Civ5- A Whole New Civ

Octopoe · Aug 7, 2009

Robo-Star said:
1) Hexagonal tiles.

Hello -- I just had a quick question: what do you mean by hexagonal tiles? Like, all the production land tiles would be hexagon-shaped, with unit movements adjusting?

Also, what do you think are the relative advantages of hexagon tiles? Just curious, thank you! (relative newbie here)

Argetnyx · Aug 7, 2009

Hello -- I just had a quick question: what do you mean by hexagonal tiles? Like, all the production land tiles would be hexagon-shaped, with unit movements adjusting?

Also, what do you think are the relative advantages of hexagon tiles? Just curious, thank you! (relative newbie here)

What 'hesagonal tiles' means is that all tiles are hexagon shaped.

I personally don't see any advantages to hexagonal tiles, maybe octogonal, but not hexagonal. Especially since you can't move your unit up or down (N or S).

We need more players who are not attached to a specific civ (like me and Civ3, or Camikaze and civ4). Glad to see that you have some experience with other civs.

Rusty Edge · Aug 7, 2009

Octopoe said:
Hello -- I just had a quick question: what do you mean by hexagonal tiles? Like, all the production land tiles would be hexagon-shaped, with unit movements adjusting?

Also, what do you think are the relative advantages of hexagon tiles? Just curious, thank you! (relative newbie here)

I'll answer since I was the first to introduce the idea to this thread, and I didn't elaborate because we've discussed this on this forum before, and it is controversial.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=301865&highlight=hexes

frekk, post #47 -"I'm happy with it the way it is.

But I'd like hexes better. Never mind about the diagonal movement being more accurate; that's not why (who really cares about that?)

I have three main reasons. The first is aesthetic. With nice graphics, things blend better, the terrain is more sort of rounded and less, well, square. Individual tiles don't look quite as discrete in a hex grid (when the grid's off). Coastlines, especially, could look much nicer.

The second is chokepoints. With a hex map, there's going to be more chokepoints - no diagonal sliding by a single tile.

Finally, there's the Big Fat Cross. It's a pain in the butt!! I know some people like nothing better than counting squares all day to determine the perfect layout for their civ. It's not my cup of tea. With a hex system, you'd have a two-tile radius in all directions, period. Much easier. And looking more like a proper radius, sort of spherical, not like a cross."

Other reasons are that it takes fewer units to completely envelope a tile. Hexes make for a spherical map. Making a more realistic Earth without the distortions that make the tropics look smaller and the arctic bigger than they really are in the rectangular maps we're used to.

Does that help?

Hail · Aug 7, 2009

Argetnyx said:
What 'hesagonal tiles' means is that all tiles are hexagon shaped.

I personally don't see any advantages to hexagonal tiles, maybe octogonal, but not hexagonal. Especially since you can't move your unit up or down (N or S).

We need more players who are not attached to a specific civ (like me and Civ4, or Camikaze and civ4). Glad to see that you have some experience with other civs.

i'm not attached to any civ. as for hexes: you either lose N/S or W/E movement direction depending on how the hex tiles are placed. therefore i favor the square.

Camikaze · Aug 7, 2009

Argetnyx said:
To me, civ4 is too much of a game, I can't think of a better word. Many times, I have to think of what my next move would be in Civ3, like a chess game. It seems to me that in civ4, it's 'do this or fail'.

I would say that that has a lot to do with what difficulty level you are playing on. I commonly have to 'think' about what to do, with micromanagement, build possibilities, deciding whether to build a cottage or a farm, etc.

I can see the point that militarily, you don't have to think much, but having only played Civ3 once or twice six years ago, I can't really say whether this is true or not for it.

The graphics are horrible in civ4, I'm not saying that the Civ3 graphics were great, but they worked. Civ4 graphics are too overdone (so what if the trees move, the animation takes up so much space). I personally am not a fan of the 3d graphics, they only way that they actually look good is if you made them so detailed that the space that they take up is unbearable. Have you ever zoomed in on a civ4 rifleman? He looks like he's holding a giant chocolate bar.

I quite like the graphics. Sure, they aren't perfect, but they are effective from a reasonable difference. 'Blue Marble' helps with that, and so does a fast computer with the highest resolution and graphics level, but I am a sucker for eye candy. And 3D stuff does it for me. I would hate for Civ to degenerate to 2D, or something. Sure, improve the graphics, make them more realistic, but I have no real qualms about Civ 4 in this regard.

Argetnyx · Aug 8, 2009

as for hexes: you either lose N/S or W/E movement direction depending on how the hex tiles are placed. therefore i favor the square.

That is why I don't like the idea.

I would say that that has a lot to do with what difficulty level you are playing on. I commonly have to 'think' about what to do, with micromanagement, build possibilities, deciding whether to build a cottage or a farm, etc.

That is annoying. There aren't many choices for tile inprovement, especially when a resource is on it. I like the Civ3 system, even though it obviously needs work:
1) If there is a resource, you build a road to it, unless it is outside of your borders, then you build a colony.

