Map Making Theory: orientation and symmetry
Posted December 20th, 2009 at 03:21 PM by dok
This is the third post in a series about the theory of mapmaking. Part 1 was about glyph placement, and part 2 was about map footprint size and shape. This installment is about map orientation and map symmetry.
When I say "map orientation", what I'm basically talking about is the angle between the two opposing sides with respect to the hexagonal grid. There's two basic ways this can work:
I tend to prefer zigzag-oriented maps, for a couple reasons. First, zigzag-orientation compresses the map. It's easier to put the startzones close to one another in inches in a zigzag-oriented map, while keeping them further apart in hexes. Secondly, I like the tactical flexibility that is afforded by allowing figures to tack to the left or the right as they cross the board without sacrificing movement. (Of course, you could flip that argument around and say that linear-oriented maps force hard decisions on the player.)
It's certainly possible to build a good map in either orientation. If we look at the Battlefields of Valhalla, we see that of the 20 maps there, 12 are more zigzag-oriented, while 8 are more linear-oriented.
*If I can throw in an analogy here: carbon nanotubes are a type of molecule that is formed of atoms laid out in a hexagonal grid. When traveling down the tube leads to zigzagging between hexagons, the structure is called a "zigzag" nanotube. When traveling down means moving in a row, the structure is called an "armchair" nanotube. I borrowed the first term (which makes sense to me) but not the second (which doesn't).
Now that I have that unfamiliar concept of orientation out of the way, I can tackle the more familiar concept of symmetry. There's basically three options when it comes to symmetry on a 2-player map:
I don't think I really need to explain what these are.
Like most mapmakers, I tend to use rotational symmetry more often. This is because it tends to be easier to use Heroscape terrain - particularly the 24-hex tiles - to make rotationally symmetric maps. Indeed, looking at the BoV, it's really a landslide: 17 of the maps are basically rotationally symmetric by design, while only three (Turret Rocks, Embattled Fen, and Ticalla Sunrise) are closer to bilateral symmetry. Even among those three, two are only roughly bilaterally symmetric, and actually have a lot of variation from one side to the other.
Ultimately, the choice of symmetry and orientation in map design should be dictated by the terrain you want to use. Certain terrain objects (ruins, the 6-hex glacier, the Marro Hive) lend themselves much more easily to constructing maps with rotational symmetry. At the same time, bilateral symmetry allows you to use odd numbers of terrain pieces (like the large RttFF tree, or the third jungle tree) while placing them somewhere other than the exact middle of the board. There are no hard and fast rules here - just options to consider.
When I say "map orientation", what I'm basically talking about is the angle between the two opposing sides with respect to the hexagonal grid. There's two basic ways this can work:
- Traveling from your end of the map to your opponent's end involves zigzagging back and forth slightly with each move.
- Traveling from your end of the map to your opponent's end involves a straight shot along one row of hexagons.
I tend to prefer zigzag-oriented maps, for a couple reasons. First, zigzag-orientation compresses the map. It's easier to put the startzones close to one another in inches in a zigzag-oriented map, while keeping them further apart in hexes. Secondly, I like the tactical flexibility that is afforded by allowing figures to tack to the left or the right as they cross the board without sacrificing movement. (Of course, you could flip that argument around and say that linear-oriented maps force hard decisions on the player.)
It's certainly possible to build a good map in either orientation. If we look at the Battlefields of Valhalla, we see that of the 20 maps there, 12 are more zigzag-oriented, while 8 are more linear-oriented.
*If I can throw in an analogy here: carbon nanotubes are a type of molecule that is formed of atoms laid out in a hexagonal grid. When traveling down the tube leads to zigzagging between hexagons, the structure is called a "zigzag" nanotube. When traveling down means moving in a row, the structure is called an "armchair" nanotube. I borrowed the first term (which makes sense to me) but not the second (which doesn't).
Now that I have that unfamiliar concept of orientation out of the way, I can tackle the more familiar concept of symmetry. There's basically three options when it comes to symmetry on a 2-player map:
- No symmetry
- rotational symmetry
- bilateral symmetry
I don't think I really need to explain what these are.
Like most mapmakers, I tend to use rotational symmetry more often. This is because it tends to be easier to use Heroscape terrain - particularly the 24-hex tiles - to make rotationally symmetric maps. Indeed, looking at the BoV, it's really a landslide: 17 of the maps are basically rotationally symmetric by design, while only three (Turret Rocks, Embattled Fen, and Ticalla Sunrise) are closer to bilateral symmetry. Even among those three, two are only roughly bilaterally symmetric, and actually have a lot of variation from one side to the other.
Ultimately, the choice of symmetry and orientation in map design should be dictated by the terrain you want to use. Certain terrain objects (ruins, the 6-hex glacier, the Marro Hive) lend themselves much more easily to constructing maps with rotational symmetry. At the same time, bilateral symmetry allows you to use odd numbers of terrain pieces (like the large RttFF tree, or the third jungle tree) while placing them somewhere other than the exact middle of the board. There are no hard and fast rules here - just options to consider.
Comments 2
Total Comments 2
Comments
I'd say the more symmetrical the map the easier it is to figure out.
Highways and Dieways is a great map, but you can almost tell what's going to be important just by looking at it. Ticalla Sunrise takes playing on to see what's really going to matter to you and your army. (Well, it did for me anyway...) Any map has those "Ah ha!" moments that you have when you actually play on it. But I think you're generally going to have fewer of those on a symmetrical map. |
|
Posted February 22nd, 2010 at 09:35 PM by DrLivingston |
That's true; I hadn't really thought about it that way. If you can introduce some interesting terrain features that make the map a bit more of a puzzle without making it unfair fow one side or the other, that's probably a good thing.
In general, I'm a fan of things that make maps harder to figure out. A map with subtle strategy is good. However, I can easily imagine a boring asymmetrical map where the best strategy is the obvious one, too. |
|
Posted February 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 PM by dok |
Recent Blog Entries by dok
- Codex article - Battlefield Review - Fulcrum (March 2nd, 2015)
- Too cool not to share (February 10th, 2012)
- Flip 'em first (December 22nd, 2011)
- Easy versus Strong and Tricky versus Weak (February 17th, 2011)
- Everyone makes mistakes (February 10th, 2011)