Why on earth is Firaxis, Sid and other sticking with squares when the vastly superior hex system exist? Is there a reason for this or just history?

Umm, so people can move units with the number pad?

789
456
123

5 is where the unit is, and the other numbers go with a corresponding direction.

Please use hexagons instead of squares!
No, I prefer squares. I would only add the "2 diagonals = 3 movement points" rule, that's all.

I wish they would, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Umm, so people can move units with the number pad?

789
456
123

5 is where the unit is, and the other numbers go with a corresponding direction.

Remove the 4 and 6 keys from the picture. You have an easy system for moving across hexes.

I also would prefer squares... :)

It would be a drastic change for them to make anyway.

What's so wrong about hexagons? Hexagons would also open up the possibility of truly (well, nearly) round worlds when used with interspaced pentagons. Imagine sheets of hexagons on the triangles of an icosahedron, line of hexagons on the edges and pentagons at the vertexes. It's not perfect, but as an option I think it would still be pretty playable and having a truly round world would be really neat. (I was contemplating this as a good template for civ2 sequel since before I even had heard of civ3.)

You could even just take the normal civ rules and place them on the different map with almost no changes. The only different is that there are two less tiles in the first ring of a city, so the total number of tiles in a city radius add up to 19, not 21. But that's really a tiny change, one I doubt that would need much if any changes in the rules.

Obviously this can't happen in civ3, but it would be a really cool option for an expansion pack or civ4. With the game fully 3D, envisioning the whole globe is feasible now.

Squares are 8 directions to move in and hexagonals are only 6 directions to move in.

So I think squares are better.

Yes but the 8 directions of a square are not equivalent 4 move you farther than the other 4 (there are really only four 'directions' in a large scale square based map)

I've seen many a game that gave a 1.5 cost to going the short way to make them roughly fair. (It would have to be 1.4142135623730950488016887242097... to be correct, but 1.5 is pretty close and easy to implement)

or just 2 for horizontal and vertical and 3 for diagonal.
I would prefer hexagons though. It would be easier to secure borders or create blockades. Game designers would have to decide between if two land tiles are conected and two coast tiles are conected, both by diagonal, which should be passable. All tiles are connected by full borders not cornors.

Good idea, hexagons, but much too late for them, i think...

Squares are 8 directions to move in and hexagonals are only 6 directions to move in.

So I think squares are better.

Pffft. Dodecagons all the way. They're 50% better than squares and 100% better than hexagons!

or just 2 for horizontal and vertical and 3 for diagonal.

Isn't this 1.5 times the cost of 2?

I prefer squares.

More simple to manage units, build cities and improve terrain. Hexagons are... difficult or less predictable for all terrain purposes. Must disagree.

I prefer squares.

More simple to manage units, build cities and improve terrain. Hexagons are... difficult or less predictable for all terrain purposes. Must disagree.

:confused: What's so complicated about hexes?

It impacts not one jot on the use of the keypad.

The only issue is the extra work which would have been required of Firaxis - the impacts on player use would be virtually invisible, whilst impacting with mighty positivity on mapping and global movement.

Do it! :goodjob:

Ya, its the same. I'd think whole numbers are easier to use than decimals.
In that case, 7 for horizontal and vertical and 10 for diagonals.
2 and 3 are only a single integer apart, therefore (according to me) easier.
Of course, you don't have problems with diagonals on Hexagons.
Too late for Civ4, maybe Civ5.

I "grew up" playing hexagon-based games. For Civ, square tiles seem to work fine. In fact, I find them preferable to hexes in this case.

If I'm playing a tactical wargame, give me a hex grid. If I'm playing Civ, give me squares. ;)

Ooo!circles!ooo

Hexagon's would be nice, also damage modifyers by attacking an enemy force by the rear so that positioning is important and by flanking :D Use more advanced tactic's that you can control instead of dice throws

My great wall of tanks and battleship row would be very effective then :D

for plane earth square is the choice , for round earth hexagons can be used instead.
In hexagon tiles, the distance between two tiles that are spaced by one tile will be decreased.

It appears that the path in '1' is longer than the path in '2' , but if somone do the math it can be shown that the path in '1' is 75% the path in '2', (if the box is 1x1 bath1 will be 1.5 and path2 will be 2).

cities would be only 17 tiles in stead of 21.

would that be an issue.

edit: or are the city sizes unlimited in civ4.

17 tiles wouldn't be an issue as long as either citizens required less food or tile produced more. Both are likely because Civ4 is a new game.

And... Path1 is the same distance as Path2, but Path1 has less displacement, 1.5 as you said. I, personally, don't see what it matters.

I like hexagons because the distance between two connected tiles is constant. It is also easier to draw circles (if anybody cares)!

Actually it doesnt matter 1.5 or 2 , I just wanted to put a picture for Hexagons to make it easier to discuss about them.

for plane earth square is the choice , for round earth hexagons can be used instead.


That's not quite true. You cannot approximate a sphere using just hexagons, you have to use hexagons with the occasional pentagon. That's why soccer balls/footballs look the way they do.

Actually yes you need both hexagons and pentagon to cover a sphere. The point is squares cannot be used for that.

Actually yes you need both hexagons and pentagon to cover a sphere. The point is squares cannot be used for that.

So in other words, neither hexes nor squares will lead to an accuratley rendered flat map of a round object, so the hexes won't really be a better representation of a planet than the squares. I say stick to squares for Civ. I'll happily leave hexes to when I pull out my copies of Ogre or GEV.

at least hexagons can be combined with pentagons to cover a sphere , But how can squares alone be used in spehrical maps? also what is the shape that can be combined with squares to do that? lets say triangles are used with squares .. this will not give a smooth spherical object.

You cudn't use both hexs and pents on a map, it'd be so annoying to play on!

How about just Triangles!
Break the pentagons and hexagons into triangles and only allow movement across shared sides not shared cornors.
I think, however, triangles would be most painful to play on. The more sides the better. And remember: you can't tessalate dodecagons.

You cudn't use both hexs and pents on a map, it'd be so annoying to play on!
Not really. It would mean that cities on the pentagon squares have smaller city radiuses of 16 total spaces instead of 19 for hexagons and movement gets a bit screwed up, but I think it would still work pretty well.

There'd be only 12 pentagon tiles on a 100x100 map.
That 0.12 % of all tiles.

There'd be only 12 pentagon tiles on a 100x100 map.
That 0.12 % of all tiles.

It would be a bit of an ugly hack, but the map generator could make those all impassable terrain.

Doesn't matter, it also effects surround hexagons.
And it would be a very ugly hack because the pentagon always appear in the same places, just above and below the equator with equal distances...

It would affect the surrounding hexagons, but it wouldn't have the jarring problems of different tiles having different move possibilities.

Also, realize that those wouldn't have to be the only impassable tiles, nor that impassable means a special type of tile. One could be a single tile mountain, while another is a 3-tile inland sea, another is a long mountain range, etc. You would be able to predict that a specific tile is impassable, but you wouldn't know how it was impassable, nor would you know the shape and size of the impassable area.

Now, seriously, this is really not worth the bother...

Why on earth is Firaxis, Sid and other sticking with squares when the vastly superior hex system exist? Is there a reason for this or just history?

Why is it vastly superior? Except for the fact that you can make better world maps (allthough the Civ3 world maps didn't look too bad) can somebody give me a good example in which hexagons have a noticable impact on gameplay (mind you, noticable)?

If it's only a cosmetic thing, then it sounds nice, although I can imagine that it's hard to get used to if there are no grid lines.

I like hexes better. Movement is represented better, but much more than that, hexes give a more natural look to how terrain is distributed and a much better look to the game, overall. Borders would be a bit jagged, and you wouldn't have, for instance, a big square or rectangular forest land. Coasts would look alot more natural. I would just much prefer hexes, even though I realize it is too late. I'm sure people would really appreciate the look if they saw it & would quickly realize its superiority.

@t0mme - there would still be a grid, of course, it would just be a hex grid.

