Skip Navigation

Why do modern strategy games hate the grid?

OK, I finally took the plunge on Baldur's Gate 3, and, coming from playing several hundreds of hours of Solasta recently, the first thing I noticed is the lack of a combat grid.

Going back a bit further, my son and I spent a ridiculous amount of time playing Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. We were super pumped for the sequel, but when it finally came out, it kind of fell flat for both of us. Whether or not it's down to this, I don't know, but they also removed the grid.

That game, of course, was an XCom-like. XCom used a grid, but a more recent Firaxis game, Marvel's Midnight Suns, got rid of the grid as well.

To me, all these gridless iterations of classic strategy games just aren't as engaging. I guess they're going for a more immersive rpg type of feel? But to me it seems to sacrifice the strategy aspect, and ultimately, judging based on my hours played, that always ends up being too great a sacrifice. My play time on Marvel's Midnight Suns is less than 10% of Xcom 2, and the same is true for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope.

I'm sure BG3 is a great game, and I'm sure I'll enjoy the campaign, but so far it's not giving me the 'feels'.

Do you miss grids? Or did they only slow you down?

67 comments
  • Grids aren't needed to get the same effect in a computer game. Also, when speaking about video games specifically, "grid based" combat has a bit of technical differences that you don't necessarily want or need in a strategy game. It affects positioning and animations. It makes diagonal movement and height changes awkward. It makes sense when playing PnP and helping to visualize and handle rules. But when a computer is doing all that in the background, having the freedom of movement and the visuals match a more realistic way of traversing terrain is better.

    I don't really like grid-based movement in video games. It always feels weirder. It always shows how absurd some rules based on positioning are. It just sucks vs the more fluid style like BG3 has. Like, I love me some XCom, but I've played knock-offs that don't use grids, and they feel way better.

  • It's not the lack of a grid specifically that bothers me in BG3, it's that there are a lot of scenarios where in tabletop an enemy would be ruled to have cover, but in BG3 the shot is simply obstructed and your character needs to move before they can take it.

    Also sometimes the automatic positioning for melee attacks is bad and will tell you that you can't reach, but if you click to move and then click to attack you actually can.

    Also the fact that AoE spells target the ground specifically instead of an arbitrary point in space, which means in some areas you get weird situations where the enemies are close enough together to fireball all of them but you can't do it from your location because the spot where you need to place the fireball is in a slight depression that you can't see into from where you are.

    Also there is some weirdness about casting AoEs through doorways, where even if you can see someone that doesn't mean you can fireball them because it's treating the fireball "projectile" as being wider than I would expect, so that it can only go through at certain angles.

    I do think a grid system would be less likely to have these issues, but they could be fixed without it.

  • Oh I mean I never thought of it. I kinda like a grid. But I think that a grid would severely limit bg3

  • I'm currently in two different D&D campaigns. One plays combats on the regular 5ft grid, the other is "theatre of mind" where where everything is just described. Both are fine, I don't really feel like I lose anything with either method, it's just two different abstractions for the same ideas.

    Larian's previous game, Divinity Original Sin: 2, was still highly tactical despite its lack of grid-based positioning or targeting. The game used its mechanics of skills, freer movement, and surfaces/clouds to really shake up each battle and make them unique. Each combat was like a little puzzle. For me, who usually bounces off the likes of XCOM, it was absolutely brilliant. BG3 is much the same, just with a different ruleset (and I'm glad I was familiar with it beforehand. It must be daunting to be thrown into 5e without having a book thrown at you).


    Being a nerd now, there is actually a grid in these games, but it's only used for navmeshes and the surfaces. The game doesn't expose either of these to you in-game. Visually, the edges of surfaces are messy and extend/retract from where they technically are according to the engine. I suppose you can kind of see the navmesh grid by clicking all around the edges of walkable areas, but other than walking up to edges, the navmesh has little impact on anything else.

  • I like both, frankly. I get going with free positioning in BG3, mostly because that's how it is in both BG1&2 and Divinity OS 1&2, so it'd be a weird change. But also, it makes sense on CRPGs where you're trying to depict very fluid, dynamic "do what you want" situations more than tactical precision.

    I do hate in BG3 when I accidentally step on something or a command to do something places a character on top of a hazard first, but... you know, table top jank captured, I suppose.

    I will say that I'm not sure "immersion" is what the grid triggers for me one way or the other, though. Mostly grid tactical games are about optimization and precision while free roaming is about looser, fluid improvisation. If it's a full-on tactics game I'd prefer a grid for that reason, for narrative RPGs I can go either way.

    I did like Midnight Suns quite a bit, although that's because I'm also a CCG guy and a superhero nerd, so that angle works for me. Weirdly, it was XCOM 2 that didn't quite do it for me compared to the first.

    • BG1&2 weren't turn based, so I don't think it's quite the same thing. I did enjoy both of those games though, in their own right. What's CCG?

      • Hah, yeah, I guess they technically weren't. Could have fooled me, because if you didn't play those by pausing, queuing up every action and then only unpausing until you can queue up the next I don't know how your brain works. BG3 is basically a Divinity sequel, though, and it goes for that same improvised feel where you're supposed to go through the game chucking bags full of rotten fish at enemies instead of engaging with the actual combat rules. I agree that it's a very different feel in both, though.

        CCG is "Collectible card games". I look at Midnight Suns as a card game with some positioning mechanics, more than a tactics game. It makes a lot more sense like that, in terms of the small puzzle-like encounters and the turn optimization and so on.

  • I mean, I don't mind too much the lack of a grid system but I just can't get used to the turn-less combat system of games like "Pillars of Eternity", Tyranny or Pathfinder.

    They are great, though. It's just a nitpick I have.

67 comments