Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

Inverse Icarus · August 11, 2003, 00:50

forget about the spherical map discussion for right now, and the rammifications it has upon your decision, i'd like a purely aesthetic answer here

also, don't stand on your soapbox about a tileless system. now is not the time.

which do you find more visually pleasing for tiles? squares? hexagons? octagons? other?

you can assume they'll be isometric (ie, a square in civ2/3) to enable a fake 3d effect.

Frozzy · August 11, 2003, 02:41

Octagons don't work.

geeslaka · August 11, 2003, 04:28

Not only do octagons not tile, but they don't look good if you try to make them isometric.
If the tiles are isometric, then hexagons look more natural than squares.

hexagonian · August 11, 2003, 11:26

IMO, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves the clear superiority of hexes over square tiles. Squares actually provide a more accurate reflection of directional movement (8 tile choices, as opposed to 6 for hexes) - although hexes provide a more accurate indication of distance movement. But since maps are generally large in civ games, this reflection of distance movement is very minor - and since the AI is tied into the same rules of movement, there is no strategic gain.

It still amazes me how worked up people get on this issue because it does not affect gameplay all that much. It ultimately boils down to aesthetics.

I like squares because the world is divided by latitude/longitude, and I'd rather have the more accurate directional movement element.

geeslaka · August 11, 2003, 11:53

What you see as squares are actually octagons. If hexagons were treated the way squares are, they would allow 12 directions of movement.

hexagonian · August 11, 2003, 12:32

No you cannot treat hexagons as squares because there are no corners touching on a hex-grid map

geeslaka · August 11, 2003, 12:44

What I meant is that when you use octagons and display them as squares, some paths take one move when they could also take two moves. If you use dodecagons and display them as hexagons, you can move along the edges, thus allowing 12 directions.

Inverse Icarus · August 11, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by geeslaka
What I meant is that when you use octagons and display them as squares, some paths take one move when they could also take two moves. If you use dodecagons and display them as hexagons, you can move along the edges, thus allowing 12 directions.

i can see the mathematical backing for that, but wouldn't that just appear to be teleporting when looking at the game board itself?

Leland · August 11, 2003, 14:29

You could have an octagonal tiling in non-euclidean space!

geeslaka · August 11, 2003, 21:08

Quote:

i can see the mathematical backing for that, but wouldn't that just appear to be teleporting when looking at the game board itself?

If the movement from one space to the next is spread across three or four frames it doesn't look like teleporting.

Vince278 · August 13, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Leland
You could have an octagonal tiling in non-euclidean space!

Its good to see another non-euclidean fan.

With the choices above, I'm still a hex believer.

Inverse Icarus · August 13, 2003, 00:53

i still don't see how hexes would work, athestically anyway. in hex's image above:

if you moved up, you would follow the straight line going up until you hit the tile?

i mean, i can see how that would work, but it really doesnt give the impression that two units are next to eachother.

Vince278 · August 13, 2003, 05:39

Hex movement is more accurate. When you go diagonal with squares you are moving at a speed of 1.414 relative to going up, down, or across.

Leland · August 13, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278
Hex movement is more accurate. When you go diagonal with squares you are moving at a speed of 1.414 relative to going up, down, or across.

Well, this can be partially fixed by just assigning a larger movement cost to diagonals, like c-evo does. If there are enough movement points so that the remaining fractions are relatively small, squares+diagonals are actually more accurate than hexes. That is to say, "circles" in that space tend to be approximately octagons, whereas in a hex-map they'd be hexagons.

LDiCesare · August 13, 2003, 16:50

I prefer hexes because I find hex maps prettier than square maps.
Definitely, square maps need a 1.414 diagonal factor. Once you put it in, it's quite the same from a gameplay perspective.
I don't like the pseudo 2D isometric projection much, too, because I always found that the directions are hard to fing out. Hexes don't require an arbitrary 45° turn to give an idea of perspective.

geeslaka · August 13, 2003, 19:38

It isn't just a 45° turn, the parallelograms are also flattened a bit.