2) If you want more production, build a mine.

3) If you want more food, build irrigation (a farm, basically)

4) If you want more gold, build a road.

Adding some things would be nice, but not so much that you are required to build a certain thing.

I quite like the graphics. Sure, they aren't perfect, but they are effective from a reasonable difference. 'Blue Marble' helps with that, and so does a fast computer with the highest resolution and graphics level, but I am a sucker for eye candy. And 3D stuff does it for me. I would hate for Civ to degenerate to 2D, or something. Sure, improve the graphics, make them more realistic, but I have no real qualms about Civ 4 in this regard.

Look at what is possible in the way of Civ3 unit graphics. Attched is a .gif of Wyrmshadow's (the best industrial/modern unit creator) Bismark battleship.

deanej · Aug 8, 2009

I wouldn't say that civ 4's improvement system lacks choice. If anything, it has too much. On any given flat tile, you can build a farm, a cottage, a fort, or a workshop (and watermills with a river). If the plot has a forest lumbermills and forest preserves become available in the industrial era. On any hill you can build mines and windmills. This is in addition to the improvements that provide resources (forts provide resources also, but don't give the super bonus). Roads only provide connectivity and faster movement (you get commerce from trade routes now) and are still required to hook up resources.

I will give you the fact that graphics are harder to mod in civ 4. While leaders can be made 2D, units can't. This is OK if you're making a historical mod (as it's likely that someone made the unit you need) but is difficult for fantasy/sci fi.

MrCynical · Aug 8, 2009

Argetnyx said:
personally don't see any advantages to hexagonal tiles, maybe octogonal, but not hexagonal. Especially since you can't move your unit up or down (N or S).

Slight technical problem that octagons don't tesselate...

Camikaze · Aug 9, 2009

Argetnyx said:
Look at what is possible in the way of Civ3 unit graphics. Attched is a .gif of Wyrmshadow's (the best industrial/modern unit creator) Bismark battleship.

Sure, that's nice, with pretty animations and what not, but honestly, I've seen a better Bismarck Battleship in a WWII mod. The animations on this aren't any more realistic than in Civ 4 (apart from that nice little movement up and down), but the skins in Civ 4 do have more detail. For instance, in this, the swastika is barely recognisable. It must be 3x3 pixels, or something. Despite some 'chocolate-bar' graphics, Civ 4's graphics are better detailed and generally prettier. Exceptions to the rule may apply, but they are merely exceptions.

Argetnyx · Aug 9, 2009

Slight technical problem that octagons don't tesselate...

'Tis a magical game...

Sure, that's nice, with pretty animations and what not, but honestly, I've seen a better Bismarck Battleship in a WWII mod. The animations on this aren't any more realistic than in Civ 4 (apart from that nice little movement up and down), but the skins in Civ 4 do have more detail. For instance, in this, the swastika is barely recognisable. It must be 3x3 pixels, or something. Despite some 'chocolate-bar' graphics, Civ 4's graphics are better detailed and generally prettier. Exceptions to the rule may apply, but they are merely exceptions.

The reason for the details is the scale. In civ4, you can zoom in, Civ3 you can't. Civ4 is also a much smaller-scale game than civ3 (the largest civ4 map is the same as the standard Civ3 map).

As far as I've seen, the details on all of the civ4 units were blurred. Still don't believe Civ3 graphics are good? Try this:

MrCynical · Aug 9, 2009

Argetnyx said:
The reason for the details is the scale. In civ4, you can zoom in, Civ3 you can't. Civ4 is also a much smaller-scale game than civ3 (the largest civ4 map is the same as the standard Civ3 map).

I've seen this claim so often, despite the fact it's utter rubbish. A Civ 4 standard map is 84x52 = 4368 squares. A Civ 3 standard map is about 2500.

Part of the confusion is probably due to the way the dimensions were expressed in Civ 3. A standard civ 3 map is described as 100x100, but this is misleading, since the map doesn't have straight edges. It's composed of diamonds, and the numbering zigzags from one diamond to the next along the edges, essentially doubling the numbers listed as dimensions. The actual number of tiles is only about a quarter of what you'd suspect from the listed dimensions.

Except on some very unusual maps scripts, Civ 4 maps are larger than the corresponding Civ 3 maps.

Argetnyx · Aug 9, 2009

I've seen this claim so often, despite the fact it's utter rubbish. A Civ 4 standard map is 84x52 = 4368 squares. A Civ 3 standard map is about 2500.

I've just checked, the standard size Civ3 map is 100x100, 10,000 tiles. Even the smallest Civ3 map is 60x60, 3,600 tiles. The largest, the huge size, is 160x160, 25,600 tiles.

Part of the confusion is probably due to the way the dimensions were expressed in Civ 3. A standard civ 3 map is described as 100x100, but this is misleading, since the map doesn't have straight edges. It's composed of diamonds, and the numbering zigzags from one diamond to the next along the edges, essentially doubling the numbers listed as dimensions. The actual number of tiles is only about a quarter of what you'd suspect from the listed dimensions.

