Squares, Hexes, Octagons... - Page 2

Asmodean · September 1, 2003, 12:51

I must say that I don't like the look´of hexes. They look plain ugly to me.

For me, squares is the lesser of two evils. My main objection against them is the fact that diagonal moves look to give far greater distance than vertical/horizontal moves. But I would still much rather pla on a square map, than on a hex map.

Oh...and the notion of moving diagonally on a hex map is one that I've never heard before. Could make for a fun game. One could easily make a mistake, in thinking that two units are not adjacent, when they actually are. The practicality of it is, I fear low, though.

Asmodean

Vince278 · September 2, 2003, 09:51

Hexes make perfectly good sense if you were raised on board wargames like me. The only board wargame I can recall that actually uses squares is Tactics II (Avalon Hill). It is one of their oldest games and it is very ugly.

sabrewolf · September 28, 2003, 08:03

i always liked hexagons most.

- distances are the same in all directions (with squares, left/right/up/down are "nearer" than diagonals... a factor SQR(2))

- it looks nicer

- reminds me of "history line: 1914-1918", my favorite turn based strategy WARgame (of course nothing beats the civilization suite

)

unfortunatly, all graphics would have to be done new. ok, the 3D meshes probably exist, so they'd just need to render the units in 4 new angles (and remove 6 other), but still.

btw, terrain graphics would get easier, because you don't have to have to have 256 (2^8) combinations just for two different terrain types... it would only be 64 (2^6)

Brent · October 2, 2003, 23:03

It would have only seemed fitting if Civ3 had been hexagons. this part of the game changed fron Civ1 to Civ2, so why not from Civ2 to Civ3?!

Another idea would be irregular shapes, like Risk but much smaller. Just make sure each adjacent space is easily discerned as one of the eight compass directions, but there could be fewer than eight adjacent spaces. Would this confuse the AI?

sabrewolf · October 3, 2003, 06:26

small irregular tiles? that would be the horror for any programmer. and the graphics wouldn't be easy either (making irregular pieces fit, that is)

Ecthy · October 4, 2003, 06:41

Squares are quite good, just not very realistic.

Hexagens are better at that, but you can only move in straight lines into 6 directions, so there's no chance to go straight north if you can go straight east.

octagens are better at this, but harder to arrange. they can be supreme with proer extra squares in between

Fosse · December 17, 2003, 21:15

I had to vote other, but I'll respect Uber Krux's to not go on about certain... other map philosophies!

Of the above aesthetic choices... hexes are the most appealing to me.

Vince278 · December 18, 2003, 04:35

I'd still like to see a hex-based Civ...

sabrewolf · December 18, 2003, 07:05

hex-tiles!
yep... more natural form. and you can make nicer maps

Urban Ranger · December 18, 2003, 12:34

You can't use octagonal tiles anyway.

Of course, there is always the triangle.

Shogun Gunner · December 18, 2003, 23:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278
Hexes make perfectly good sense if you were raised on board wargames like me. The only board wargame I can recall that actually uses squares is Tactics II (Avalon Hill). It is one of their oldest games and it is very ugly.

Right on. Tank units with an attack 2 and infantry with an attack 1. And what about that map????? Wow, that's a flashback.

I voted hexagon, with two hesitations.

1. I don't want the designers to spend money on this over other items. Perhaps they can use a slightly different projection of the map to minimize the diagonal distance issue.

2. Using the numeric keypad on my keyboard is finished if hexes are introduced. I make enough mistakes moving units with squares!

MxM · December 19, 2003, 01:11

I would try something new, like continues movement (or as someone said circles).

But here is another idea:
Each square can be divided by 3 sub squares in single dimension (9 total). Thus unit can be either in the center of the square, or close to the border. The movements of the units can be still measured in original squares. But now unit with movement 1 will have to choose to which sub-tile it moves, thus making it more like a circle. In below figure the thick lines are the original CIV tile borders, the thin lines are borders of sub-tiles, the dot is the unit with movement 1, and the green tiles is where it can move. The rules of engagement, probably needs to be modified too.

Of cause number 3 is chosen arbitrary. It could be 2 or 4 or whatever.

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2004, 11:33

I would like a much larger map made of hexes and roading not allowed in every hex so that it will actually look like it is supposed to.

