Tapping into the "hidden" grid on a hex board

Hello,

I should have clarified. Virtually every game I have played that uses a hexagon grid and movement mechanics assumes that each hexagon is its own "space," on which units or other things are placed, and movement takes place from one hexagon to another, treating the edges as points of adjacency between these spaces. The specific system that I am planning on using has Units placed on the "corners" between hexagons, with each edge acting like a route between two corners. Thus it functions like a triangle grid, with each corner, or "space," having three connections to other spaces. I've never played any games featuring a triangle grid as a medium for moving units around, so I'm really interested to see how it will affect gameplay. Adding on to that the system of a hexagon board where each hex is a specific terrain type only makes it even more interesting.

@questccg
This is exactly what I'm talking about! I called them "corners" but "intersection" is a more accurate (if longer) term. It's definitely the intersection where I want to put Units.

@X3M
Overcrowding is a worry I have. The reason I have chosen to use a hexagon grid instead of a triangle grid is because of the functionality of hexes in my game. Each hex has a specific "Commodity" on it and a place to put a Worker. During one of the first phases of the round, all players harvest and gain a copy of each Commodity on which they have placed a Worker. There's also a mechanic of settling Cities and replacing these Commodity hexes with hexes containing "Districts" which provide other resources (but still require a Worker). Adjacency plays a large part in how you're allowed to place Districts and Workers. This set of mechanics works better for hexagons because it gives you more options in terms of adjacency.

My main issue came when I tried to add in a "Unit" mechanic on top of the hexagon-Commodity-District-Worker-Placement mechanic. Wherever I placed Units on the hexagons, they would occlude some important information. Plus, with my current "budget," I have to rely on printing and cutting out my own cardboard components, and trying to juggle around so many flat-ish pieces on a single small hexagon would get really fiddly. So my solution is to move Units to the "triangle grid" where each "space" is the intersection of three hexagons and the hexagon edges act like connection points, or "routes," between spaces.

There are still concerns about things becoming overcrowded or fiddly, but since I don't need to include too much information on the hexagons aside from a visual spot for a Worker and an icon or number corresponding to a specific "Commodity" or Resource, I can shrink them down and dramatically increase the gaps between hexagons.

I also think the more restricted movement of the triangle grid works better for war mechanics since it creates more choke points and makes it harder for Units to retreat or maneuver. I've also worked with hexagons for the majority of the games I've developed so triangles are a change of pace.

@terzamossa
Unfortunately, I tried to access the document you linked but was denied. I have sent a request so if you see that please grant me access.

Control is a major problem. My entire idea of "control" is based around Cities and distinct borders where one City ends and another starts. As long as I know which player owns a City, I can have a basic idea of what territory they control.

There are, however, contest areas between Cities that belong to whoever places a Worker there first, or whoever "controls" the hex through use of Military. In terms of determining who "controls" this middle ground, I have two options:

Option 1: Majority adjacency. Whoever has the most Military Units adjacent to a Middle Ground Territory controls it and may place a Worker on it. As soon as one player gains the advantage in adjacent Units the other player must remove their Worker. This system isn't great because a) it takes too much math for what it is and b) ties will come up constantly.

Option 2: Adjacency control. Each Military Unit has the ability to "block" adjacency through all edges adjacent to their space. With this system whichever player places their Worker there first gets immediate control, but if either player uses Military Units to "block" the adjacency between the rest of their City and one of these conflict hexes, that player must remove their Worker. This system is still annoying because you have to be constantly checking for whether you block adjacency between another player's hexes. Perhaps I could make it a purposeful action on the aggressor's part rather than a constant rule.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit :)