Why can't you? A hex doesn't change the fact that you have a N,S,E,W in your world, it only changes how you move in two of those directions. And honestly, on a square tile map chances are you rarely actually move straight anyway, you probably move diagnally more often than not.
Hexagon Tiles: Like them, love them, or RAGGGEEEE!!!
- Thread starter Jakerg23
- Start date
Why can't you? A hex doesn't change the fact that you have a N,S,E,W in your world, it only changes how you move in two of those directions. And honestly, on a square tile map chances are you rarely actually move straight anyway, you probably move diagnally more often than not.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
And if you were exploring you'd be zig-zaging north or south anyway.
Care to elaborate? I think a lot of the argument for keeping grid over hex is emotional rather than rational. Hexes are nothing but an improvement, I've been wanting them since civII. More effective pathfinding and lines are easier to make, given that there is no unit stacking this can only be a good thing. You also get the possibility for a spherical world.
Hex is an absolute improvement. Over large tile distances, hex-maps best simulate distance. Move 4 tiles diagonally in a grid and you have effectively moved 4 tiles x and y. In a hex, you cannot "cheat" distance that way. It's more realistic. I want a spherical feel. I don't know if we will get this in Civ 5, but a grid-map cannot provide this. I've heard there is no unit-stacking. I hope this is true. It will also provide for better strategy on the map.
I don't understand the dislike for hex when it comes to exploring in a North or South. If you want to break the argument down in the most simplistic terms, I put each foot forward when I move... right, left, right, left. Go walk in the snow and look at the pattern you make. Then imagine a hex-map in a straight-line. OMG, it's the same!
It's a matter of perspective. To get angry, annoyed, or irritated at a matter of representation is silly. It's not that I dislike the grid of past games, I simply acknowledge that a hex-map is better. Most intelligent people do.
I don't understand the dislike for hex when it comes to exploring in a North or South. If you want to break the argument down in the most simplistic terms, I put each foot forward when I move... right, left, right, left. Go walk in the snow and look at the pattern you make. Then imagine a hex-map in a straight-line. OMG, it's the same!
It's a matter of perspective. To get angry, annoyed, or irritated at a matter of representation is silly. It's not that I dislike the grid of past games, I simply acknowledge that a hex-map is better. Most intelligent people do.
Inverse Icarus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 36
I have my fingers crossed for a spherical map, but I'm not sure if they'd go ahead with it.
As others have mentioned, if you look closely at the spheres made of hexagons, there are always pentagons in them. Not even just a few, but a significant number of them.
Here's a sphere of pentagons and hexagons "rolled out" and flattened, and you can see just how many hexagons are needed for this.
In order to have a truly spherical map composed primarily of hexagons, you'd need to toss in these pentagons. There are several issues with this.
1. Hexagons only have 5 sides, and therefore 5 ways to move. This makes some tiles in the game different than other ones, which changes the strategy for that set of tiles.
2. Without a clear indicator that this tile is different, casual players might not understand why they can't move "up" from this tile.
3. Art. You'd need to redo a lot of the art to support pentagon tiles, as well as hexagons. Even then, it would still look weird.
As others have mentioned, if you look closely at the spheres made of hexagons, there are always pentagons in them. Not even just a few, but a significant number of them.
Here's a sphere of pentagons and hexagons "rolled out" and flattened, and you can see just how many hexagons are needed for this.
In order to have a truly spherical map composed primarily of hexagons, you'd need to toss in these pentagons. There are several issues with this.
1. Hexagons only have 5 sides, and therefore 5 ways to move. This makes some tiles in the game different than other ones, which changes the strategy for that set of tiles.
2. Without a clear indicator that this tile is different, casual players might not understand why they can't move "up" from this tile.
3. Art. You'd need to redo a lot of the art to support pentagon tiles, as well as hexagons. Even then, it would still look weird.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I have my fingers crossed for a spherical map, but I'm not sure if they'd go ahead with it.
As others have mentioned, if you look closely at the spheres made of hexagons, there are always pentagons in them. Not even just a few, but a significant number of them.