Trifna · August 18, 2003, 20:59

I prefer by far circles.

Otherwise, ANY of them that can form a spherical map.

Vince278 · August 20, 2003, 00:37

I must admit it took me awhile to get used to the isometric POV when I went from Civ1 to Civ2. I'd still like to see a hex-based Civ.

LDiCesare · August 20, 2003, 04:36

Quote:

It isn't just a 45° turn, the parallelograms are also flattened a bit.

Yes, but the problem to me is that the most intuitive directions (up, down, left, right) are tied to a single pixel (the top, left etc. border of the diamond). This makes it very very hard to find out directions when you start with the games. Hexes or horizontal/vertical squares are much easier to see the directions.

Leland · August 20, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
I prefer by far circles.

Care to explain what you mean by that?

If a triangle has three neighbours, a rectangle has four neighbours, a pentagon has five neighbours, a hexagon has six neighbours, etc. ... how many neighbours does a circular tile have? An infinite number? Or, taking into account the limits of computing power, "only" whatever number of tiles the map happens to have?

Trifna · August 24, 2003, 17:02

No

Well it's... circles. With any other geometric figure, you can pass from a one of the side to the side of the next geometric figure. Same with a circle: circle have an infinite number of side, thus it is vectorial movements. [I'm not even sure it would work, and perhaps it would just be more complicated for the player...].

Seriously, having six sides is enough for me. The only think I'd like would be to see a SPHERIC map. This would truly bring something (strategy, fun, geopolitic by north-south contacts...). I know a game called Populous that I heard was a spheric RTS.

LDiCesare · August 24, 2003, 17:26

Populous wasn't really spherical. As for it being, RTS, yes, but it really didn't look like current-day RTS. It was strategy, and yes it was real time, but it was no click fest (you didn't move your citizens one by one). Great game.
Note a spherical map causes problems with the paving. You can pave a sphere with triangles (icosaedron) or hexagons with a few pentagons put in here and there, but it's not really straightforward.

Dale · August 24, 2003, 19:22

It all depends what sort of game you want. If you want free-movement, like RTS games, then I would just go for the simplicity of squares. Also it's easier to keep track of where in a square a unit is (a simple x, y). I believe a hexagon map works well with war games, when you need different facings, the distances from centre of one tile to the next is always the same (for munition distances), etc etc.

After I finish my current project, I'm going to work on an idea for a map engine (tile-based) where it's squares in squares. So for each map tile, you might have 9 squares inside it. This would mean 9 different locations for your unit/building in each map square. Now that's versatile.

Inverse Icarus · August 25, 2003, 00:13

it's not so much versatile, it's simply making any given map 9 times as big.

unless, of course, only 1 unit could occupy a "major tile" at a time.

LDiCesare · August 25, 2003, 18:45

In Clash, a task force that is moving through a square keeps a counter of where in the square it is, without needing an inner layer.
I miss the point of the inner grid. You can provide facing, inner position for very cheap (2 floats for position, 1 for facing), yielding to an infinity of positions inside the square. That's even more versatile, and not more expensive.

VetLegion · August 27, 2003, 15:03

Squares with a top down view for me, isometric view does not bring that much into the game. And for when I am not that conservative, tileless world.

Spiffor · August 28, 2003, 10:31

My first reaction would be to answer "square" because I love the simplicity it implies. However, after having played Fallout and its hex-based system, hexagons aren't any more difficult to manage. Besides, they solve the diagonal problem squares have, and they allow for a better connectivity in a spherical map.

Vince278 · August 30, 2003, 01:30

My previous points exactly.

Urban Ranger · August 31, 2003, 22:06

If you look at a football (not a handmelon

), you will notice that you need some pentagons also to cover there surface of a sphere with hexagons.

Ultimately, you can't go with a tile/grid-less system, because that would require infinite resources and resolution, which you don't have.

Skanky Burns · September 1, 2003, 09:33

From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I like hexagons better. Up to six road-lines per tile rather than 8 make the map much simpler and prettier after I have roaded the entire land area.

I also found it ironic that Hexagonian preferred squares.