I just checked that: The way that the tiles in Civ3 fit together make the distance covered by two tiles the same as if they were side-by-side in square pattern.

MrCynical · Aug 9, 2009

Argetnyx said:
I just checked that: The way that the tiles in Civ3 fit together make the distance covered by two tiles the same as if they were side-by-side in square pattern.

Yes - but what matters is where the numbers 100x100 actually came from. Count the tiles along the edge of the map, zigzagging from one to the other. Do you have 100 or 200? If it's 100, then basic geometry means that you've only got about 2500 tiles.

Argetnyx · Aug 9, 2009

I don't see what you're getting at. It's a 100x100 map, why would it have 200 tiles on the edge?

MrCynical · Aug 9, 2009

Hmm, if this forum has basic info like the exact number of tiles on a standard civ 3 map, the search function can't find it.

OK, well let's use a suitably small example: TLC's Hexette, as seen in the screenie here.

OK, I was slightly wrong - only one of the two dimensions is doubled with the Civ 3 counting method, not both. Hexette is a 16x16 map. So it should have 256 tiles right? Now count them - there's only 128.

The same problem applies to all maps, so a standard map would be 5000 tiles in Civ 3 - so slightly larger than a standard Civ 4 map on most map scripts (except Terra which is slightly larger), but nowhere near as much as you initially said. A huge Civ 4 map has 128x80 = 10240 tiles, Civ 3 would have 160x80 = 12800. So OK, assuming you don't play Terra, Civ 3 maps are fractionally larger than Civ 4.

Argetnyx · Aug 9, 2009

There's something about the civ4 graphics that makes everything look smaller, it's really annoying.

Camikaze · Aug 10, 2009

Argetnyx said:
As far as I've seen, the details on all of the civ4 units were blurred. Still don't believe Civ3 graphics are good? Try this:

To me, that looks like a rather childish animation and explosion. I prefer the tank in Civ 4, for example. But enough quibbling about graphics. Let's agree to disagree.

Rusty Edge · Aug 10, 2009

10) Promotions. I think tactical elements are best handled as promotions. We could use a few more, such as .

a) Capture. We had the "enslave" feature in CIV III, yet our privateers are unable to capture other units. I'd like to see siege units up through artillery, sailing ships, and transports capturable. Modern warships (only in ports and forts )and aircraft ( only on the ground)capturable. If you don't have the technology to use them, you "capture" beakers toward the tech instead.

b) Ambush.( No, not the anti-armor promotion ) This has been discussed elsewhere, but the idea being to make a unit stationary and invisible with a first strike advantage.

c) Withdrawal. Call it retreat, give ground, whatever. When a defender with this promotion takes 50% damage, it moves away. Can't retreat from a flanking unit. Handy for keeping your pet GG alive.

Argetnyx · Aug 10, 2009

10) Promotions. I think tactical elements are best handled as promotions. We could use a few more, such as .

Anybody remember my idea of initial training? They're like regular promotions, but you can't add to them after you build the unit unless you send them in for more training. This will keep a unit that just defeated a horseman from getting a promotion against riflemen.

a) Capture. We had the "enslave" feature in CIV III, yet our privateers are unable to capture other units. I'd like to see siege units up through artillery, sailing ships, and transports capturable. Modern warships (only in ports and forts )and aircraft ( only on the ground)capturable. If you don't have the technology to use them, you "capture" beakers toward the tech instead.

Nice idea, I thought nobody else would think of capturing as good.

b) Ambush.( No, not the anti-armor promotion ) This has been discussed elsewhere, but the idea being to make a unit stationary and invisible with a first strike advantage.

The first strike is good, but the invisible is not.

c) Withdrawal. Call it retreat, give ground, whatever. When a defender with this promotion takes 50% damage, it moves away. Can't retreat from a flanking unit. Handy for keeping your pet GG alive.

Nice idea, but 50-75% is a better range.

You gave me a good idea. I don't know what to call it though...

If you choose, you can give a unit orders to 'hide' or 'camoflague'. This will not make the unit 'invisible', but make the illusion that the unit is smaller (i.e. weaker) that it actually is.

Camikaze · Aug 10, 2009

A had an idea to slightly fix the promotion system that is similar to the initial training idea. Let XP work the same way, and promotions be available at exactly the same time. The difference is in this idea that promotions must be taken the turn after the XP level has been achieved, or as soon as they are available. If they are not taken then, they will not be available again until you reach the next level. This prevents unpromoted units from wandering around with the ability to become City Raider 3 at the drop of a hat, and would make things a lot more realistic.

Civ5- A Whole New Civ

Chieftain

Emperor

Deity

Satan's minion

Administrator

Emperor

Attachments

Deity

Deity

Administrator

Emperor

Attachments

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Administrator

Deity

Emperor

Administrator

Similar threads