Here's an example from another game that uses hex to show how you have a grid:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/151/gamedomesticpolicysmall8lz.jpg

I like hexes better. Movement is represented better, but much more than that, hexes give a more natural look to how terrain is distributed and a much better look to the game, overall. Borders would be a bit jagged, and you wouldn't have, for instance, a big square or rectangular forest land. Coasts would look alot more natural. I would just much prefer hexes, even though I realize it is too late. I'm sure people would really appreciate the look if they saw it & would quickly realize its superiority.

So it's a cosmetical thing then as I yet fail to see how movement is better represented. Pleeeeeaaaase enlight me :confused:

Randomness: 20N-Gon's

LoL But with hexagon's you could flank and if they made it so that units can attack from different sides all at once and gain an attack bonus from flanking...

But I don't think this conversation will affect the game since it probably is mostly done and it would be stupid to remake the entire game, we should start suggestions for CIV-5 :D Get an forum for idea's on civ 5.... You know their going to make it

So it's a cosmetical thing then as I yet fail to see how movement is better represented. Pleeeeeaaaase enlight me :confused:


It's both - diagonal movement is screwy on squares because you're actually travelling farther than if you travelled in horizontal or vertical lines (simple Pythagorean theorum tells you why). But with hexes all distances are always equal, no matter which direction you move in. It just happens that it also has better aesthetic qualities, as well.

It's both - diagonal movement is screwy on squares because you're actually travelling farther than if you travelled in horizontal or vertical lines (simple Pythagorean theorum tells you why). But with hexes all distances are always equal, no matter which direction you move in. It just happens that it also has better aesthetic qualities, as well.

Aaah, I'm beginning to see the light, thanks frekk. Sounds good, why stick to the tiles than, other than for tradional sake?

If I understand your question correctly, you want tiles because it makes it really easy to quantize what would otherwise be (effectively) continuous. It's a lot easier to deal with a single, uniformly-sized tile than it is to have to control game play over a continuous range. Does your unit move 420 km per turn or 430 km? Is the city radius 500km or 498km? Does your cultural border extend 120km or 140km? Do opposing armies automatically enter battle when they are within 2km or 3km? Using large, consistently-sized tiles avoids having to think about all that stuff, with little loss to game play.

I care about hexes because they are a relatively decent way to achieve a spherical game board. Besides that, I'm perfectly fine with square tiles.

So the difference between them in terms of gameplay experience is minimal.

The problem that is annoying with hexe, is that there is no 90° angles. So you can go in a direct line on a vertical or horizontal basis (depending on how is the hexe), but you'll zigzag if you try to do the same in the other line. Makes lines strange-looking, particularly weird on roads and railraods.

squares are teh roXXors. hex sux.

Squares are probably easier to code and work with, (both in terms of modding and gameplay), but hexagons give better distance calculations (as far as I can see) and there are two buttons left over on the number pad for scrolling between units.

Does your unit move 420 km per turn or 430 km?


Hardly, the distortion is closer to 40% on diagonal, so its actually - do your units move 420km or 593km (just use Pythagorean theorum). That's a pretty big difference.

The problem that is annoying with hexe, is that there is no 90° angles. So you can go in a direct line on a vertical or horizontal basis (depending on how is the hexe), but you'll zigzag if you try to do the same in the other line. Makes lines strange-looking, particularly weird on roads and railraods.

Not so ... you can go in a direct line in any of the six directions, from the middle of one face of the hex to the middle of the same face in the next hex. It will be a straight line. So you could radiate straight lines out in six directions from a central point, and still follow the grid. That's two less directions than squares, but then again, too many straight lines don't look natural on the map anyway (which is why roads and rails and rivers bend and twist a bit, to look natural).

Now if you try to run a line that doesn't follow the grid, like a road say, it will look funny, but this is true with squares too. Eg, a road running in a straight line that is east-by-northeast could look fine on a hex grid, but it won't follow the square grid very well because it has to be a perfect 45 degree angle to do that.

Finally, it is actually squares that encourage zig-zagging, not hexes. Because of the diagonal distortion, scouts reveal more terrain by always moving on the diagonal, zig-zagging on the diagonal one or two squares as they go and still getting to their destination just as fast as if they had gone there in a straight line (at least, where the destination and departure points are at right angles - if they're already at a diagonal it doesn't matter so much). With hexes, the fastest way from A to B is always in a straight line, and although your scout will reveal more terrain by deviating along his way, it will slow him down to do so.

Hardly, the distortion is closer to 40% on diagonal, so its actually - do your units move 420km or 593km (just use Pythagorean theorum). That's a pretty big difference.

Um, I was answering t0mme's question about why there should be tiles at all.

Oh ya, I forgot. I always go diagonally with my scouts. When I automate them, they don't go diagonally. I can't think of the word. It's a ploy, an easy escape, a bug, 'taking advantage of', a cheat.... What's the word!?!
Actually, squares are easy to work with especially because the compass has been divided into N, S, E, and W; not, N, T, E, S, O, and W.

Oh ya, I forgot. I always go diagonally with my scouts. When I automate them, they don't go diagonally. I can't think of the word. It's a ploy, an easy escape, a bug, 'taking advantage of', a cheat.... What's the word!?!
Actually, squares are easy to work with especially because the compass has been divided into N, S, E, and W; not, N, T, E, S, O, and W.

you mean an exploit?

you mean an exploit?

I wouldn't really call it an exploit, since the AI takes advantage of it too. It's just an ugly solution, that's all.

Actually, squares are easy to work with especially because the compass has been divided into N, S, E, and W; not, N, T, E, S, O, and W.

You use a compass to play civ? :dubious:

Not so ... you can go in a direct line in any of the six directions, from the middle of one face of the hex to the middle of the same face in the next hex. It will be a straight line. So you could radiate straight lines out in six directions from a central point, and still follow the grid. That's two less directions than squares, but then again, too many straight lines don't look natural on the map anyway (which is why roads and rails and rivers bend and twist a bit, to look natural).
So that doesn't contradict what I say, there is no 90° angle in straight line, and you have either horizontal straight line, either vertical. Why did you said "no" ?
Finally, it is actually squares that encourage zig-zagging, not hexes. Because of the diagonal distortion, scouts reveal more terrain by always moving on the diagonal, zig-zagging on the diagonal one or two squares as they go and still getting to their destination just as fast as if they had gone there in a straight line (at least, where the destination and departure points are at right angles - if they're already at a diagonal it doesn't matter so much). With hexes, the fastest way from A to B is always in a straight line, and although your scout will reveal more terrain by deviating along his way, it will slow him down to do so.
I didn't talked about "encouraging zig-zagging", I talked about you WILL zig-zag in case you're trying to make a straight line in a 90° of another.


I still say that a simpler method is to make that diagonal movement cost 1,5 points.

@ Akka : In chess, you don't need 1.5 movement point to move in diagonal with your king. :lol: :lol: :lol: Will you feel more immersed that way ? And BTW, spending just 1.5 movement point per turn is plain silly when you have rounded movement points. And what's more, it shouldn't be 1.5, but sqrt(2) : good luck with this irrational number !

@ frekk : People usually refer to cardinal directions on a map. Do you see the problem ? And in what direction would you put your hexagons ? You basically have 2 solutions.

@ Akka : In chess, you don't need 1.5 movement point to move in diagonal with your king. :lol: :lol: :lol: Will you feel more immersed that way ? And BTW, spending just 1.5 movement point per turn is plain silly when you have rounded movement points. And what's more, it shouldn't be 1.5, but sqrt(2) : good luck with this irrational number !
Chess isn't really dealing with very accurate distances :p

Sqrt(2) is actually 1,4 and something, which can be approxmated to 1,5 with no problem.

