I am looking to start a GURPS game. I also have caught the DM crafting bug. I'd like to use my gridless material, so far used for minis and Savage Worlds, with GURPS. Has anyone used GURPS tactical rules with measured inches instead of hex grids? It seems the Range Ruler will help, but hexes are used a lot for determining shapes of things. Facing can easily be set with two lines on a mini, but what other adaptations are needed?
[RPG] Does GURPS tactical combat work well with miniatures but without a hex grid
battle-mapgurpsgurps-4e
Related Solutions
4th Edition, from experience
When inflicted on a 4e group as part of a curse, it gave everyone a headache and made combats incredibly long.
The hex based map presents incredible difficulties in calculating zones relative to the ease of calculating zones in a square map. Either zones in a hex grid are the same area as a square grid or they are the same approximation of a circle. Both have their difficulties in calculation. I found that with a group experienced in square maps, everyone had to rebuild their standard tactics from the ground up to deal with the different terrain.
On the advantages side, a hexagon approximates a circle far better than a square, and with wire templates, the difficulty in calculating zones will be reduced. It also offers odd cognitive dissonance (as observed) with the squiggly-lines problem: moving "across the grain" of the map will have a character rapidly oscillate between two different rows, annoying some players.
In the question of balance, bursts will generally effect fewer people (close burst 1 has max 6 targets instead of 8) and blasts may or may not effect more people, depending on how you calculate the area of the blast. A hex-diamond-shaped blast will offer a player greater "reach" than the normal game's blast, at the expense of "width" simply by the geometry of the hexes. Changing the definitions of blasts and bursts to be more "realistic" may help the problem, but will introduce non-trivial balance problems in both directions.
My general recommendation is to never inflict a hex grid on a group used to square grids, but it may not be a bad basis for a campaign if everyone wants a hex grid. It's probably more appropriate to use it with a simulationist system though.
3.5 from little experience
While running and playing in some play by post versions of 3.5, we tried using hexes. While 3.5 maps more ably to hexes because it's based on naturalistic geometry, the heuristic for calculating distance is slightly more difficult than "every other diagonal counts as 10 feet. Still, hexes are not a bad choice for 3.5 especially if using house-ruled ideas about facing.
Other tactical games
Fundamentally speaking, if a game is designed for real geometry it will play well with hexes as both squares and hexes can be mapped to circles and feet without too much trouble. A game with high amounts of abstract tactical design "baked in" (4e) will do less well, because much of that tactical design is based around assumptions of a square grid.
My answer will focus on 4e, since it's the current edition, and since it has a higher support in terms of FAQs and general clarifications, because it's somewhat more streamlined/cleaned up, and finally because I stopped engaging with over a decade ago.
Long-Reach PoV
If the Halberdier is in Close Combat (i.e. same hex with the enemy), he needs to step back before attacking. All characters normally are allowed to take a one-hex step before making an Attack and other minimal-mobility combat manoeuvres. He can also use Retreats to get a semi-free step as part of a defence roll (after taking Manoeuvres that don't prohibit Retreats). Finally, as a last resort and a rather advanced-rules option, he can opt to attack at a penalty (see Martial Arts page 69 for this Technique).
If he's attacked while already in Close Combat, then his options involve Dodging, or Retreating with a Parry (or, if he has the traits required to wield a Halberd and a Shield/Buckler/Cloak at the same time, with a Block). There is a certain peculiarity of the order of operations in GURPS, especially as clarified by Martial Arts and Kromm's statements for the FAQ, that mean that a defender is treated as outside Close Combat if he took a Retreat (note: I can't guarantee this worked the same in 3e).
Short-Reach PoV
Now, a warrior with a short weapon deals with a somewhat different situation. If the Halberdier is not taking a Wait, she can just run up to him past his Reach and attack on her own turn - either by using Move and Attack, or All-Out Attack combat manoeuvres. A third option is All-Out Defence (Dodge), which also allows a half-maximum move, forces you to forego your attack until your next manoeuvre, and provides a defence bonus. All three have drawbacks, but typically allow crossing 3-5 hexes for a typical character, which should be enough to go from 'beyond even his range' to 'within even her range' (I'm assuming Reaches of 3 and 1 respectively here).
If he is taking a Wait, then he has the advantage of getting a chance to attack her first before she comes within her sword's Reach. This is the benefit long weapons offer. She may defend against his attack in accordance with the defence permissions of his combat manoeuvre: no defence on All-Out Attacks; a limited defence choice between a Dodge and either a Block or a Parry with the non-attacking arm's weapon on a Move and Attack (Block only if using the Basic Set), defence with benefits if using All-Out Defence (Dodge).
Best Answer
It can be done...
But one caveat, young student! When you tread that road, you turn your beloved RPG in several aspects into a tabletop wargame — if you want to retain most of the rules aspects.
First, you've got to convert your movement in hexes to a movement in inches or centimeters. Easy, just measure the distance between each hex centre. That is the movement scale. Take 1 increment of movement per hex you may take... and then probably round for convenience. Convert likewise all the movement reductions from turning, and moving sideways and backwards into reductions of this reach.
Second, indicate a facing on each miniature: one area on the base that clearly indicates where the "front arc" of the miniature is, then the adjacent areas in a different color as "sides". I tend to like using white, red and green if I need to indicate front, port and starboard (left and right) sides of a miniature, leaving the rear arc black. Also, mark the front centre, as you'll want to have a good point to see if a turn is costing you one or two units of movement. Whenever the rules indicate to check if somebody is in front/back/side of the hex, take a straight line from miniature center to miniature center and check if it passes through the correct area of the base.
Third: Templates. Take all the original rules for templates and make templates for the cones, lines and blasts that are roughly similar sized. You'll have to compromise on the conical ones, but once you do, you get out of the wierdness of the spread hexes cause, where sometimes some firing angles cover more area than others. I suggest using a piece of acrylic, as you can see through it and can gauge the battlefield below through it.
As you are making your templates, you might throw in one for checking how far you've turned. Just your standard arc shaped thing with a few markers for "cut movement by X".
Fourth: Enjoy your "TTG"-style combat. Remember, that players should indicate their path, describing their facing along it to calculate the reach accordingly, but you'll be amazed at how much the added freedom of movement does change the game.