What do you think of the implementation of a truly round world through hex grids?

This is not a civ4 question. Im aware this is not exatly the place to post such a thread, but it is the closest i have with decent traffic. I want to ask you, fans the game civilization: what do you think of implementing a truly round world on civ games?

For those confused, try to wonder why antarctica always appear in the game as a thin strip, when it is actually a "round" continent. This is because the use of the square grid forces a cylindrical world, where the x axis swaps, but the y axis act as effective end of the world "walls" (unless y axis swap is on).

Back on the question, a truly round world could be implemented through the use of a geodesic grid. Unlike some earlier posts google uncovered, i think it is perfectly possible to grid a sphere-like object solely through hexes (no pentagons involved). Although i bring no mathematical hard proof, this image from a icosahedral fullerene on wikipedia demonstrates it is possible to approximate a sphere solely through hexes. I think anyone with a decent background on geometry/topology can generalize this shape into larger forms.

Although exciting (at least for me), this feature would imply many changes, the biggest one being the the change from a square grid to a hexagonal grid. I want to ask you, civ fans in general, would you approve such a change? Im not trying to "sell" hex grids to you, i just want to know your reaction.

I don't think it matter either way - I think I'd prefer it, but as long as I know what the map-rules are and everyone plays by them, I don't really care.

Hex-maps have been used in tabletop games for many, many years - so the old-timers among us are already used to them.

If I had to pick which I would prefer, I'd say hex maps.

Being a bit conservative with my Civ, I'm not sure I'd be able to adjust without severe issues. With that said, it sounds like a very interesting idea.

hex maps that "fold" into globes would kick butt!!! What's the delay, Firaxis? Git 'er dun.

It's mathematically impossible to have a closed 3d surface with just hexagons though, all geodesic domes have some pentagons. The picture from wikipedia posted seems like it has a pentagon at the north pole at least.

I'm looking for a proof of the result now.

Bahacles44 said:

hex maps that "fold" into globes would kick **s!!! What's the delay, Firaxis? Git 'er dun.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Civilization has always used square-based maps, and that adoption of a hex-based system would not only be a tremendous undertaking, but a serious shift in game philosophy that would require careful consideration.

Hex-based Civilization 4 sounds neat (I wouldn't play it, personally), but I'm sure it's outside the scope of the current program architecture.

Bahacles44 said:

hex maps that "fold" into globes would kick butt!!! What's the delay, Firaxis? Git 'er dun.

Click to expand...

I like this kind of thing on board games, but civ has been running with squares since the beginning, you can't say: "Don't screw over my game, but change it completly" now can you?

I think this could be a goal to work towards, however I believe it should be done in steps, with the first step getting a replacement for the square grid system.

It has had its day and now a more realistic hexagonal (or similar) system needs to be incorporated.

Once this is done successfully, the switch to a 'truly round world' would then be the next step.

I think a truly round world in Civ would be cool!

Civilization has lots of shortcomings. The combat system is a joke. Squares vs hexes is ridiculous. And yet, it's the best game EVAR!

Seriously, I love CIV. As big as the warts are, I wonder if the warts aren't part of the charm. Not that I oppose improvement, but I rem what "improvement" did in civ3.

Hey everybody, this is my first post, I've been lurking the forum for awhile, but this topic interested me to the point where I felt like chiming in.

I think a triangle based grid would work better, especially for representing a planet at the high and low levels, take a look at this series of articles showing how to represent a planet in 3D graphics using a triangular grid system: http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article2074.asp

It would be nice if it were more realistic in the sense that the distance we see left to right at the equator is much larger than the distance left to right we see at the poles. In the game, it's the same distance, but in reality the equator would be much larger. Sometimes it might be neat to run an army through the arctic to surprise your enemy on the other side of the world Today, a lot of countries are rushing to claim off sea territory in the arctic, because they suspect it might hold oil or other valuable resources. This would make a neat additional dynamic to Civ, if you had to rush to claim the arctic when the appropriate time period came about.

No.

And I'm an old board wargamer from way back. (I was playing on hex grids before a lot of you kids were even born. )

First, round/spherical worlds are not that important to gameplay. Most of the time, you're not going to be looking at more than a relatively small piece of the world, anyway. And a flat map is the convention, even in the real world. Sure, we all know that the world is round, but we rarely treat it as such. Most of our uses can be easily met with a flat map.

