Why do modern strategy games hate the grid?
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?
Ultimately, the world is not a grid. So while grids may be great for pure strategy games like XCom (and I really enjoyed XCom, not knocking it at all), I think a lot of people would say that for more story-focused games like RPGs, they break the immersion. Thus, BG3 (which I'm also really enjoying) does not use one. Neither do any of the party-based RPGs that I can think of off the top of my head. For me personally, it depends on the game. I am perfectly happy without one in BG3. But I enjoyed having one for XCom, and more recently for Warhammer 40k Mechanicus. I would offer that as a suggestion if you are looking for a gridded turn-based strategy game.
Warhammer 40k Mechanicus Oh damn, it's -76% off right now on Steam. Yes, I think I will be checking it out, thank you!
Do it.
It’s really is a good game, especially if you’re a 40k fan
Serve the Omnissiah well young adept
I'm really confused as to why everybody's saying BG3 doesn't have a grid. It's not visible, but it's there. BG3 is obviously built around a grid of hexagonal prisms as its basic building block and it shows in everything, including combat and level design. They've done a great job with graphics and animations to make them smooth and make it seem like the grid is not there, but it is.
Of course the ground itself needs some kind of abstraction, there is no actual computing in the real numbers. Thats not the kind of grid OP is talking about though, they mean a grid where a character uses up a single tile.
I find grids helpful when I'm the game master, because they simplify the job of fairly resolving distance and AoE mechanics, and speed the game along. Also in big strategy games, because they allow me to plan ahead on a map with many (often stacked) units without unfair surprises.
I'm enjoying the gridless approach here, though. The computer handles the geometry crunching, there aren't too many actors for me to keep track of, and the freedom of movement lets me play with tactics that would be impossible on a grid.
Worth noting: I don't think D&D has ever required a grid, so it might be inaccurate to say this game has gotten rid of it.
Fair enough. I started with 3.5 and the PHB does have a section on the battle grid, though of course it's never listed as a requirement, only an aid. I think there are certain times the grid really helps the strategy, both in tabletop and video game scenarios. Something as simple as 'I want to block this doorway'. With the grid, it's very obvious which squares need to be occupied. With a GM at the table I suppose you could just say 'I block the doorway'. But, at least so far, every time I've tried to block a doorway in BG3 (limited play time, granted), they've just moved right past me, making me look rather foolish, and usually leading to my early demise.
Bg3 it's not an strategy game, it's and RPG, in fact based in the trrpg rules of d&d 5
Also BG1 and 2, weren't grided, so it's not like they doing it to "modernize" the game.
I really enjoyed all xcoms (from the msdos first games, so many hours wasted with xcom apocalypse...) But also enjoyed al bg (including not MMO Neverwinter, icewind Dale, etc)
Simply, it's not one of these games.
5e rules explicitly refer to spaces on a grid and had to be changed in several ways to work in a gridless setting.
I believe that's officially a variant rule. The system itself works fine without a grid. It can be done completely in the theater of the mind.
The grid is just commonly used because it simplifies movement and positioning greatly.
Right? I only played like a campaign and a half of 5e, but I specifically remember the 5' spaced grids.
The assertion is plain wrong. Some games don't use grid, some do. There is no trend that I can see.
Solasta released an expansion this year and aow4 dropped in April iirc. There certainly are many others.
I do not miss the grid at all, I hate being conformed to grids instead of more fluid real movement. It’s just more immersive to order my troops to move as a real person could move, not slide on a rail and stand there in this open space like a chess piece
Your comment doesn't make sense. There's no relation between a grid and standing out in the open. With free movement, if you order the character to finish their movement in the open, they're going to be out in the open.
And I also don't see the relation between grids and "sliding".
Yeah, I'm pretty sure in X-com there wasn't any sliding? It was all very fluid movement, but you could easily see where you troops could move to.
Jagged Alliance 3 has grid, but the movements are more fluid than I've seen in a while. It's all about polish and execution.
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.
I like that they donnt use the grid. Feels more natural. That being said, I would occasionally like a measurement tool or something so you can see if you're within 5/60 ft or whatever
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.
I play a lot of strategy games and absolutely hate the grid. Always feels super basic and limiting to strategy.
Think it's just a personal taste thing/what you grew up with playing.
Same and I agree.
Don't know why. Because XCOM is full of flexibility. But It's like a feeling like once you see those boxes, it feels like you're playing by their rulebook.
Which is weird because BG3 is literally about rulebooks.
Grids certainly don't slow me down, though they do reduce the spectacle and I suppose lower immersion. They certainly make me more aware that I am playing a game rather than taking actions in a world that actually exists. I'd say this is a feature rather than a bug though as they are often used in games that I want to be handling in that analytic piece moving fashion.