And there is absolutely nothing silly with spending partial movement points. How do you think that road movement is managed, genius ? :p

Tsss, disappointing, Chris, disappointing :p

Chess isn't really dealing with very accurate distances :p
Well, it looks like Civ isn't either. :lol: Remember, the world is a cylinder... :scan:

Sqrt(2) is actually 1,4 and something, which can be approxmated to 1,5 with no problem.
I can also approximate it to just 1 with no problem (what they have done so far). :p

And there is absolutely nothing silly with spending partial movement points. How do you think that road movement is managed, genius ? :p
If you think that roads make you spend 0.333333... movement point, then you're wrong. It's another system, like if there were 2 scales of movement points. One for non-road movements, and one for road-movements, the interaction between both being, when you reach 3 on the road scale, you increase 1 on the other one. The least you could do is changing the movement system so that it only gets integers numbers. And it still would be false, at least very far from what an RTS could do in this regard.

Tsss, disappointing, Chris, disappointing :p
:lol:

Hmm...

1) Hexs wouldn't make a nice large sphere. The thing about Footballs and BuckminsterFullerines is that they employ the same number of pentagons and hexagons:


http://www.chem.wisc.edu/~newtrad/CurrRef/BDGTopic/BDGFigs/2_5bucky.GIF

This is a special case. It doesn't work on larger scales, so unless you want to play civ on a very small grid, then you are out of luck.

2) Bear in mind that the movement point system is not meant to be directly proportionate to time. Just think of diagonal movement as slightly faster marching, if you must.

3)1.5 movement points to go diagonally = :vomit: Iv played a game that did this, but not for very long.

4)Tactically, I think hex based games are weeker. I cant really explain why, but squares tend to lead to more strategy

5)Historically, squares have been used more than triangles. eg. American streets, national borders, topology, buildings. Our world is square based, and as such I think Civ should be aswell

And finally, if it aint broke, dont fix it

Truronian. Open 3dStudio max and create icosahedron or whatever it's called and count the pentagons ... it's ALWAYS 12, no matter what the number of hexagons is.

5)Historically, squares have been used more than triangles. eg. American streets, national borders, topology, buildings. Our world is square based, and as such I think Civ should be aswellNote the American streets, the American borders (and artifical african borders) ...
European borders are curlier and resemble fractals more than squares :eek: European cities are perfectly round, as most large cities are built in rings instead of along streets.
And buildings ? What does a building's shape have to do with the tiling ???

@Sonic X

Would it be posible to post a pic of a larger version of the shape? I don't have the required software. I can;t visualize how it works (are there flat planes?).

As for the the squares business, I was just pointing out that humans are conditioned towards squares, thats why they are so prevelant i society. I believe that square civ holds more appeal psychologically.

Incidentaly, did anyone ever play populace the beginning? They somehow had a square grid that wrapped to a sphere.

4)Tactically, I think hex based games are weeker. I cant really explain why, but squares tend to lead to more strategy


If you can't explain why, then you're just some guy making a wild assertion. Besides, I doubt you have the data to reach that conclusion with any degree of confidence.


5)Historically, squares have been used more than triangles. eg. American streets, national borders, topology, buildings. Our world is square based, and as such I think Civ should be aswell

That's not completely wrong, just mostly wrong. Straight lines are the exception. Before the industrial age, there were few straight lines in cities or borders. What mattered was easy of transport, and rivers, roads, and topography shaped that. Buildings are irrelevant because they operate on a completely different scale.

@Sonic X

Would it be posible to post a pic of a larger version of the shape? I don't have the required software. I can;t visualize how it works (are there flat planes?).
This is a 4x triangalized icosahedron and a 18x triangulization of an icosahedron.
I've made the pentagons visible, as you can see, there are 12 in the same place as they are on a soccer ball (or football, whatever)
I think you can see the potential of a highel level of triangulation.
A fitting icosahedron is possible with any triangilization of a pair number (2, 4, 6, ... 142, ...)

I didn't make the hexagons in the 18x one visible though, I ain't got THAT much time. But I think you can see what happens if you take 50x ... the triangles almost flatten out and hexagons appear. ;)

This is a 4x triangalized icosahedron and a 18x triangulization of an icosahedron.
I've made the pentagons visible, as you can see, there are 12 in the same place as they are on a soccer ball (or football, whatever)
I think you can see the potential of a highel level of triangulation.
A fitting icosahedron is possible with any triangilization of a pair number (2, 4, 6, ... 142, ...)

I didn't make the hexagons in the 18x one visible though, I ain't got THAT much time. But I think you can see what happens if you take 50x ... the triangles almost flatten out and hexagons appear. ;)

Thanks, I see how this could work. I still don't like the idea of multiple tile shapes, although if you want to go down the spherical route this would seem to be the way to go.

If you can't explain why, then you're just some guy making a wild assertion. Besides, I doubt you have the data to reach that conclusion with any degree of confidence.


Its not an assertion, its an opinion. An opinion that tends to be shared by many (at least those to whom I talk)

That's not completely wrong, just mostly wrong. Straight lines are the exception. Before the industrial age, there were few straight lines in cities or borders. What mattered was easy of transport, and rivers, roads, and topography shaped that. Buildings are irrelevant because they operate on a completely different scale.

Read post above yours

I don't see any particular reason to favour squares or hexagons, hexagons look cool and represent movement well (but the game is not a simulation, so this is just a nice thing to have) but take perpendicular tangents to any movement and you can't go in a straight line, making your lines of communication a bit odd.

Squares work well enough, they're just a bit boring.

Any system that introduces different tiles (e.g.Octagons + squares) would open a nasty can of strategic issues for cities etc...

PS. I discount arguments as to certain 2D nets convert better into 3D worlds, you only use a 2D net in the game dammit, even if a 'globe' would be very classy. More importantly any 2D net converts to 3D (the angles distort so that your squares no longer have 4 right angles and the sum of their angles is in fact more than 360) the problem is that the 2D object as a whole is a rectangle.

4)Tactically, I think hex based games are weeker. I cant really explain why, but squares tend to lead to more strategy


Really. That's interesting, considering all the meticulously realistic games of the wargame genre (from Avalon Hill boardgames to things like Steel Panthers) are, almost without exception, hex-based.

It's only the abstract, simple games that don't aim for high realism that still use squares.

I take it you've never played anything that looks like this:

http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/5500/russiancampaign2ik.jpg

Hex format has been universally favoured for tactical wargames for, oh, about 30 years now ...

Even the military preferred it until computers got advanced enough they could do away with grids altogether ...

The Difference Between Military & Civilian Wargames
by Michael K. Robel
June 18, 2004

... The U.S. Army recognizes three types of simulations. The first are Constructive Simulations. These are much like typical civilian wargames with a helicopter like view of the battlefield and the older ones actually used hexes to control movement. ...

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004618.asp

Its not an assertion, its an opinion. An opinion that tends to be shared by many (at least those to whom I talk)

Which is irrelevant. Piling more people onto a subjective opinion doesn't make it objective. You're asserting one thing is better than the other and expecting people to be convinced.


Read post above yours

I read it. Several of the ones above mine, in fact, and saw nothing any less arbitrary or baseless..

I don't see any particular reason to favour squares or hexagons, hexagons look cool and represent movement well (but the game is not a simulation, so this is just a nice thing to have) but take perpendicular tangents to any movement and you can't go in a straight line, making your lines of communication a bit odd.

...

PS. I discount arguments as to certain 2D nets convert better into 3D worlds, you only use a 2D net in the game dammit, even if a 'globe' would be very classy. More importantly any 2D net converts to 3D (the angles distort so that your squares no longer have 4 right angles and the sum of their angles is in fact more than 360) the problem is that the 2D object as a whole is a rectangle.
I'm not sure of your meaning. If you think a spherical world wouldn't add anything, well, that's what you think. I like the idea myself, because it avoids the ugliness of map edges and it's more realistic, but I don't expect everyone to value those things the same way. However, if you think all tiling systems can be converted to a sphere, you are mistaken. Even if you use irregular shapes, any tiling of only quadrilateral shapes cannot be converted into a spheroid (assuming a cube is not considered a spheroid, of course). Forget about physical shapes and think of it simply in terms of graph theory. You cannot construct an analogous graph if all nodes are connected to exactly 4 other nodes.

