davane
Warlord
I'm quite dubious over the idea of hexes to be honest. Both hexes and squares have their positives and their negatives, and the differences will define how the game plays. Neither hexes or squares will provide a complete solution to all the issues that need to be considered, so it is a case of choosing which system you favour more, and what you can and cannot live with.
Hexes are good for mapping outdoor environments, as they allow for easier creation of circular forms, which are more natural-looking than squares. However, hexes are less suited to tactical situations than squares. Hexes have issues with orientation as it makes a substantial difference which way the hexes are orientated, and it is considerably harder to form straight-line formations in hex-based combat.
Conversely, the opposite is true for squares. While maps are unrealistic and "blocky", with the fat crosses rather than squares being an adequate example, squares excel in tactical based situations. The orientation of the square has no effect on the battle, and it's much easier to mark the straight-line formations that were used in classic warfare tactics.
Ultimately, what this seems to come down to is that Civ V is changing from squares to hexes, because it is shifting away from the tactical warfare elements of the game to focus on more naturalistic outdoor environments and better graphics. I feel the devs are building a rod for their own backs in this case, as they are introducing many issues in tactical situations that come primarily from using a hex-based system rather than the traditional square-based one. issues that tactical situations that didn't exist in previous incarnations of Civ for the very reason it used square-based maps.
I'm not entirely sure all these factors have been considered with the shift to hexes. More natural-looking outdoor environments is not a good excuse to detract from the tactical elements of the game, as Civ has always had a long tradition of focusing on gameplay over graphics, contrary to the other ideas on game design theory. Aesthetics is important, but not to the point where eyecand actively reduces other aspects of the game.
So, I'm kind of hesitant about the shift to hexes from squares in Civ IV. No doubt that many of the other features that the game will inevitably be hailed for could be modded into Civ IV and it's square-based maps anyway.
Also, the Atomic Gamer preview of Civ IV is incorrect in it's assumption the strategy is increased in Civ IV because of it's switch to hex-based maps. Hexes may have six faces to defend, but squares have eight, not four, as you can attack diagonally as well. This means that, in fact, the area surrounding a city in which opposing units can attack has been reduced, not increased, and thus makes cities (or, indeed, any hex, for that matter) much more defensible, which is not neccessarily a good thing when so many factors already favour the defender, and defending ultimately makes for boring gameplay.
The "cheating" of diagonals is easily remedied by applying a little trigonometry to the situation. Diagonal movement represents roughly 1.5 times horizontal or vertical movement. Simply mod in this ratio and the problem of "diagonal cheating" is basically solved. However this same "diagonal cheating" is part of the flaws that squares have, but is clearly matched by the hex-based flaw that units end up staggered by up to half a hex in some directions. Both issues provide this flaw in 4 of the possible directions, but squares provide accuracy in 4 other directions, where hexes only do so in 2.
Hexes are good for mapping outdoor environments, as they allow for easier creation of circular forms, which are more natural-looking than squares. However, hexes are less suited to tactical situations than squares. Hexes have issues with orientation as it makes a substantial difference which way the hexes are orientated, and it is considerably harder to form straight-line formations in hex-based combat.
Conversely, the opposite is true for squares. While maps are unrealistic and "blocky", with the fat crosses rather than squares being an adequate example, squares excel in tactical based situations. The orientation of the square has no effect on the battle, and it's much easier to mark the straight-line formations that were used in classic warfare tactics.
Ultimately, what this seems to come down to is that Civ V is changing from squares to hexes, because it is shifting away from the tactical warfare elements of the game to focus on more naturalistic outdoor environments and better graphics. I feel the devs are building a rod for their own backs in this case, as they are introducing many issues in tactical situations that come primarily from using a hex-based system rather than the traditional square-based one. issues that tactical situations that didn't exist in previous incarnations of Civ for the very reason it used square-based maps.
I'm not entirely sure all these factors have been considered with the shift to hexes. More natural-looking outdoor environments is not a good excuse to detract from the tactical elements of the game, as Civ has always had a long tradition of focusing on gameplay over graphics, contrary to the other ideas on game design theory. Aesthetics is important, but not to the point where eyecand actively reduces other aspects of the game.
So, I'm kind of hesitant about the shift to hexes from squares in Civ IV. No doubt that many of the other features that the game will inevitably be hailed for could be modded into Civ IV and it's square-based maps anyway.
Also, the Atomic Gamer preview of Civ IV is incorrect in it's assumption the strategy is increased in Civ IV because of it's switch to hex-based maps. Hexes may have six faces to defend, but squares have eight, not four, as you can attack diagonally as well. This means that, in fact, the area surrounding a city in which opposing units can attack has been reduced, not increased, and thus makes cities (or, indeed, any hex, for that matter) much more defensible, which is not neccessarily a good thing when so many factors already favour the defender, and defending ultimately makes for boring gameplay.
The "cheating" of diagonals is easily remedied by applying a little trigonometry to the situation. Diagonal movement represents roughly 1.5 times horizontal or vertical movement. Simply mod in this ratio and the problem of "diagonal cheating" is basically solved. However this same "diagonal cheating" is part of the flaws that squares have, but is clearly matched by the hex-based flaw that units end up staggered by up to half a hex in some directions. Both issues provide this flaw in 4 of the possible directions, but squares provide accuracy in 4 other directions, where hexes only do so in 2.
Love'm. That is all.
