Squares, Hexes, Octagons... - Page 5

sabrewolf · May 17, 2004, 03:52

do get me wrong... i strongly dislike the mouse for civ and only use it when i don't know the shortcuts, select a unit, or want to see how long it takes until a worker finishes.

but i'm sure many people DO rely on the mouse for most of the game

Skanky Burns · May 17, 2004, 05:29

Which is all well and good, but square-type doesn't really affect people using the mouse. Its really an issue where keyboard movement is concerned, and there hexes are clearly superior.

Rasputin · May 17, 2004, 05:33

as an old board war gamer i do prefer the hexes......

Max Sinister · May 17, 2004, 08:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Leland
Not quite regular. In a geodesic sphere for example the triangles are only approximately regular (i.e. every angle is not exactly 60 degrees). On the other hand, dodecahedron for example consists of "non-distorted" regular triangles.

Nitpick (geometry):
1. Yes, triangles on a sphere have angles bigger than 60 degrees, but it also depends upon the size of them: A triangle covering one eighth of the surface would have 90 degree angles, but if we have a sphere covered with several thousand or even ten thousand triangles, the difference wouldn't be noticable.
2. Don't you mean icosahedron? I think a dodecahedron has twelve pentagons, an icosahedron has 20 triangles as its sides.

Leland · May 18, 2004, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Max Sinister
Nitpick (geometry):
1. Yes, triangles on a sphere have angles bigger than 60 degrees, but it also depends upon the size of them: A triangle covering one eighth of the surface would have 90 degree angles, but if we have a sphere covered with several thousand or even ten thousand triangles, the difference wouldn't be noticable.

Ah, but you have the pentagons (or the points around which you have only five triangles instead of six) to mess things up. The tiles next to the pentagons will always be distorted noticeably and you can't get away with this. The tiles farthest away from the pentagons (i.e. the tiles that are in the center of the hexagonal sides of the "soccer ball") will be more or less regular.

The difference between adjacent tiles might not be big enough to be an annoyance to the player (in fact I would love to see a game attempt a map like this), but nevertheless it would make map geometry complex enough to warrant a 3d or a vector based graphics engine.

Quote:

2. Don't you mean icosahedron? I think a dodecahedron has twelve pentagons, an icosahedron has 20 triangles as its sides.

I stand corrected.

Shogun Gunner · May 18, 2004, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
as an old board war gamer i do prefer the hexes......

here, here! I love the 'ole war games!

I seem to failing this Geometry 101 in the thread.

Vince278 · May 19, 2004, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Leland
Not quite regular. In a geodesic sphere for example the triangles are only approximately regular (i.e. every angle is not exactly 60 degrees). On the other hand, dodecahedron for example consists of "non-distorted" regular triangles.

Its possible to have equilateral triangles whose angles are greater than 180 degrees. I realize this is non-euclidean but its the only way to get triangles to work on the surface of a sphere.

(SG - Hows that for Geometry 101?

)

sabrewolf · May 19, 2004, 05:21

spherical geometry makes everything a bit more complicated than "simple" 2D-geometry

but it partially explains things like why pilots fly transatlantic routes by flying over nova scotia (icy big icy canadian island). (the other reason is global winds)

Shogun Gunner · May 19, 2004, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278

(SG - Hows that for Geometry 101?

)

I think I'll start a thread about how Calculus can be applied to Civ.

Seriously, this is an interesting thread. I hope someone from Firaxis is reading this.

Leland · May 19, 2004, 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278

Its possible to have equilateral triangles whose angles are greater than 180 degrees. I realize this is non-euclidean but its the only way to get triangles to work on the surface of a sphere.

True, but the point was not to draw triangles on spheres, but rather how to approximate a sphere with triangles (or penta-/hexagons which can always be thought of as consisting of triangles).

With non-euclidean geometries we could have heptagonal maps and other neat things though...

Vince278 · May 19, 2004, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Seriously, this is an interesting thread. I hope someone from Firaxis is reading this.

