Modular Maps: MOPs

[GaryLASQ]

...bump

A POST I just made in another thread got the wheels in my brain spinning...

How about MOPs that are just "base" levels, meaning they only have ONE level of terrain tiles, both land and non-land, so height-1 and height-0. This way, people could use them as a good starting point, since like 70% of the build is level 1, for most battlefields.

And, they would be easy to store. Just put a foamboard "tray" under each "MOP Base" and stack them on a shelf like a foamboard/plastic layer cake. Yum. MOP Cakes.

[GaryLASQ]

Another idea I've been thinking about is a new shape.



I call it a "24-hex-tile-friendly pentagon". I'm thinking about making MOPs that are all this shape; so no 2-hex, 3-hex or 4-hex shaped MOPs. It's only an idea, for now. I need to build a few with updated edge rules and try connecting them in various ways.

Another nice thing about having a single shape for all MOPs is that the "clockwise twist" thing can be ignored. No need to remember to build in the clockwise twist if there are no 2-hex, 3-hex, 4-hex shapes. And, don't even worry about arranging them with a clockwise twist. Arrange them however you want.

[Grison]

I am really curious how this new shape might work out. I may have to build a few samples to play around with. Having a single shape/size is appealing, as is having each module be large enough to use the 24-hex tiles.

Do you have any thoughts for how your MOP "edge rules" might apply to the two longer sides?

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

Another idea I've been thinking about is a new shape.



I call it a "24-hex-tile-friendly pentagon". I'm thinking about making MOPs that are all this shape; so no 2-hex, 3-hex or 4-hex shaped MOPs. It's only an idea, for now. I need to build a few with updated edge rules and try connecting them in various ways.

Another nice thing about having a single shape for all MOPs is that the "clockwise twist" thing can be ignored. No need to remember to build in the clockwise twist if there are no 2-hex, 3-hex, 4-hex shapes. And, don't even worry about arranging them with a clockwise twist. Arrange them however you want.

[Grison]

Just playing around with potential layouts for Gary's new proposed shape:



It's more flexible than I imagined it would be at first. And these are just some of the (mostly) symmetrical options.

[GaryLASQ]

I'm actually thinking about three shapes: 1) this new "jewel" shape (71 spaces), 2) one of my original "core" shapes, the 1-hex MOP (61 spaces), and 3) a little triangle "buddy" shape (10 spaces).

So, build a jewel shaped MOP (mainly for a better fit with the 24 space tiles), or build a 1-hex MOP plus its triangle buddy. Or, build a full jewel shape plus a little triangle buddy as a MOP Set (81 spaces) for the terrain set(s) used.

Originally Posted by Grison

Do you have any thoughts for how your MOP "edge rules" might apply to the two longer sides?

Along the long edge of the jewel shape, I'm thinking the same rules for the "middle" space of the first 5 spaces, then the same thing (road, water, lava, ice, shadow, castle wall?) on either (or both) of the two "middle" spaces of the triangular extension.

If you look at the last thing I built, it is this new jewel shape, while at the same time, is also the single hex shape plus a triangle "buddy" shape. The triangular extension (outlined in light blue, below) is connected but can be separated if desired and reoriented or used with a different MOP or Mop Set. Notice how the walk-walk (aka road) spaces reach one of the two "middle" spaces on all three sides of the triangle. So, the road leading up to the Fortress Door could be rotated, so that the road is in parallel to the Door, while still being connected to the road space on the middle space of the five spaces in front of the Door.



If the triangle can't be separated (probably because there's a 24-space tile reaching into the triangular area) that's fine also.

[Grison]

It seems like the "jewels" and hexes would play nicely together, and if you had a few "triangle buddy" pieces available, those could also be useful for filling in the triangle-shaped holes in some of the jewel layouts.

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

I'm actually thinking about three shapes: 1) this new "jewel" shape (71 spaces), 2) the original 1-hex shape (61 spaces), and 3) a little triangle "buddy" shape (10 spaces).

So, build a jewel shaped MOP (mainly for a better fit with the 24 space tiles) or a 1-hex MOP plus its triangle buddy...

[GaryLASQ]

Yep, the triangles nicely complement both the hex and jewel shapes, making for even more variety. The jewels and triangles allow for even more orientations that you don't get from my original hex-only "core" shapes.

[GaryLASQ]

I can see someone wanting to design a modular map with terrain from 1 RotV plus 2 RttFF sets. So, take that terrain and make a MOP Set, say 1 jewel, 1 hex, and 3 triangles (as just one example of shape combos for a single MOP Set) that can then be rearranged in all kinds of ways.

[GaryLASQ]

Also, when it comes to RttFF, the road tiles could be placed so that the bridge could be added AFTER the mops are arranged, allowing a bridge to connect in different ways, both within a MOP or spanning a couple of MOPs. I tried this once and kind of forgot about it until I stumbled upon the following gif that I made years ago:



EDIT: Now I remember why I kind of abandoned this "movable bridge" idea for when it spans two MOPs... it requires connecting the MOPs.

Connecting them, rather than just sliding them up against each other, is annoying. The game plays just fine even when they are not connected. The resulting gap(s) is minimal.

[Grison]

I love the modular bridge idea, but I can see how it's in conflict with the connection issue.

[caps]

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

Also, when it comes to RttFF, the road tiles could be placed so that the bridge could be added AFTER the mops are arranged, allowing a bridge to connect in different ways, both within a MOP or spanning a couple of MOPs. I tried this once and kind of forgot about it until I stumbled upon the following gif that I made years ago:



EDIT: Now I remember why I kind of abandoned this "movable bridge" idea for when it spans two MOPs... it requires connecting the MOPs.

Connecting them, rather than just sliding them up against each other, is annoying. The game plays just fine even when they are not connected. The resulting gap(s) is minimal.

MOPs like this seem like they'd be fun for heat of battle formats!