Oncle Boris · February 6, 2004, 18:22

None of them has a definite gameplay advantage, but it's true I like the look of hexes.

lajzar · February 7, 2004, 22:52

I vote for squares as in the current model. Why?

Octogons don't work, unless you add in filler squares. Squares with diagonal movement have the same effect anyway.

Hexes provide constant distance, but squares provide intrinsically meaningful compass directions. The extra distance for diagonals be be handled by giving an extra movement cost (x1.5 was used in Lords of Midnight).

Squares have two big advantages. Everyone who has ever played civ is already familiar with how they work, so no new learning curve. The other great advantage is that the programmers are also intrinsically familiar with how they work, so there is little danger of bugs appearing as a result of doing this change. Using squares also means you can keep using the number pad for movement.

Basically, hexes are kinda nice, but the benefits are small, there are definite disadvantages, and there is other stuff that is genuinely broken that could be worked on instead.

Xorbon · February 10, 2004, 23:45

What I'd really like to see is a tileless system, but I doubt we'll see that in the near future (maybe in Civ 13?

).

I think hexes are the best option for Civ 4. Distance calculations would be simpler. And hexes would reduce the number of graphics needed for terrains and units. The only problem (IMO) is that you'd have to take away either vertical or horizontal movement.

Kuciwalker · February 11, 2004, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Asmodean
I must say that I don't like the look´of hexes. They look plain ugly to me.

Agathon · February 13, 2004, 23:24

Hexes make for more realistic movement and more realistic battle lines of the WWI type. I use these all the time and you have to use far more units to fortify a crooked line of squares than hexes.

Kuciwalker · February 14, 2004, 01:55

But they're ugly.

Agathon · February 14, 2004, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
But they're ugly.

No they aren't. A more rounded shape makes for more realistic looking terrain.

Agathon · February 14, 2004, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Xorbon

The only problem (IMO) is that you'd have to take away either vertical or horizontal movement.

Not really, since you can move directly in a horizontal manner by moving two squares.

Xorbon · February 16, 2004, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Quote:

Originally posted by Xorbon
The only problem (IMO) is that you'd have to take away either vertical or horizontal movement.

Not really, since you can move directly in a horizontal manner by moving two squares.

Yes, but you'd have to use two different keys for such movement. Right now, you can use just one key. But hey, I don't see it as a major problem. I mostly use the 'goto' command if I'm moving a unit more than a few tiles anyway.

Kuciwalker · February 16, 2004, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

No they aren't. A more rounded shape makes for more realistic looking terrain.

Yes, they are

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 01:12

As someone else said, all the Avalon Hill games used hexes and those looked just lovely. A river following a hex border would look so much more realistic.

As for movement - people should use the mouse. I'm surprised that the interface list has not been more heavily posted in. The Civ 3 interface is a disgrace and does not make nearly enough use of contextual menus.

Optimizer · February 17, 2004, 05:48

There is another option - region-based maps like in Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron. But will you then be bound to play on Earth, or can a computer generate such maps?

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
There is another option - region-based maps like in Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron. But will you then be bound to play on Earth, or can a computer generate such maps?

I don't like this idea for civ, which has always been a chesslike game for me. The tile system is a must.

Kuciwalker · February 17, 2004, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
As someone else said, all the Avalon Hill games used hexes and those looked just lovely. A river following a hex border would look so much more realistic.

As for movement - people should use the mouse. I'm surprised that the interface list has not been more heavily posted in. The Civ 3 interface is a disgrace and does not make nearly enough use of contextual menus.

I almost ALWAYS use the mouse, because I like C3's pathing system.

Fosse · February 18, 2004, 02:33

I use the keys to move units, unless I'm sending them agreat distance. But hexes wouldn't make this a problem.

Just use 7,8,9,1,2,3 on the keypad for movement.

Shogun Gunner · February 19, 2004, 08:18

Since I bought a new mouse (Logitech wireless/RF/optical), I find myself using the mouse more and more. I do the pathing thing also because sometimes I only want my units moving to their one turn limit -- especially in PBEM games.

GePap · February 19, 2004, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
There is another option - region-based maps like in Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron. But will you then be bound to play on Earth, or can a computer generate such maps?

As you point out, region based maps work when you have a known map laid out- you can not use them really to generate maps with such a system.