Even the military preferred it until computers got advanced enough they could do away with grids altogether ...

The military did away with hexes for computer sims about the time computers became readily available. I don't remember one sim that used hexes in the last 20 years (not to say there weren't any, but none I've been involved with). A fair number gridded the terrain up into squares, though (but did not use the squares themselves for movement). Like you said, most have done away with grids for movement.

One thing I will say on this, there hasn't been a hex-based game that broke the 100,000 sales mark in ages (the Civ franchise would end if it only sold 100,000 copies in an installation). Not to say that it can't happen, just that hex-based wargames do not sell well based on historical sales data. A computer wargame that sells 30,000 copies these days is considered a hit. (Even Age of Wonders did not sell well).

Having said that, maybe Shattered Union will remove the myth that hexes are the kiss of death that publishers seem to think they are. They imagine (maybe rightly) that the people who want hexes are the same guys who play ASL in their moms's basement (a small and shrinking demographic).

Wow, I realized that I didn't say anything about the technical merits. They are a total wash and neither is intrinsically better in a computer format. The reason hexes were used in paper wargames is two-fold (and neither apply to computers). Hexes can simulate movement ranges without additional computation (on a computer, the computer can do this easily so it no longer is a relevant argument). The second reason was that 40 years ago, when the first commercial paper wargames came out, most dice were six-sided and if you needed a random direction (for, say, a grenade bounce) you rolled a die and it mapped to a direction. The computer can hadle the die rolling.

A third reason (yes, I said two-fold), is historical, "It's always been done with hexes". Yup. It has and some of my friends and associates who are still making paper wargames, do use hexes (although the "new" (as in Mark Herman's "We The People" from 1994) point-to-point nodal systems are gaining much ground and I think that they will surpass hex-based paper wargames soon) and see no good reason to change. One could argue that for the Civ series "It's always been done with squares", and make an equally valid argument.

Incidentally, Sid did make hex-based games before Civ and chose to move away from them for Civ1.

One thing I will say on this, there hasn't been a hex-based game that broke the 100,000 sales mark in ages.
Well, there was still Fallout 2 :D

True, I had forgotten about the RPG segment and was mainly focused on the TBS and wargame market. They sold ~300,000 copies.

But that was over 7 years ago, before the publisher consolidation.

Warpstorm, Settlers I and II used hexagons ... (III and IV too, but those games weren't tilebased anymore)

...and Settlers came out when?

Settlers 1 was in '93 and Settlers 2 came out in '96, IIRC. This is even longer ago than Fallout 2. It was a DOS game. (Settlers 2 was the best of the series, IMHO). Even though it was a big seller in Germany (the series is about as big as Civ there for some reason), it sold next to no copies in the USA (which an American company like Firaxis has to worry about).

It was also big here, but the lack of sales in the US and the success in Europe is probably due to nothing more than marketing and advertising strategies (and less competition in the native language)
But I just meant to say that Settlers II worked great with the hexagon tiling...

Now, almost no games at all use tiles so it's hard to compare. Settlers and other RTS games all became 3d instead and don't really have tiles anymore, only grids and that usually is only to simulate the American square way of city building (like the Command and Conquer series, Sim City, ...) and squares are easier on the eye to build these buildings.

In Civ, where everything involves radii, I would prefer hexagons, but then again, it would be a loss because you can't simply move west or north anymore.

It was also big here, but the lack of sales in the US and the success in Europe is probably due to nothing more than marketing and advertising strategies (and less competition in the native language)
But I just meant to say that Settlers II worked great with the hexagon tiling...


Many years ago, Settlers 2 was my favorite game. It is a shame that they went away from what made the series unique and tried to be yet another RTS like all the rest of the non-descript RTSs.

Like I said, technically it's a wash. They both can be made to work fairly easily. It has to do with marketing.

The game marketers I know (most of whom would not deign to actually play a computer game, but that is a different gripe) when they think of hexes they think of the uber-geeky wargamer demographic (and certain people around the office who fall smack into the core of that demographic) and think to themselves "Is this where the money is?". :lol:

Which is irrelevant. Piling more people onto a subjective opinion doesn't make it objective. You're asserting one thing is better than the other and expecting people to be convinced.

I'm not asserting that its better, I'm asserting its more popular, but then popularity is not something that game manufacturers are looking for, is it :rolleyes:

I read it. Several of the ones above mine, in fact, and saw nothing any less arbitrary or baseless..


:ack: what a convincing rebutle...

I'm not sure of your meaning. If you think a spherical world wouldn't add anything, well, that's what you think. I like the idea myself, because it avoids the ugliness of map edges and it's more realistic, but I don't expect everyone to value those things the same way. However, if you think all tiling systems can be converted to a sphere, you are mistaken. Even if you use irregular shapes, any tiling of only quadrilateral shapes cannot be converted into a spheroid (assuming a cube is not considered a spheroid, of course). Forget about physical shapes and think of it simply in terms of graph theory. You cannot construct an analogous graph if all nodes are connected to exactly 4 other nodes. No 2D net (ie. the current way the civ world is mapped) that is rectangular can become a sphere, put simply the top+bottom of the map must be narrower than the middle. The fact that the individual tiles are a certain shape makes no difference, hexagons form a sphere as well as squares.

What do you mean by spherical? A spherical gameworld like populous? or having the map represented as a sphere? After all there are no map edges in the game world, I'd be interested in seeing a spherical representation of the map but its not essential (IMO).

Whilst a sphere is a 3D object its surface (what we're interested in) is 2D and any point can be defined in relation to 2 points (distance+direction) and from 3 points only by distance. All maps of of our planet use grid squares (slight trapezoids obviously) but that is because lines of latitude converge on two points, squares can be formed into a sphere with only slight distortion (they would retain equal sides and angles).

I feels like you make a valid (geometric) point but I cannot see it, other mathmatic principles seem to go against it, can you provide the maths behind your point please.

One thing I will say on this, there hasn't been a hex-based game that broke the 100,000 sales mark in ages (the Civ franchise would end if it only sold 100,000 copies in an installation). Not to say that it can't happen, just that hex-based wargames do not sell well based on historical sales data. A computer wargame that sells 30,000 copies these days is considered a hit.

Sure, but, take what I was saying in context. As far as tactically realistic games go, the hex was generally preferred. Tactical wargames don't sell now, but that isn't because they use hexes.

Incidentally, Sid did make hex-based games before Civ and chose to move away from them for Civ1.

Sure, but he was also moving to a simpler, more general format altogether. (Also, civ is a strategic game, not tactical, so it's easier to be generalistic about things).

Why "simpler"? Hexes aren't really any harder to implement than squares (especially if you've got the source code for your last four hex-based games lying around).

To put it into context, why would a system that you claim is better for tactical representation (I disagree, but bear with me) matter for a game that isn't modeled at that level of abstraction?

I'm not asserting that its better, I'm asserting its more popular, but then popularity is not something that game manufacturers are looking for, is it :rolleyes:

What's ultimately popular is quality. If you choose to make an inferior game because a superficial element is more popular, you will likely suffer in the long run.


:ack: what a convincing rebutle...
Rebuttals only apply to actual arguments. All you have done is repeatedly state your opinion. You don't have a leg to stand on so there's nothing to rebut.


What do you mean by spherical? A spherical gameworld like populous? or having the map represented as a sphere? After all there are no map edges in the game world, I'd be interested in seeing a spherical representation of the map but its not essential (IMO).

I want the actual map to have spherical shape. They already have a spherical representation of a cylindrical world for Civ4, but that's just UI prettiness.


Whilst a sphere is a 3D object its surface (what we're interested in) is 2D and any point can be defined in relation to 2 points (distance+direction) and from 3 points only by distance. All maps of of our planet use grid squares (slight trapezoids obviously) but that is because lines of latitude converge on two points, squares can be formed into a sphere with only slight distortion (they would retain equal sides and angles).