I agree, I hope they are watching too. There are alot of interesting thoughts here.
(Thanks for the interesting use of my favorite smilie:

)

Vince278 · May 20, 2004, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Leland
With non-euclidean geometries we could have heptagonal maps and other neat things though...

Heptagonal maps? Not sure how you're going to pull that one off without the world looking like Cthulhu's R'lyeh.

How about something like duodecahedral mapping? You'd have to be able to visualize objects in the fourth dimension use fully utilize that.

(In other words, we typically use a two dimensional object (a map) to represent a three dimensional object (a world). This is just using a three dimensional object to represent a fourth dimensional object. I wouldn't recommend this for Civ or anything else unless we are trying to model the universe.

)

sabrewolf · May 20, 2004, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278
I agree, I hope they are watching too. There are alot of interesting thoughts here.
(Thanks for the interesting use of my favorite smilie:

)

even if they are looking, CivIV is fully in production, so whatever has been decided (probably civ3-like squares anyway) is now fixed

Vince278 · May 20, 2004, 05:46

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
even if they are looking, CivIV is fully in production, so whatever has been decided (probably civ3-like squares anyway) is now fixed

Too early to start a thread for Civ V?

sabrewolf · May 20, 2004, 06:32

Flinx · May 20, 2004, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Leland
Not quite regular. In a geodesic sphere for example the triangles are only approximately regular (i.e. every angle is not exactly 60 degrees). On the other hand, dodecahedron for example consists of "non-distorted" regular triangles.

You are wrong, sorry. A ball like shape can be made with regular hexagons and 12 regular pentagons.

Max Sinister · May 21, 2004, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
even if they are looking, CivIV is fully in production, so whatever has been decided (probably civ3-like squares anyway) is now fixed

I don't know what they decided, but... maybe they'll make an isometric 3D world like in Sim City 2000? Which you can rotate, too?

sabrewolf · May 21, 2004, 08:23

the worst firaxis could do, would be to incorporate 3D-stuff (except a slightly different angle of view).
3D killed games like prince of persia, railroad tycoon, etc.

turn-based games are best and easiest to cope with, on tile-based games, no matter if hexagonal, square, diamond or whatever

Shogun Gunner · May 21, 2004, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278

Too early to start a thread for Civ V?

You will have to wait for me to start a BUG REPORT THREAD and CIV IV PATCH THREAD for Civ IV.

DrGerry · June 4, 2004, 18:31

I really haven't read every post

but I want to post a pic taked from the spanish forum, I think it's from freeciv. I've voted hexa.

sabrewolf · June 4, 2004, 19:45

yeah, i once read that someone developed a hex style board for freeciv. but the problem was that east-west movement was still possible. you just "jumped" to the left or right field.

but ah... this wonderful hex maps :dream:

Vince278 · June 5, 2004, 00:05

Nice example. Improve the graphics and it will work for Civ. You can still do E-W movement with the "zig-zag". Hopping would be cheating if you count the actual distance covered.

Tassadar500 · June 5, 2004, 01:46

Lets stick with squares!

Skanky Burns · June 6, 2004, 08:29

Hex is better.

Vince278 · June 7, 2004, 21:02

Until they dare to do vector movement count me in as a hexy kind of guy.

Manolo · June 9, 2004, 03:00

I think Hexagons is better

Addled Platypus · June 11, 2004, 15:12

For squares

by a square

as stated prior all other civ games are squares

let the tradition live

Vince278 · June 12, 2004, 00:43

Lets give Hex-Civ a chance! (to paraphrase Lennon

)

Wernazuma III · June 12, 2004, 02:57

I'm also favoring hexes, it makes the gameplay a tad more strategic.

Xorbon · June 12, 2004, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
For squares

by a square

as stated prior all other civ games are squares

let the tradition live

'Tradition' only counts when you've got two otherwise equal options, such as having a Mars Colony victory condition vs. an Alpha Centauri Colony victory condition. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. However, hexes would likely improve gameplay over squares. So...

GO HEXES!