Please use hexagons instead of squares!
- Thread starter glanmark
- Start date
Bluemofia
F=ma
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.
789
456
123
5 is where the unit is, and the other numbers go with a corresponding direction.
Akka
Moody old mage.
No, I prefer squares. I would only add the "2 diagonals = 3 movement points" rule, that's all.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I wish they would, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Remove the 4 and 6 keys from the picture. You have an easy system for moving across hexes.
Bluemofia said:
Remove the 4 and 6 keys from the picture. You have an easy system for moving across hexes.
Stephan Hoyer
Conquering Civ IV...
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 121
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.
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.
Pounder
Phaethon was here
Squares are 8 directions to move in and hexagonals are only 6 directions to move in.
So I think squares are better.
So I think squares are better.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
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)
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
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.
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.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Good idea, hexagons, but much too late for them, i think...
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Crayton said:
Isn't this 1.5 times the cost of 2?
kasmasnou
Chieftain
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.
More simple to manage units, build cities and improve terrain. Hexagons are... difficult or less predictable for all terrain purposes. Must disagree.
Mountain-God
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 488
kasmasnou said:
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!
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.
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.
If I'm playing a tactical wargame, give me a hex grid. If I'm playing Civ, give me squares.
Hero
NPC
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 
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
Use more advanced tactic's that you can control instead of dice throwsMy great wall of tanks and battleship row would be very effective then
Deep_Blue
Knight
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 750
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).
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).
Attachments
Similar threads