The shape (trapezoid vs. square vs. whatever) doesn't matter if the number of sizes is always 4. Pretend that the Earth is divided into quadrilaterals one degree of longitude tall and one degree of latitude wide. At every latitude, then, there are 360 squares. The squares narrow in absolute terms as you approach the poles. However, when you get to 89 degrees North (or South), you end up with a conundrum. Every tile borders one tile each to the east, west, and south, but what is to the north? You could have the north be the directly opposite tile, but that's kind of ugly. After all, if you quantize your map such that every tile is the exact same size, that would be equivalent to the current cylindrical civ world, but with the ability to go from 90 degrees W to 90 degrees E by crossing the pole. Alternately, you could have each tile around the pole be accessible to/from every other one, but then that tile is no longer a quadrilateral because it borders 3 tiles to the south, east, and west, and 356 tiles to the north. Since we're assuming the game retains the "all tiles are of equal size (for game purposes)" concept, then to model a spherical world, as you move from the poles to the equators, you have to be able to drop a tile. That's why spheroids composed of hexagons have to have pentagons in them, as that allows them to reduce the number of tiles at latitudes further from the equator. I don't have the mathematical knowledge to express this in such terms, but hopefully the description above suffices.

You cudn't use both hexs and pents on a map, it'd be so annoying to play on!
I think that actually it would be fun to have the occasional different tile

Why "simpler"? Hexes aren't really any harder to implement than squares (especially if you've got the source code for your last four hex-based games lying around).

Huh? I meant a simpler game from the user's perspective ... not a simpler game to create. Not that the choice between hexes and squares directly impacts on that necessarily, but the general idea of civ was something more publicly accessible and generalized, which squares probably suit better - at least, from a marketing perspective.

You could have the north be the directly opposite tile, but that's kind of ugly. After all, if you quantize your map such that every tile is the exact same size, that would be equivalent to the current cylindrical civ world, but with the ability to go from 90 degrees W to 90 degrees E by crossing the pole. Alternately, you could have each tile around the pole be accessible to/from every other one, but then that tile is no longer a quadrilateral because it borders 3 tiles to the south, east, and west, and 356 tiles to the north. Since we're assuming the game retains the "all tiles are of equal size (for game purposes)" concept, then to model a spherical world, as you move from the poles to the equators, you have to be able to drop a tile. That's why spheroids composed of hexagons have to have pentagons in them, as that allows them to reduce the number of tiles at latitudes further from the equator. I don't have the mathematical knowledge to express this in such terms, but hopefully the description above suffices. Ah yes, of course (I presumed to drop squares as the map moved N/S without thinking how they fitted). I believe you would have a similar crunch with any shaped tiles unless a mix of shapes is used (?). The best solution is to designate 1 tile North, This means only 2 unusual shaped tiles are needed (and any tactical advantage of several *EDIT* linked tiles is offset by crappy polar terrain, obviously movement would need the mouse off of this 1 tile) but results in a spherical gameworld.

I believe you would have a similar crunch with any shaped tiles unless a mix of shapes is used (?).

Not necessarily. You can do it with all pentagons. I suspect, though I cannot begin to prove, that you can't model a spheroid with more than m faces using only polygons with exactly n sides where m is greater than, say, 12, and n is an even number. There is a proof that there are only 5 Platonic Solids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solids), but I don't require that the polygonal faces be regular (or even convex), only that they have a fixed number of edges (the spheroid must be convex).


The best solution is to designate 1 tile North, This means only 2 unusual shaped tiles are needed (and any tactical advantage of 360 linked tiles is offset by crappy polar terrain, obviously movement would need the mouse off of this 1 tile) but results in a spherical gameworld.
I wouldn't call that "best" at all. That would basically amount to the same world that exists now, except with magic transportation rules at the poles. Remember, all tiles are the same size. In the model you propose, you would have a world that is 25,000 miles in circumference at 0 degrees latitude and 89 degrees latitude both. It's not just a matter of solving the poles; to have a truly spherical world, you need to have the circumference of the world (in number of tiles) be progressively less at progressively higher latitudes.

There is no unambiguously best solution. Every one of them requires compromises. I have settled on the hexagons with impassable pentagons as my preferred option. Hexagons have been proven to be an effective and playable choice for board games, and making the pentagons impassable is to me a better option than having 12 accessible tiles with special rules.

You could do it with pentagons provided the world thins out to 5 tiles next to north, same with 4 for squares or 6 for hexagons provided you stick to 'capping' the poles. The problem is thinning the tiles out... can you retain normal movement or mind a spherical gameworld.

well with pentagons, the issue isn't that they need to be impassible, it's more the issue of how to display it along those points. Because a 'hexagon with pentagons spheroid' is essentially ~20 Triangles put together
5 Northern, 5 Southern 10 Equatorial each triangle consisting of a group of hexagons with pentagons at the corners.

The question is how you display those triangles

Assume you are on triangle A

""\x/
__A__
x/"""\x

Where the x's are would be blank, so you would see the large triangle that you are on with black regions coming out of its vertices.
when you reached a 'Pentagon' it dould just be displayed as a hexagon with one of the directions blocked by that region of blackness.. would be a bit strange but would still allow normal movement (less territory would be available to cities near those, but... the bigger the map (in hexes) the less that matters, since you only need 12 pentagons for any size sphere.

The other issue would be in displaying the whole map as a flat form... for that the most sensible way would probably be in a sliced format (the equatorial band with triangles coming out for the northern and southern regions)
./\/\/\/\/\
|............|
|/\/\/\/\/\|

Krikkitone, I don't see how displaying a hexagon with one direction being impassable is superior to just not allowing entering the pentagon. The former case has tiles that look like other tiles but behave differently, while the latter is a special case that is obviously and visibly so.

There is no issue with displaying the map as a flat form. You zoom in close and it's effectively flat, while from a distance it looks round, like looking at the Earth from orbit.

Krikkitone, I don't see how displaying a hexagon with one direction being impassable is superior to just not allowing entering the pentagon. The former case has tiles that look like other tiles but behave differently, while the latter is a special case that is obviously and visibly so.

There is no issue with displaying the map as a flat form. You zoom in close and it's effectively flat, while from a distance it looks round, like looking at the Earth from orbit.


Well no it doesn't. If you have a pentagon surrounded by hexagons, it does not fit on a flat surface without distorting the hexagons. Just showing the local flat surface doesn't work if
1. you are near one of the triangular 'sides'
2. you are also near one of the 'corners'

The point is the distortion is not just 'at' the pentagon, it is all around it, and slowly fades away as the pentagon goes away.

Now for a 'pretty picture' view you can have it zoom in and just distort all the shapes that are not near where you are, but if the 'hex' three spaces away from you is a pentagon, the map will be distorted. That means if you want a 'functional' view then you will have a flat hexagonal grid but with chunks missing. (which is effectively what the map is, the chunks that are missing merely depend on what your perspective is..ie where you are centered)

So for a mini-map 'pretty picture/general overview' map one would want the ability to have different projections (basically: spherical, flat+distorted, or flat+disjointed)
for a main map view, you could have the same situation but most likely you would want flat+disjointed.

Because being Near, not just On, the pentagon, even if it is clearly labeled will lead to a wierd distortion if the map has no 'edges'. so it is best just to put the 'edges' in (because it's not that one direction is impassible, one direction doesn't exist.. there is nothing in that direction)... an impassible pentagon doesn't make that clear and distorts the map. A chunk out of the map can make that clear.

Ah, ok, I see. Yes, the hexagons would be distorted around the pentagons. I am fine with that, though. They would still be approximately the same dimensions, and they would definitely be real 6-sided hexagons. Besides, a game map with Civ dimensions would have (potentially) 10,000 tiles (Standard map in Civ3), of which only 12 would be pentagons. With that scale, the distortion would be pretty mild and only rarely encountered.

