Minor Annoyance
Deity
I remember once Sid saying that as much as being a turn based game is a key feature of Civilization, he said it being a tile based game maybe more it's defining quality. So he's attached to the tile format.
Hexagon Tiles: Like them, love them, or RAGGGEEEE!!!
- Thread starter Jakerg23
- Start date
I remember once Sid saying that as much as being a turn based game is a key feature of Civilization, he said it being a tile based game maybe more it's defining quality. So he's attached to the tile format.
henrebotha
proud Fender owner
Square tiles are very easy in comparison to hexes, so that's likely thwe biggest 'appeal' to having them in a game
I'm looking forward to the AI no longer moving my units in bizaar zig-zag patterns because square tiles make diagnal moves essentially faster than straight moves.
I'm not looking forward to having to re-invent the wheel with my map script(s) so I hope that have some handy utility functions ready to go out of the box.
Bold part is the thing I have always had an issue with myself. I feel wholly that hexes are far more capable of representing the real world than squares are. I am completely and utterly for hexes.
Put it this way: the fact alone that Civ V uses hexes is enough reason for me to buy a new computer so I can play it.
I used to be a strong Square-tile person, but over the past years while designing some stuff on my own and looking into it more, I've found that hexes are the far superior movement system.
The biggest seller is the equidistance -- every step you can take from one hex square to another is an equal distance away. There is no way to "cheat" and somehow give the player the illogical ability to move 14% further in four directions than the other four. It makes a big difference, as I'm sure we've all found. Pathfinding is hugely simplified.
Equidistance also opens up new possibilities for battle. For example, shooting within a certain radius. It's no longer a fat cross or a super square (what catapult has the range of a square irl? it's always circles), and no longer do you have awkward artifacts of cities being under threat just because of the wrong orientation respect to square tiles.
No more need for a "fat cross"...radius is cleanly implemented.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes. I was always wary of my beloved Civ switching to Hex (I had believed that Civ IV was the perfection of the genre/game mechanics) so I would have never argued for it. But now that Firaxis has made the swap...I think I'll grow to like it
The biggest seller is the equidistance -- every step you can take from one hex square to another is an equal distance away. There is no way to "cheat" and somehow give the player the illogical ability to move 14% further in four directions than the other four. It makes a big difference, as I'm sure we've all found. Pathfinding is hugely simplified.
Equidistance also opens up new possibilities for battle. For example, shooting within a certain radius. It's no longer a fat cross or a super square (what catapult has the range of a square irl? it's always circles), and no longer do you have awkward artifacts of cities being under threat just because of the wrong orientation respect to square tiles.
No more need for a "fat cross"...radius is cleanly implemented.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes. I was always wary of my beloved Civ switching to Hex (I had believed that Civ IV was the perfection of the genre/game mechanics) so I would have never argued for it. But now that Firaxis has made the swap...I think I'll grow to like it
kaibayashi
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 264
The only downside imo is that now presumably cities will only be able to work 6 tiles in the start?
largedarryl
Prince
TW games until the latest instalement always had a square grid ( hidden OFC ) . ETW has no grid, but also had ( not sure if still has... have not touched that for a while ) quite some issues with pathfinding in complex map areas, especially with the navy ( enough to crash the game out ) . So, I guess that keeping a grid is better for now
I certainly agree that getting rid of a grid system can generate some issues, but I think the cultural influence/borders should be something that is really grid-less. There isn't anything that should make the pathfinding algorithm use a hidden grid.
I have just had always hoped that the grid system would be hidden/removed to give a more fluid feeling to borders. I think this would give a more realistic feel to the game, IMO.
This is why I'm happy about the move to hexes. Assuming they really do make the world round it will mean a Civ on the edges of the map wont get the benefit of a 'safe' border, unlike a Civ on the equator who has to watch every direction.
Sure it may take some tech or air power (subs under the north pole?
) to use this but I think its a great idea.I'm sure this will be balanced. Either production per tile is up x1.5 or units/buildings/pop cost 2/3rds the price. And even if not, all of your enemies would be working under the same reduction as well.
The only major difference would be the number of resources the city would be able to control, adding more strategic depth definitely.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I think it's probably futile to speculate as to how things will work i.e. production per tile or unit/building/pop cost with so little information. Currently we'd just be thinking as though the game was just civ 4 with hexes. It's known combat will be very different so units will obviously be very different, thus their cost or the number of them used at one time will likely be very different. Ergo, speculation with the information we have would be largely futile.
I was hoping for squares, but that was mainly from the point of view that it would take a lot of effort changing to hexes that could be expended on another part of the game. But I guess it's good that they've made the effort, assuming everything works fine with it.
I was merely stating that the concern about only having 6 starting city tiles was unfounded, for more or less the very reason you stated. Sorry for the confusion.
How do 6 directions correspond to keys on a keyboard? I've only ever played square games.
completely.Minor Annoyance
Deity
You just don't use the 8 or 2 keys.
What if the keyboard had movement on the U-I-H-L-M-M keys, or some other set of keys. On my keyboard they are a hex of keys around my J key... would they do this?
Or around the S key would work....
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
Since I was introduced to hexagon-based games, oh, say 50 years ago, when I played actual paper and cardboard counter war games, this comes as no big deal. It was clear back then that hexagons were a superior means to symbolize map movement in games. Civ V is only catching up now, but I welcome the change, just as I do the change to one unit per hex. This Civ will have lots of new things to get our juices flowing again, and that is a good thing I think.
Well, I already mentioned how I felt in the other topic, but to sum up briefly:
I'm more confused and curious than happy or angry.
-I understand the strength of hexes: the center of every hex is equidistant to the center of all the surrounding hexes, so distance is more accuracy represented by the connections
-On the other hand, squares allowed us to move in all 8 cardinal and ordinal directions.
I was never bothered by the fat cross or the abstraction caused by diagonal moves in the square grids. I mean, now that battles are going to be more tactical, I guess accurate distance is desirable, but wouldn't we rather be able to preserve north-south-east-west?
In the end, though, I loved Civ4, and Firaxis made Civ4. They're the experts, so I trust Civ5 is gonna be awesome. I'm just curious to see how different it will feel, once I get my hands on it.
I'm more confused and curious than happy or angry.
-I understand the strength of hexes: the center of every hex is equidistant to the center of all the surrounding hexes, so distance is more accuracy represented by the connections
-On the other hand, squares allowed us to move in all 8 cardinal and ordinal directions.
I was never bothered by the fat cross or the abstraction caused by diagonal moves in the square grids. I mean, now that battles are going to be more tactical, I guess accurate distance is desirable, but wouldn't we rather be able to preserve north-south-east-west?
In the end, though, I loved Civ4, and Firaxis made Civ4. They're the experts, so I trust Civ5 is gonna be awesome. I'm just curious to see how different it will feel, once I get my hands on it.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
No, I don't think we would. I don't know why it would be important that there be a tile directly north or south. This seems like an obsessive compulsive complaint. Straight lines going north and south: good, wavy lines going north and south: bad.
