haunting House, one must follow the path on the hallway tile, but they cannot go through walls even though some of the tiles bump into or end at walls. So, of course, they also cannot move diagonally. The players have cards that can turn the tiles in various ways to achieve the path they need. Now, the Haunting House has some other problems to where it is a game that I cannot recommend (I gave my copy away.), but the tiles set up to dictate the movement is very interesting.

Space Hulk image from
gallery at boardgamegeek

Another way to use squares is like that done in Space Hulk. In that case, the board is not all one piece, and the squares are not all together. They are allowed to be spaced apart to form hallways. Once again, the squares allow one to move forward, backward, and left or right but not diagonally. Probably the biggest advantage is that the map can change a lot from play to play as the hallways can form in many ways. One must also keep in mind that the map used is largely determined by the type of game. A map of squares composing a hallway is perfect for Space Hulk, in which the space marines are moving through a derelict space ship where movement should be limited.

Of course, if you want the players to move freely around the map in any direction, then squares may not work too well as moving diagonally is a little awkward since the diagonal tiles do not touch each other. Also, the player can move left (or right) and up in one move by moving diagonally forward. That can create problems with the design's rules regarding how and how-much a player can move in a turn. So, in such a case, many games use hexagons.

boardgamegeek image gallery pic

Hexagons work very well because all tiles will touch their adjacent tiles with a side whether diagonal or not. They also eliminate the problem with being able to move left and up with one diagonal move (as noted above with squares). Memoire 44 is one game that uses hexagons. The map on the left here is a individual's own map they made for Memoire 44. Not only is it neat because it has trees and a river that are real miniatures (instead of just being drawn on the tile), but it also gives a nice view of what a good hex map can look like. Moreover, it makes one ponder how rivers or height of an area can affect game play. Now, in order to get on top of a raised area, players will have to use more movement points. Also, players must use the bridges to get across the water. That, of course, affects strategy greatly.

So, it would seem that is it: use a map of squares if you want restricted, hallway or path types of movement; use a hexagonal map if you want the players to have the most freedom of movement. I would completely agree. However, the one case in which a designer might want to think of another way to do free movement is if they are programming the game. For instance, board games seem to becoming more popular on the iPad and iPhone; so, a designer might expect that their game would have a iOS version as well. As a old article by Tanstaafl on GameDev.net points out, programming a hexagonal map is fairly complex. So, now one might want to think of a easier way to create what I call a "free-movement map." It might make development much easier in many ways, at the very least reducing development time. This is where the new thinking comes in. What different shapes can be used? One could make strange shapes. For instance, Risk uses country shaped regions that don't have a set or shape. Then again, a set size and shape can be easier for programming. So, one might use a isometric map as Tanstaafl speaks of. However, is that easy enough? Isometric maps look possibly even move difficult than hexagonal. Maybe it is time a game designer thought of a new way to govern movement and spaces in games dependent on a map. What could those be? Maybe squares and hexes together, creating some separated areas and some completely connected would be an option. Maybe not using boundaries but instead using intersecting lines like Go would allow for easy development and needed freedom in movement. This is the type of discussion I find very interesting as examine game development and design. It might be that all the good options (squares, hexagonal, & isometric) have already been thought of, but I will continue to ponder the options. If a new way can be thought of, maybe it might open opportunities for game mechanics that hexagonal maps don't accomodate as well. Who knows? Regardless of the outcome, it is a intriguing examination that can really drive the atmosphere and other mechanics of a game.