Well, with ~10,000 spots, each 'triangle' would be ~ 500 hexes (~ 30 on a side) so pentagons would probably less than 10 spaces away most of the time. So there would always be the distortion (or the 'null space' depending on whether you wanted effect or information...basically like playing with the grid off or on) but it wouldn't be something you would worry about, and the map could automatically rearrange to make the 'null space'/ distortion be in the least annoying place possible. (so you would notice it, but probably wouldn't worry about it because it would rearrange as you went through/ near a 'pentagon' (which would look just like a hexagon)

Why not use triangles instead?

What's ultimately popular is quality. If you choose to make an inferior game because a superficial element is more popular, you will likely suffer in the long run.

And how do you know that a hex based game is going to be superior? History is certainly against you, as the most popular games have always been square based.

Rebuttals only apply to actual arguments. All you have done is repeatedly state your opinion. You don't have a leg to stand on so there's nothing to rebut.

My argument was that the world is built around squares and rectangles. When was the last time you saw a hexagonal building, or border, or room, or CD case etc. Humans even tried to map the spherical world using squares, such is the affinity. Humans prefer squares and as such they are more likely to buy a game based around squares as it will seem more natural (Once again history is on my side).

I meant 10,000 hexes. A standard Civ3 map is 100x100, or 10,000 squares, so I figured I would go with a number that worked with that. Then each "triangle" of hexes would be 5,000 hexes (edit: fixed my math, thanks Krikkitone).

Krikkitone, I just figured out what your username meant.

Why not use triangles instead?

I don't like triangles :-). Besides that, I don't have any good reasons. Well, actually, it would throw the movement conventions out of whack and distances and movement rates and tile improvements and all that would have to be adjusted much more than with a switch from squares to hexes. Also, the worlds would have to be substantially bigger in terms of number of tiles, which would impair performance.

And how do you know that a hex based game is going to be superior?


I don't know that it's superior. However, I see no reason that it's inferior and since it allows spheroid worlds, that's enough for me to be convinced.


History is certainly against you, as the most popular games have always been square based.

It is a fallacy to assume that their popularity was due to use of squares.


My argument was that the world is built around squares and rectangles. When was the last time you saw a hexagonal building, or border, or room, or CD case etc. Humans even tried to map the spherical world using squares, such is the affinity. Humans prefer squares and as such they are more likely to buy a game based around squares as it will seem more natural (Once again history is on my side).
Your data are valid, but you make logical leaps that are not supported. Squares are easy to draw. A 2-d map is easily broken up into squares because you can use Cartesian coordinates. You could use hexes for it, but then you'd have to use a less simple coordinate system which would offer no advantage. Square-shaped buildings are easier to construct, as well as to fit furniture within them. Etc. In other words, there are plenty of reasons for using rectangular shapes in the real world that don't have anything to do with the nebulous and unsupported assertion that "squares are more natural," and few, if any of those reasons apply to a game like Civilization.

I don't know that it's superior. However, I see no reason that it's inferior and since it allows spheroid worlds, that's enough for me to be convinced.

So whats the point in risking the change from squres to hexes if your not going to nessecarily end up with a better game (if its not broke...). As for spheroid world, when was the last important political event that happened at the south pole?

It is a fallacy to assume that their popularity was due to use of squares.

So the fact that square based games are generally more popular than hex based games means nothing?

Your data are valid, but you make logical leaps that are not supported. Squares are easy to draw. A 2-d map is easily broken up into squares because you can use Cartesian coordinates. You could use hexes for it, but then you'd have to use a less simple coordinate system which would offer no advantage. Square-shaped buildings are easier to construct, as well as to fit furniture within them. Etc. In other words, there are plenty of reasons for using rectangular shapes in the real world that don't have anything to do with the nebulous and unsupported assertion that "squares are more natural," and few, if any of those reasons apply to a game like Civilization.

Regardless of where the affinity for squares originates from to state that one does not exist is wrong. Why is art work rectangular? Why did the inventors of chess use squares? Why do manufacturers use rectangular boxes? There have been tests done to see which regular shapes people prefer subliminally, and squares came second (after pentagons due to their relationship wit phi).

Of course, if Civ IV is truely as good as the manufacturers claim then prehaps a hex based mod will be possible.

The reason to use hexes v. squares or triangles is

1. the 'corner problem' (not all directions are equal) this applies even more so to Triangles [each triangle has 12 neighbors 3 you enter through sides, 3 through corners, and 6 turning through corners]

2. Squares Can't be used to make a decent spherical map

#2 isn't that strong of a point because a decent spherical map really isn't necessary until the Modern/Industrial Age anyways (when people start actually being able to get over the poles).. the reason nothing important happens there is due to unique geopolitical considerations.. (the Americans and the Soviets agreed to make it international territory... otherwise there would be an oil rush there with possible wars.)

Truronian does have a point in that people are more used to thinking with a square grid (Cartesian Coordinates, 4 directions on map, etc.)

Overall, (considering both the 'naturality' of squares and the greater 'sensibility' of hexes) I'd say it's not a change that is vital but it would be a slight improvement in the of the map (I say slight because of features like automove, that start simplifying the impact of this whichever way it is decided)

(e.g.)
Sea-Land
Land-Sea
If you have squares like that...are the Sea Squares connected? Are the Land squares?...the answer has to be given by special rules rather than only one common sense answer (with Civ 3 the answer is No, Yes)... The same thing appens with the City radius... why don't you get those corner squares, they are also 2 away from the city.


PS The hex based spheroid has 20 'triangles' 5 North, 5 South, 10 Equatorial

Heptagons!

1. Divide a hexagon into 3 rhombi.
2. Attach a fourth rhombus to the hexagon
3. Tessalate this 7 sided figure to your choise of size.
.____
/.... _\
\__/

Okay, the grid system would be useless but it would add a more non-artificial aspect to the game.

So whats the point in risking the change from squres to hexes if your not going to nessecarily end up with a better game (if its not broke...).

A poor choice of words. I meant, all else being equal, I don't see that hexagons are worse than squares, and all else is not equal since hexagons enable spheroids.


As for spheroid world, when was the last important political event that happened at the south pole?

Your perspective is too narrow. It's not about the poles; it's about the shape of the world. Think Northwest Passage. Think Great Circle routes. Think Soviet and American bombers passing each other over the North Pole to drop nuclear bombs on each other. Think about how the equatorial regions of the Earth have more area than the temperate zones. These facets are missing from the game as is and they cannot be in the game at all with square tiles.


So the fact that square based games are generally more popular than hex based games means nothing?

Based on what you've presented, yeah. Correlation is not causation.


Regardless of where the affinity for squares originates from to state that one does not exist is wrong.

You are mistaken when you call it an affinity. In the cases I cited, there are real, practical reasons for choosing rectangular shapes.


Why is art work rectangular?

Not all of it is. As I recall, the statue of David is slightly less regularly shaped.


Why did the inventors of chess use squares?

I'll see your chess and raise you Chinese Checkers. Chess is not all games.


Why do manufacturers use rectangular boxes?

Because they are easier to manufacture and stack. Because the contents are often rectangular. Because they have no interest in creating a geodesic dome out of shipping containers.


There have been tests done to see which regular shapes people prefer subliminally, and squares came second (after pentagons due to their relationship wit phi).

Really? Do you have a source for this? I doubt there is a legitimate study that supports the broad claims you are making.

Think about how the equatorial regions of the Earth have more area than the temperate zones. These facets are missing from the game as is and they cannot be in the game at all with square tiles. Noooo, a spherical gameworld means more plains and jungles to deserts to grassland. I prefer grassland and it would be shunted down the list of abundance.

The random-world algorithims don't have to assign desert and jungles to the tropics or maybe they will make the tropics smaller.

A spheroid world would be cool because aren't there only certain tile increments that can be made into a sphere. World sizes would be more standard. Hopefully if Civ5 has Hexagons you can choose: sphere, plain, cylinder, double-wrapping cylinder, ellipsoid, etc..,

Noooo, a spherical gameworld means more plains and jungles to deserts to grassland. I prefer grassland and it would be shunted down the list of abundance.

