Triumph on a Square Grid

[RogerCooper]

I am thinking about playing Triumph on a grid. Each square would correspond to 2 MU. Therefore a standard battlefield would 24 x 16 squares (6 chessboards).

There a number of advantages to this. Movement is greatly simplified on a grid. No worries about alignment or conforming. There is also no worry about basing. All figures in a square are a single unit, so you can just use what you have. A grid also makes it possible to have computer-generated terrain. (I have already done that for a hex grid using Excel). No need for rulers or other measuring devices.

To use a grid, we need to divide the movement allowances of units in half. Round up if the unit is moving straight forward, otherwise round down. Units conducting individual movement may move diagonally forward with the same facing. Rotating a unit 90 degrees takes 1 square of a movement.

For ranged combat we need to round 3MU up to 2 squares.

I will be trying this soon with a friend and we will see how well it works.

[greedo]

Interesting. Quite a number of grid games appearing in the last few years. I would have each square be 1MU so an element straddles 2 squares. That way when they encounter an enemy they can slide left or right if they are not perfectly aligned. The only major disadvantage I see is group wheeling and the way I thought to solve that was with a fudge. For every full 4 MU you move forward, a group may shift 1 MU left or right. This might be too much but it would allow a bit of shuffling prior to contact.

The combat system, pip rolls, morale, and loss tracking wouldn’t change, just some allowances for moving on a grid. Command distance might take a bit of doing..

[Brummbär]

Not my cup of tea...
There is a wonderful "square game" out there. Has peasants, cavalry, nobles etc. Comes often with prepainted and well balanced armies - called chess or so

Don' let my sarcasm stop you - as I said, just not my taste. I like the "free" movement the rules allow and my feeling is that they are good as they are.
Did you ever try "To the Strongest"? has a grid movement system.
Was not bad but often looked more like a board game - especially as the setup of terrain used to match the grid pattern on most tables.

[vodnik]

...Yes, that was my first idea too; chess, but i prefer the Japanese version; shogi. Over rules are good as they are. But the army lists could be more realistic...

[JonathanJ]

I've played a few different games based on square or hex grids and had a lot of fun. Having said that, I don't think Triumph! will work well that way.

A lot of depth is added to the game by the variations in unit movement rates. These variations are baked into a lot of the game's mechanics and contribute a lot to the overall experience. Unfortunately, these variations are almost impossible to represent in a square or hex based game.

You'd probably have better luck with the current version of DBA, since all movement is based on full base widths. Just speaking for myself, I prefer the depth of Triumph!.

[JonathanJ]

...Yes, that was my first idea too; chess, but i prefer the Japanese version; shogi. Over rules are good as they are. But the army lists could be more realistic...

I agree with you about the shogi army lists. They're too abstract for the historian in me and too realistic for me to ignore them completely. For goodness sake, pick one: realism or abstraction!

That's why my grid based game of choice is Go. Those people understand abstraction!

[greedo]

To The Strongest is a great game. Although of the great things about Triumph (and DBx in general) is that degradation of the battle line is taken care with the elements backing up, evading etc. no chits required. Chits always irritated me which is one of the reasons why I love Triumph so much.

I would respectfully disagree with the above comments. I think this game would work fine with a grid, but there will be some nuances lost (such as catching an enemy with a zoc to slow them down) which just can’t get duplicated with the grid. That said, it’ll mean you can get rid of the movement stick. Turning 90 degrees would also like be 2MUs to execute, so if you only have 1 MU left, you’re out of luck. So like I said some things will be lost but the main part of the game wouldn’t change much I do think.

All that said, I don’t think you really need a grid. There’s not as much geometry as there used to be in games like DBM and because of the overlapping mechanism, battle lines tend to stay linear so you should be fine with the sticks.

[JonathanJ]

I would respectfully disagree with the above comments. I think this game would work fine with a grid, but there will be some nuances lost (such as catching an enemy with a zoc to slow them down) which just can’t get duplicated with the grid...

Don't get me wrong. You could do it and have fun. I just think other games would do better on a grid.

One of the biggest problems would be oblique battle lines and refused flanks. You'd probably have to allow elements to be part of a group if touching at a corner and make a group move legal if each element is touching only the same elements it was touching when the move started and its facing hasn't changed.

Assuming each square is one MU, it should work and be fun. It's just that, as I said, I think other games would work better on a grid...

[greedo]

One of the biggest problems would be oblique battle lines and refused flanks. You'd probably have to allow elements to be part of a group if touching at a corner and make a group move legal if each element is touching only the same elements it was touching when the move started and its facing hasn't changed.

Assuming each square is one MU, it should work and be fun. It's just that, as I said, I think other games would work better on a grid...

’it’s a good point. To The Strongest does a great job with its grid. And there’s another game Strength and Honor that’s coming out soon that uses half base width grids too.