I thought I had posted this a long time ago, but I don’t see it. So here it is.

Rather than create all sorts of “child maps” for various areas or detailing specific hexes, I’ve adopted a short-hand method of noting where within a hex something is located:

Subhexes

Subhexes within a Hex

So if the bandit camp is in a cave in the northeastern part of hex 1079, I simply note the location as 1079G. This keeps things simple while allowing a greater level of detail when needed.

Of course, there will be times when a full-blown detail map is needed. And times when the exact location within a specific hex isn’t important. But when the precise location matters but a new map isn’t necessary, this can do the trick.

I don’t recall if I saw this particular method somewhere or if I made it up. I do know that I’ve varied the layout of the letters over the years, meaning that subhex G isn’t always the northeastern one. Which drives me nuts once in a while.

Note to players: No, the bandit camp is NOT in 1079G. Well, PROBABLY NOT.

9 Comments to “Subhexes”

  1. The Bane says:

    Nice. Consider this filched! I think I might take it one step further since I am using Hexographer and there is a 1079 hex on every map (or could be), and put a scale on the end of the code: 1079G5, for sub hex G of hex #1079 on the 5 mile hex map. So, the number is the scale of the parent map, not the child, where in this example G would be a 1 mile hex…

    Ok, Confusing my self now, time for coffee!

    Best,
    TB

  2. -C says:

    I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve looked for a post I know I’ve written, only to discover that in fact, I have not.

  3. Timeshadows says:

    I used that in the Referee’s Manual in the Urutsk Beta, but I statted them as:

    N, NE, SE, S, SW, NW as sub-zones, and the Hex itself as the Primary Terrain-type.

    Looking at yours, I’d say that there are actually eight subs in there, when you take into account the six corners totalling a ‘pervasive’ or ‘Hex-centric’ Terrain-type.

    Nice illo. 😀

    • Kilgore says:

      Yeah, I ignore those “corner” areas for this. I figure if something just HAS to be in one of those spots, I will probably need an actual full blown sub-map anyway.

      Now that I’m thinking about it, maybe ditching the letter and just going 1079-SE or 1079-N might be a bit more intuitive. It certainly would alleviate the situations where I discover that subhex G meant southwest on something I wrote years ago but is now northeast…

      • Timeshadows says:

        Both methods can be mis-interpreted, so it really is just a matter of taste.

        If a hex-face isn’t actually oriented to North, then my method gets wonky. With yours, remembering the order can get a bit tricky.
        –Shrug.

        It’s all good. 😀

  4. netherwerks says:

    This is an interesting approach. It would simplify things nicely. Maybe adopting the compass directions instead of the ABCs would be more useful–and let you cover the corners a bit as well…

  5. […] previously noted a simple method I’ve used for quite a while to note the location of something within a hex when a detail map isn’t really needed. I’ve always used the 3-subhex-across approach I […]