As Crayton said... why would you change the shape of the world without changing your map generator? It makes no sense. Besides, the Civilization model of terrain is pretty primitive; it's not like all tropical land is useless jungle. That's something that should be fixed anyway.


A spheroid world would be cool because aren't there only certain tile increments that can be made into a sphere. World sizes would be more standard. Hopefully if Civ5 has Hexagons you can choose: sphere, plain, cylinder, double-wrapping cylinder, ellipsoid, etc..,

That's pretty cool. I don't know how useful that is, but I guess it could be cool to have a toroidal world or something.

I've found that the Civ world tends to follow the real world, Jungles and plains equatorially then deserts to grassland. After all tundra is only ever polar, other terrain seems to be found in suitable locales

Civ3 did a good job of placing the correct terrain at the right latitudes. Whichever style of map-generating they do, however, they won't "bog down" the civ experience by placing too much Jungle or other sub-par terrain.

How about those heptagons! You can build three types of Hexagons out of them: 2*1*2 (shown below), 2*2*2, and 2*3*2. These Hexagons can then be used to build those Buckminister-Fuller balls.
.____
/....._\
\__/...\
.\____/

I thought the heptagons were a joke. Realize that your heptagons are functionally equivalent to squares. Each one has 4 neighboring tiles. Whether you make the border a straight line or jagged doesn't matter.

Actually, they are functionally Hexagons. You'd have to draw a series of them to understand. I'd post it, but those things are so hard to draw, maybe I'll upload an image. They would border 6 other tiles without cornor-cornor touching. They are unique because they can be oriented in 6 different directions instead of 1 (which is what squares and hexagons give you). It was originally a joke, until I started drawing all-over my notebook. The only advantage I can think of is a really random looking map.

I would call that a disadvantage. It's nice to be able to know that the orientation is the same no matter where you are.

OK, you guys are all officially geeks! I never thought this topic could generate 6 pages of debate (and counting). As one of the old farts on this forum I have played lots of non-computer strategy games, because when I started playing them the PC had not yet been invented. :lol: Maybe it was all those Avalon Hill games, but I always thought that hexes are better because they eliminate the movement 'bonus' you get with a diagonal move on a square grid. Rivers and coastlines can be rendered more naturally too. Still, I would concede that my preference for hexes is most likely due to being inured to them through playing all of those strategy games.

When I was in high school I designed a game based on LOTR that used an octagonal grid with small squares in the corners. The squares were only used for fortresses and other special map features, otherwise they were ignored and the map was effectively a square grid. I have to admit that it was not very pleasing asthetically, but it was perfectly functional from a game-play standpoint.

Ya, Heptagons would be great for gameplay and aestetics! Haha.

Question: can you build a globe out of Pentagons?

A man named Steve once said to me the following:

"I haven't touched a circuit board since 1986... and if the boss knew that, I wouldn't be working here!"

Eventually, Steve was no longer working at the company.

The thing about using hexagons instead of squares realtes to that because it would be something so... different, that it may take trouble getting used to. People who are used to the square array, or have not played on a hex grid in such a long time, may have so much difficulty in using it that they'll leave the Civ game, which would be a terrible thing.

Perhaps they could make it an option in for a future release or expansion pack, as it's kind of late to revamp something of that magnitude (I've been developing a city-building game in VB so I know what goes into it). I would definitely like to try out the hexagons, but I probably would prefer to stick with squares for a majority of the time.

The 1.5-tile rule may confuse players, although I think it's a good idea, having 1 movement point expended when moving on a diagonal probably doesn't affect the gameplay all that much. I personally think that counting it as 1.5 may detract from ti further. If you go to move a 2+ movable unit, and you only have 0.5 points left, people may become frustrated that they can't move the diagonal.

So I think we should keep it as squares with movement costs of one (like previous Civs), but perhaps allow the option of a hex grid in the future.

Question: can you build a globe out of Pentagons?

Yes. The problem (that I see) with that is that each pentagon will be facing one of five different directions. With hexagons, you can have them all oriented the same way (or closely enough that it doesn't matter).


The thing about using hexagons instead of squares realtes to that because it would be something so... different, that it may take trouble getting used to. People who are used to the square array, or have not played on a hex grid in such a long time, may have so much difficulty in using it that they'll leave the Civ game, which would be a terrible thing.

I think people might have trouble getting used to the idea, but I don't think it's something they'll think about once they've played the game for 2 minutes. I definitely don't think it will drive people away from the game entirely. I think a game like Civilization (5) might be a good one to introduce this in, as there's a guaranteed customer base for it. I maintain that having a spherical world is worth it.


Perhaps they could make it an option in for a future release or expansion pack, as it's kind of late to revamp something of that magnitude

I think it's unlikely that it could be practically implemented in that way. It's one of those things that's easy to build in from the beginning, but really hard to retrofit into a game with a different model.

Didn't this come up a while ago and someone posted a link to a site where a guy was trying to built a Civ styled game on a 3D hexagonal world?

I'm not really sure which is better, squares or hexagons.

The way squares work (in Civ at least) is that there are actually TWO distinct kinds of movement possible -- normal face-to-face movement or a diagonal movement that is basically two face-to-face movements done at once (left and then up, or left and then down, etc.) -- kind of like chess where the Knight gets to move in an L shape ... well here it is an L with an equal horizontal and vertical shape ... like how the king moves basically.

With hexagons there's only one kind of movement.

So squares (implemented in Civ) introduce more strategy in terms of the Chess-style strategy outlined above.

But hexagons is just more closer to reality and it expands the strategy involved in one kind of movement that is present in both squares and hexagons. To get the "best" of both worlds in terms of strategy you would allow for hexagons to be used like squares with two movements in certain L shapes counting as just one move ... but then you would lose the reality aspect and lost the reality-seeming aspect that square diagonal moves have.

On balance, I would prefer hexagons.

I'm not really sure which is better, squares or hexagons.

The way squares work (in Civ at least) is that there are actually TWO distinct kinds of movement possible -- normal face-to-face movement or a diagonal movement that is basically two face-to-face movements done at once (left and then up, or left and then down, etc.) -- kind of like chess where the Knight gets to move in an L shape ... well here it is an L with an equal horizontal and vertical shape ... like how the king moves basically.

With hexagons there's only one kind of movement.

So squares (implemented in Civ) introduce more strategy in terms of the Chess-style strategy outlined above.


There aren't two kinds of movement. There's just one. Tiles are depicted as being squares, but they're effectively octagons. What you see is irrelevant; all that matters is the number of directions you can move. You just can't tile a 2-dimensional plane solely with octagons.

It's two different kinds of movement because one is faster than another

My .2 points:
Hexagonal grid would scare casual player. Hexagonal grid usually associate with hardcore wargames. Then I was starting playing startegy games I did't want to play hexagonal - they were scaring me. It take expirienced gamer, who want more realism to prefer them.

I don't think a casual gamer would associate it with hardcore war games because a casual player might not even know about hardcore wargames. (they'd probably be more likely to associate it with Settlers of Catan.. a really good simplified, strategic game)

hexagons won't scare casual gamers.

A board game known popularly as "Chinese Checkers" uses hexagons. (They are physically shaped as circles to put the pegs into them and the pegs are round but geometrically, functionally speaking they are hexagons).

Perfect General was my first game with hexagons. It took all of two seconds to get used to and since then I have always wondered why there are still games that use squares.

My head burns......

I remember a game on which the map was absolutely made with hex, and it had spherical shape. It simply doesnt allow you to zoom out up to see a planet. You can choose the map point in the spherical minimap. AND, you can take a geograph map: you see how it is made with a lot of ovals pasted in the central ring. A fully hexagonal map is possible. The system would store the map as i said. It may be shown as continuous hexagons removing the "blank" ones and, for moving, simply connects the top polar hexagon from an oval with the opposite oval polar hexagon. (if they are 6 ovals,a central hexagon will connect each)

Better, forget that :lol:

In hexagon tiles, the distance between two tiles that are spaced by one tile will be decreased.