Second, why give up two axes of movement? With a hex map, you have six direction you can go, from any given tile. The square tile maps used by Civ allow eight different directions.

ParadigmShifter said:

It's mathematically impossible to have a closed 3d surface with just hexagons though, all geodesic domes have some pentagons. The picture from wikipedia posted seems like it has a pentagon at the north pole at least.

I'm looking for a proof of the result now.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.. this is something i'd really like to see proof on. I think pentagons would ruin the idea, because the coordinate system needs to be concise. I have no hope that a sphere could be perfectly gridded solely through hexes, but i have hope that some kind of closed surface which looks round can be built.

It is at these times i wish i could study more math.

pfo said:

I think a triangle based grid would work better, especially for representing a planet at the high and low levels.

Click to expand...

I think triangles are a no-no. Remember: the resistance to truly round worlds comes mainly from the "loss" of two directions in the transition from squares to hexes. A triangular grid would allow mean the loss of even more directions. Besides, hexes are "alien" enough to the new generation of gamers (a factor we cannot ignore), triangles would be even more strange.



Anyone who have played an hex wargame knows the main change from the loss of two directions is the greater importance of zones of control. With square grids, corners can be used to "sneak in" troops through a small breach.
Another change would be the loss of the artificial straits used since civ2: by placing land and water squares diagonally, a "bridge" can be built that allows the passage of both types of units. With hex grids, diagonal movement is eliminated, therefore straits can only be passed as long as a city lies in the square.
Also, adjustments may be needed to the pathfind algorithm. This actually boils down to the difficulty of building a proper coordinate system, which i believe (im not a specialist in the area) is the foundation of pathfinding. I think modern codes are robust enough to handle this, although it may take time.

In the end, i dont think this switch would warrant enough changes on the game dynamics to be unfeasable. It would however be quite a shock for most players used to the old squares. The ideal would be to implement both and allow an option to play at either a flat world, a cylindrical world or a round world, although i admit it would take precious time, a scarce resource in game development.

Nodles said:

In the end, i dont think this switch would warrant enough changes on the game dynamics to be unfeasable. It would however be quite a shock for most players used to the old squares. The ideal would be to implement both and allow an option to play at either a flat world, a cylindrical world or a round world, although i admit it would take precious time, a scarce resource in game development.

Click to expand...

Hex-based Civilization isn't going to happen; the franchise will remain square-based, that much you can be sure of. What you're describing would be fitting for a mod, provided there are enough people interested to do the necessary coding.

Nodles said:

Hmmmm.. this is something i'd really like to see proof on. I think pentagons would ruin the idea, because the coordinate system needs to be concise. I have no hope that a sphere could be perfectly gridded solely through hexes, but i have hope that some kind of closed surface which looks round can be built.

It is at these times i wish i could study more math.

Click to expand...

Hexagons can only create a planar surface ( just look at a bee hive.... ). To create a "spherical" world you'll need:

-Or 12 pentagons ( using the dodecaehdron matrix and adding hexagons )

-Or 22 triangles ( using the isocaehdron matrix and adding hexagons )

There are only 9 regular polyhedrons possible, and only 6 of these resemble a globe shape. (The others are "star shaped".) 4 of these 6 are made up of triangles (the other two, the cube and the dodecahedron, are made up of squares and pentagons, respectively. Long story short, making a solid figure out of congruent hexagons is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Moderator Action: You can disagree with the idea without being abusive.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I like the OPs suggestion. I play computer wargames that have hexagon grids already. Hexes works great.

There is no difficulty implementing pathfinding on a hex grid, like some posters above would like to make you believe. It has already been done no problems.

Sperical world: add pentagons to make it real close or fudge a little. Both can work. It would be a great feature and change is good.

I couldn't find a proof on the web, not even at mathworld.

I think what r_rolo1 said is correct though, has he got a link for that?

The guy who said hexagons can only create planar surfaces is a bit misleading, you can create a cylindrical shaped world (like we have in civ at the moment) with a honeycomb, by curving it round and gluing one edge to another. You can't make the top and bottom of the cylindrical shape pinch together to join up without using some non-hexagonal shapes though.

What about dividing the map in 6 parts as faces of a virtual cube, so you can keep the square tiles and the globe view would be a sphere mesh with the faces of the cube projected on it