SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Hex size in overland maps

Started by worldeater, September 15, 2014, 02:23:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

worldeater

Good afternoon,

I'm tinkering with a fantasy setting that involves a pretty fluid political map. The rise and fall of clans, tribes, and warlords means that the control of land will change on an ongoing basis. To make life easier on myself, I plan to use hex maps and designate each hex as controlled, disputed, unclaimed, etc. As the story progresses, the actions of the PCs and NPCs would impact who controls each hex.

What I'm trying to figure out is what zoom level the map should be. I don't want to micromanage every square mile, but I also don't want to make the chunks too big.

If I did my math correctly, the relationship between flat-to-flat distance and hex area is as follows:

2 miles across / 3.5 square miles
4 miles across / 14 square miles
6 miles across / 31 square miles
8 miles across / 55 square miles
10 miles across / 87 square miles

I'm inclined to make the hexes 6 miles flat to flat and deal with the world on 30 square mile chunks (roughly 20,000 acres). Opinions? Too small? Too big?

Thanks,
Alan

Bren

In addition to the size of a hex, you should also be thinking about how many hexes you will have to manage. So the size of the hex should be a compromise between the scale of play and the total number of hexes you will need to monitor.

How many square miles is the part of the world you want to track and manage?
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Skyrock

It can also pay to have several scales for your hex map. Work with the broad brush of 1 hex = 1 day travel as much as possible for the big picture (or even broader for large areas that the PCs mostly don't actually see). When more detail like control of single towns, villages or narrow mountain passes becomes relevant for the actual play of your players, zoom closer and determine the details you actually need.

Never micromanage detail no one will ever see, or actually care about for actual playing purposes.
My graphical guestbook

When I write "TDE", I mean "The Dark Eye". Wanna know more? Way more?

worldeater

Quote from: Bren;787079In addition to the size of a hex, you should also be thinking about how many hexes you will have to manage. So the size of the hex should be a compromise between the scale of play and the total number of hexes you will need to monitor.

How many square miles is the part of the world you want to track and manage?

Great question. 30,000 square miles would be a swath of land about the size of Austria. That would work out to a box about 170 miles on a side, be enough space to keep everyone busy for a little while. I wouldn't get super-detailed with all of it at first.

worldeater

Quote from: Skyrock;787110It can also pay to have several scales for your hex map. Work with the broad brush of 1 hex = 1 day travel as much as possible for the big picture (or even broader for large areas that the PCs mostly don't actually see). When more detail like control of single towns, villages or narrow mountain passes becomes relevant for the actual play of your players, zoom closer and determine the details you actually need.

Never micromanage detail no one will ever see, or actually care about for actual playing purposes.

Agreed. There will be plenty of areas that are relatively wild, which means that the controlling factions could be dropped in as needed. A wandering tribe of orcs would only really control a small area at any given time, so I could drop those in on the fly.

In Pathfinder, an unencumbered character on foot can cover 24 miles per day, an unencumbered horse 40. I'm thinking that either 6 or 8 mile hexes will do the trick for the detailed zones and much larger ones for everything else.

Bren

Quote from: worldeater;787121Great question. 30,000 square miles would be a swath of land about the size of Austria. That would work out to a box about 170 miles on a side, be enough space to keep everyone busy for a little while. I wouldn't get super-detailed with all of it at first.
Which would be about 1000 six mile hexes or a square that is 32 hexes by 32 hexes in dimension.

Personally I've found 5 or 6 mile hexes work pretty well for gaming. It allows normal movement (foot, coach, or horse) to cover multiple hexes in most terrains while allowing different speeds to move different numbers of hexes.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Scott Anderson

Sixes, man.

Actually anything between 2 and 8 works, but 5-6 works the best.
With no fanfare, the stone giant turned to his son and said, "That\'s why you never build a castle in a swamp."