That's a good thing. That allows them to make larger maps without actually making larger maps.

I don't think a casual gamer would associate it with hardcore war games because a casual player might not even know about hardcore wargames. (they'd probably be more likely to associate it with Settlers of Catan.. a really good simplified, strategic game)

No, they'll probably associate it with that creepy guy they know who plays ASL in his mom's basement. :mischief:

Not to revive a dead horse, but I think there is one solution that has passed us all by... Square hexagons.
__________
_][__][__][_
[__][iiiii][__]
_][__][__][_

Each tile has 90* angles yet maintains full borders with 6 other tiles.

There has also been talk about buckyballs... There are actually 3 polyhedrons that are conducive to hexagon globes:
1. The dodecahedron: 12 pentagons that form the basis for the buckyball
2. cube
3. and a tetrahedron.

Needless to say, the dodecahedron looks most like a globe but there have been complaints about the 12 pentagons being too numerous. If this is you, try the cube with 6 squares or the tetrahedron with 4 triangles.

People that suggest all these wierd shapes seem have never played a hexagonal map game. The beauty of the hex map is the radial range of a unit coming from a point is equidistant everywhere.

Soon people will use Civ IV modding capabilities to create truly amazing scenarios depicting historical battles. But they will be limited by the map. For those who aren't interested in combat, it doesn't matter what map type it is.

Another issue confusing this discussion is the spherical globe v the cylinder globe we have. This separate from the hex v square map and should be treated separately. There are serious issues both 2D map types when trying to model a sphere. But I really resent the fact the world is still not a sphere. When will I be able to launch a bomber from Russia to the US over the north pole? When will the world be represented like it truly is?

Well Saad, what do you think about the geometry discussed in the previous post? I tried not to put too much information in there so that everyone else can chip in their 2 cents (or 2 dollars, if you have it).

Personally, I think that hexagons are the way to go. True, there is a separate strategy for dealing with corner-corner borders, but I think the equidistant thing is more important.

How should the 3D map be set up? The buckministerfuller ball seems to be a favorite, yet I'd like everyone to know there are other options. To append the previous list of 3 potential polyhedrons: any of the 5 platonic solids will work.
4. Isosahedron
5. Octohedron

Note that whenfilled with hexagons the Cube will look like an Octohedron and the Dodecahedron will look like the Isosahedron and vice-versa. The Tetrahedron will look like itself. This is all a matter of vertex:side ratios.

Hmmmm, hexagons, squares, diagonal squares, octagons, and so on. I know what I prefer. How 'bout none? I really liked Rome: Total War's approach. Sure, it still somewhat had tiles, but the idea was not to have 'em and deviate from a traditional boardgame characteristic.

How should the 3D map be set up? The buckministerfuller ball seems to be a favorite, yet I'd like everyone to know there are other options. To append the previous list of 3 potential polyhedrons: any of the 5 platonic solids will work.
4. Isosahedron
5. Octohedron

Note that whenfilled with hexagons the Cube will look like an Octohedron and the Dodecahedron will look like the Isosahedron and vice-versa. The Tetrahedron will look like itself. This is all a matter of vertex:side ratios.

I reallt don't see how you can map hexagons onto a cube...you can pay hexagons onto triangles... which will give you the tetrahedron, octahedron, isoctahedron and all that, and the soccer ball shape is hust a icostahedron that's been mapped that way, if you want higher resoloution just map hex's onto the tryangles making up the hex and pentagns and continue..
but for a cube, just map it with squares....

Well Saad, what do you think about the geometry discussed in the previous post? I tried not to put too much information in there so that everyone else can chip in their 2 cents (or 2 dollars, if you have it).

Personally, I think that hexagons are the way to go. True, there is a separate strategy for dealing with corner-corner borders, but I think the equidistant thing is more important.

How should the 3D map be set up? The buckministerfuller ball seems to be a favorite, yet I'd like everyone to know there are other options. To append the previous list of 3 potential polyhedrons: any of the 5 platonic solids will work.
4. Isosahedron
5. Octohedron

Note that whenfilled with hexagons the Cube will look like an Octohedron and the Dodecahedron will look like the Isosahedron and vice-versa. The Tetrahedron will look like itself. This is all a matter of vertex:side ratios.


Maybe we need to stop looking at geometry and try something completely new. For example, playing RTS games like Age of Empires you don't always tell you units to move to certain x,y coordinate. You click a location and the coordinate system is hidden from you. Maybe we can create a world in spherical coordinates, but when we zoom in too manage a city it appears flat. Some land would be unusable to hide distortions, and we could allow unit movement range calculations to remain hidden. Click on a unit would just highlight a region ot the map that it can move to. And when putting workers to use, the tile based assignment might be more general. For example, multiple workers could be assigned to a farm, which would cause the farm to grow in size in map. These are just ideas, I'm just an engineer who doesn't know the best discrete structure/geometry that could be used to represent a 3D world. But I think that hiding the details of world and moving to a more RTS motion system might be a solution.

Instant Cereal: I don't know how Rome: Total War works but you do seem enthused. I quite enjoy the board game aspect, it seems most conducive to turn-based strategy, but again, I haven't played Rome: Total War.

Suki: Oh, you can put hexagons on any of the platonic solids.
._____________.
|..__________..|
|.|\________/|.|
|.|.|./......\.|.|.|
|.|.|/\___/\|.|.|
|.|.|.|___|.|.|.|
|.|.|\/.....\/|.|.|
|.|.|_\___/_|.|.|
|.|/________\|.|
|____________|

Okay, my character drawings are terrible but you can see the 6 square sides of the cube (the center, four trangles, and the outer square). You can also see 8 hexagons (four surrounding the center square and four bordering the outer square). Each of the hexagons can be expanded ad nauseum depending on how large you want the map to be. If you want I can make an attempt to draw these on MSPaint.

Saad: the game is still turn-based so movement must be measured in some increments, meaning if you select a far away destination units will still move 1, 2, or 10 tiles each turn. I like the idea of spherical coordinates very much. Any of the polyhedrons discussed before can (and should) be projected out wards onto a sphere, so that the 'globe' looks like a ball. Likewise, cities could be built on the spherical coordinates so that the computer does not need to make too many calculations.

EDIT: Does anybody else see room for improvment upon the original model or any model discussed here? The more ideas => the more good ideas. :)

Hmm... So Hexagons or Squares?
Does anybody have a definite preference?
Does anybody have a unique way of solving this aspect of Civilization?
Does anybody really care?

My ideas are so limited, therefore I enjoy reading the varying ideas from everybody else; like You.

Hexagons would be pretty nifty. The "fat cross" which seems to be purposefully chosen as it prevents a tessellation of cities (being able to harvest every tile with no overlap) would need to be redesigned. A round would could be simulated by several triangle-like shapes formed out of hexagons. If presented in a typical flat manner, this would be simple to draw but soem what difficult to use. The hexagons could be dynamically arranged to present a sphere, but I magine that would be significantly more complex.

I know that the current method of drawing the map as a globe with huge spots of black on the top and bottom looks rather, well, weird and unconvincing.

The "fat cross" which seems to be purposefully chosen as it prevents a tessellation of cities (being able to harvest every tile with no overlap) would need to be redesigned.

I disagree, the fat cross is more an argument for using hex grid, "everything within two squares is close enough to harvest...except those corner ones, they are within range but it just doesn't look right if you include them" hex grid has no diagonals so this problem is elimintare and your lack of tesselations is just a convienient side effect.
as long as we're rebuilding the game from the ground up: don't put a set limit on where you can farm for a city. just make it less eficient the longer the walk from the farm to the city. then get the farmers out of the city and remove the worker units have your farmers do all the 'worker' jobs. Then have the 'town' type improvements just increase the efficiency of working the tile. then you'd have something interesting.