Here's a sphere of pentagons and hexagons "rolled out" and flattened, and you can see just how many hexagons are needed for this.
Spoiler :
In order to have a truly spherical map composed primarily of hexagons, you'd need to toss in these pentagons. There are several issues with this.
1. Hexagons only have 5 sides, and therefore 5 ways to move. This makes some tiles in the game different than other ones, which changes the strategy for that set of tiles.
2. Without a clear indicator that this tile is different, casual players might not understand why they can't move "up" from this tile.
3. Art. You'd need to redo a lot of the art to support pentagon tiles, as well as hexagons. Even then, it would still look weird.
I was wondering about that when people said there could be real sphere maps now. I didn't know how that would work, and no I see that it wouldn't.
deanej
Deity
Never mind how you'd program in two different types of tiles. I'm not even sure how the hexagons are programmed in. It's got to be a lot more complicated than squares, I'm sure.
@Sava: You can't model motion the way you present in your snow example. Since your feet are not at your horizontal center, you must take the path between both, which is indeed straight. Also, you need to take into account the size of tiles.
@Sava: You can't model motion the way you present in your snow example. Since your feet are not at your horizontal center, you must take the path between both, which is indeed straight. Also, you need to take into account the size of tiles.
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
The more important aspect of direction of movement is that it is towards our destination.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Actually, you can. The effect is a lot smaller than with squares, but present nonetheless.
Sidewinder00Q
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 140
If they really are moving to front based warfare rather than stack based warfare, a hex grid is essential. How hard is it in a tile based system to hold a diagonal line with a tile based system? In a tile-base:
0YX
YX0
X00
You can slip between the line unless you have units in the Y tiles.
In a hex-base:
.0X.
0X0
.X0.
You hold the same line with only three units.
0YX
YX0
X00
You can slip between the line unless you have units in the Y tiles.
In a hex-base:
.0X.
0X0
.X0.
You hold the same line with only three units.
deanej
Deity
Yeah, it's next to impossible to make a diagonal front properly on squares.
Jet
No, no, please. Please.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,419
OK -- but how about a map that was almost spherical, but not quite? Leaving out the north and south poles, for example.
bonafide11
Worker
I have my fingers crossed for a spherical map, but I'm not sure if they'd go ahead with it.
As others have mentioned, if you look closely at the spheres made of hexagons, there are always pentagons in them. Not even just a few, but a significant number of them.
Here's a sphere of pentagons and hexagons "rolled out" and flattened, and you can see just how many hexagons are needed for this.
In order to have a truly spherical map composed primarily of hexagons, you'd need to toss in these pentagons. There are several issues with this.
1. Hexagons only have 5 sides, and therefore 5 ways to move. This makes some tiles in the game different than other ones, which changes the strategy for that set of tiles.
2. Without a clear indicator that this tile is different, casual players might not understand why they can't move "up" from this tile.
3. Art. You'd need to redo a lot of the art to support pentagon tiles, as well as hexagons. Even then, it would still look weird.
I always doubted the spherical map argument because I just didn't see how it worked, but you just proved it wouldn't!
Anyone else who proposes that they can now make a spherical map should be referred to this post.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
You can make a spherical map with hexagons.. In 3d, you would not apply a perfect hexagon to a curved sphere. The hexagon would just be slightly modified to conform to the sphere itself, and you are done. It wouldn't be much, and wouldn't be noticable in a game.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
I'm so looking forward to see your "perfect world map" for civ 5! The version for Civ4 is simply awesome...
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
I can clearly see the pentagons in that image.You can make a spherical map with hexagons.. In 3d, you would not apply a perfect hexagon to a curved sphere. The hexagon would just be slightly modified to conform to the sphere itself, and you are done. It wouldn't be much, and wouldn't be noticable in a game.
Someone named Euler gave the mathematical proof that hexagons alone can't make a sphere a long time ago. It's actually not that hard.
You can make the tiles smaller and thereby increase the number of hexagons while keeping just 12 pentagons.
