Adapting Pacto to a Grid

[francesco]

Hello everybody,

I am adapting MeG Pacto rules to an Hex Grid (7x11 full tiles on a board 72 x 152 cm) for my family and friends.

Please let me know in case you are interested in or you have already tried a similar variant. See also the discussion on Boardgamegeek (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3124451/adapting-mem-pacto-hex-grid).


Thanks in advance,

Francesco

[lionheartrjc]

Personally, I am not a fan of hex grids for ancient battles, preferring a square grid - but don't let that stop you.  Your grid is also quite small (i.e. not that many hexes across - not the size of the hexes!).  I guess the idea of a grid is to make movement easier - personally I don't have a problem with using measuring sticks.

Here are my suggestions:
A unit occupies a hex.  I have units facing the edge of a hex, not a point.
Move 1 hex for infantry, 2 hexes for cavalry.  Skirmishers get a 60 degree or 180 degree turn for free, others lose 1 hex.
A block can be formed from adjacent units. 
Skirmishing infantry that choose to skirmish only escape a charge if they can interpenetrate a tactical unit in a hex directly adjacent to them in their evade route.  If they roll a 1 they are dispersed.  If running away, they move the 1 hex.
Skirmishing cavalry skirmish 1 hex away, (again roll a 1 and they are dispersed), 2 hexes if running away (no roll).   Missile ranges - adjacent for javelin/slingers, 1 hex gap for bows/powerbows.
Non-skirmishing foot getting a slow result force the opposing infantry unit to play an additional coloured card if it wants to move (a bit like being out of command). 
KaB test for seeing routers is taken by any adjacent friendly unit.

Please refer to it as MeG not MeM.

Richard

[francesco]

Personally, I am not a fan of hex grids for ancient battles, preferring a square grid - but don't let that stop you. 

I decided to opt for a square grid since I realized that is way easier to create than an hex grid (https://russellphillips.uk/joy-of-hex-wargaming-hex-mat/). It also demands less space and allow to fill more efficiently the space with squared group of units.

I initially thought of using an offset square grid but I went back to a traditional square grid (like chess) to more easily identify line of sight (for shooting) and units orientation for charge and melee.

Your grid is also quite small (i.e. not that many hexes across - not the size of the hexes!).

I decided to represent the 45 HBW length x 30 HBW width by using a square grid with each square representing 3 HBW x 3 HBW.

For the deployment length which of the following conversion would you recommend?
a)   Round up: 4 tiles (12 HBW) + 9 tiles (27 HBW) + 3 tiles (12 HBW)
b)   Longer flanks: 4 tiles (12 HBW) + 8 tiles (24 HBW) + 3 tiles (12 HBW)
c)   Longer centre: 3 tiles (9 HBW) + 9 tiles (27 HBW) + 3 tiles (9 HBW)
d)   Round down: 3 tiles (9 HBW) + 8 tiles (24 HBW) + 3 tiles (9 HBW)

I personally opt for (a). I suppose it is better more than less in this case !!

A unit occupies a hex.  I have units facing the edge of a hex, not a point.

I came up to the same conclusion after adapting to an offset square grid. I would allow generals (floating or not) to be with UG in the same square although.

Move 1 hex for infantry, 2 hexes for cavalry.

I initially thought the same, but I decided to maintain the original distances to stay as close as possible to the original balance of the game, as you suggested elsewhere.

I would recommend playing the rules as we have extensively designed and tested them.  You are welcome to change the rules but don't look here for any approval in doing so.

For the sake of simplicity, I am rounding some distances to 3HBW multiples:
a)   Terrains and deployment.
b)   Command ranges: 9 (instead of 8 ) HBW, 12 (instead of 10) HBW and 15 HBW.

For all the other cases I created a system to allow +/- 1/2 HBW variation by modifying the position of the UG inside the square.


Thanks for your suggestions, I found them really useful.

Francesco