Yea, the games I mentioned are all turn based, so I'm not sure that immersion is really what I'm looking for. I will say that the opening combats in BG3 felt very chaotic, and I guess more immersive, but I also felt like I made a lot of dumb mistakes because I was treating it more like a shooter/hack & slash, rather than thinking my moves through.
Grids definitely make a different type of game. I think BG3 makes sense gridless, but I also enjoy Into the Breach which is very chess-like.
I'vealways seen grids as a way to simplify what is otherwise a challenging mechanic to track and utilize. They function as something of a "good enough" for when you are willing to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. And there's something to be said for the way that simplicity can be appealing to the player, as it get some of the more fiddily mechanics out of the way and frees you up to focus on more substantial or engaging mechanics like character builds and team comps.
So, do I miss then when they're replaced with the more intricate measurement systems that they were designed to simplify? Not really. But I can certainly see why some would feel that way.
Oh I mean I never thought of it. I kinda like a grid. But I think that a grid would severely limit bg3
Even in tabletop rpgs, I advocate for the removal of the grid. I prefer to do combat in the style of tabletop wargames, free movement in any direction, treating each inch of movement as 5 feet (for D&D and Pathfinder).
I just find that a lot more dynamic.
I think your just playing games that don't have a grid. I still play a lot of games with a grid. If you want a strategy game that has a grid, my dad has been playing a lot of jagged alliance 3 and has been saying very positive things about it.
I know I'm late to respond, but I did check out jagged alliance 3,and it looks awesome. Thanks for the recommendation!
They could just make an option to unable/disable it. I like grids :)
I feel like a lot of design decisions downstream are dependent on that choice. You could absolutely lock gridless combat to a grid, but I don't think it'd feel the same.
I'm trying to remember a game that has done that, because I'm pretty sure there's at least one.
@anakin78z Also the DnD Grid kinda break when you put it in an actual 3D world. It work by convention on a TTRPG but the work around to do it are just not really sensible when you step away from the table. Diagonal movement, sphere, angled line,... All of that kinda gets more messy to apply if you are representing a 3D world.
Huh, I'm not sure I agree. It's fairly straightforward to represent any volume as a 3D grid, and depending on how the game system does the math, it's easy to count cells on any diagonal. I think the controls are a bit messy, but Solasta has a totally usable 3D grid for things like flying, and also shows how area effects like spheres or such affect surfaces on different levels.
I've been playing Solasta the past few weeks, great game with a grid system that makes real good use of 3d and height :)
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 prefer grids myself, I've never gotten very far in gridless strategy games I've played (Mario+Rabbids, Valkyria Chronicles) because I just have too hard a time keeping track of what I can do with any given unit when I don't have the grid for reference. That said, I can understand the appeal to some as an immersion enhancement, as others have said, and as something of a "modernization" of turn-based strategy allowing for more freedom of movement. Cool if you enjoy that kind of thing in strategy, but just not my jam. I was raised on Fire Emblem in the genre, lol.
Grids rule, free movement drools
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.
Off topic, how's Solasta? Halfway through my second playthrough of BG3, and looking for another crpg. I'm not new to the genre (played wasteland 2-3, PoE: DF and D2OS previously), but new to DnD.
On topic: I don't know if I need it, honestly. I feel like I would appreciate knowing distances and where exactly my character will stand according to a grid, but I haven't found it to be very necessary.
I friggin love Solasta. Our tabletop D&D game kind of fell apart, and this was the first thing I found that gave me that D&D vibe. My wife liked it right away, too, so this gave us some quality together play time.
The graphics & acting probably don't come close to BG3, but I honestly don't care. The battles are very fun. I think the UI is easier to understand and use than BG3, at least to start. Main actions, bonus actions, spells, etc. are all very clearly marked. Another fun feature is that you can create characters outside of games, and level them up, too. I've spent a good amount of time just making characters, looking for interesting results. At in person games I tend to always play the same kind of character, but being able to explore lots of different classes in an easy way was a big unexpected bonus of the game.
There's also a ton of user created content.
It often goes on sale for $15. Definitely worth checking out.
I'm convinced, getting it tonight and starting it as soon as I finish my dark urge playthrough. Thanks! Kinda wanna give a go to the character I prepared yesterday, a rock gnome bard who hates rich people and dual wields a hammer and sickle. (Ik two weapon fighting sucks in 5e).
I'll say this, of all the DnD-like CRPGs it's the one I hear mentioned the least, and it absolutely deserves to be a lot more visible because it's far from the worst of those.
Solasta is alright. Very "TTRPG in a computer" type stuff, if that's your bag. Not as cinematic or high budget as BG3, but it plays well enough.
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.
You can turn on turn based in pathfinder, I have it set up real time for exploration to for combat
Normies. Normies fear the grid. It reminds them of chess and checkers and snakes and ladders. Games that they suck at.
