There only two main types of tiling for tbs - squares and hexes, and both have problems. hexes dont have all 4 straight moves, its look so painful to watch how units move left/right in civ5, they really describe half arc. squares have all 4 straight lines and 4 diagonal, but they dont geometrically correct, like in civ3 if you explore diagonally then you open twice as much tiles. so, how we can have both properties, all movement and geometric correctness? there are bunch of solutions that i come up with. 1) change cost of diagonal movement on square grid, possible solutions are: 2; 1,5; 17 if straight cost 12. maybe it good enough for tactics, but for strategy not so much. if unit have one movement than it has to move regardless of direction, unused ap is bad. 2) allow in hexes grid movement also to vertices, thereby doubles directions. +all 4 straight moves, +diagonals, -movements are not geometrically correct, some cost 2 some root(3), -not true diagonal, - 6 way to move from hex to vertex, but only 3 to come out. also how to draw map? 3)tessellation with gaps. you can use concentric rings to construct tessellation with any regular polygon, idea from hyperbolic geometry. + as many direction of movements as you like, -0 correctness. so, any more ideas?
Fundamental problem of tiling
- Thread starter q250
- Start date
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
What you mean by tesselation ? Gridless ? That would be a solution. As to hexes, they have distance distorsion as well as squares, but less visible. We could, as you suggested, also do it like in Nintendo's (Advance) Wars series : moving to a diagonal costs 2 movement points.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
One solution, another in the long list of board game features that could be transferred to computer games, is the one used by Frank Chadwick's Soldier King game back in 1982.
In that game, units moved strictly by paths or roads between points. There was no 'map movement'. The game was set in the 18th century, when in fact armies could only move by roads of some kind, and the game also required that any movement of more than (as I remember) 1 - 2 units together had to have a (relatively scarce) General with them.
Adjusting that for a wider time-scale game like Civ, we could use the fact that people make trails all over the landscape, even in Neolithic conditions (there is evidence of trade in resources over relatively long distances going back to 4 - 5000 BCE).
So, first we modify the 'road' system in that every Human place on the map - tribal huts, barbarian camps, Improvements, Cities, City States, etc - starts with a 'trail' leading to the nearest other Human Habitation on the map. Later, you might improve/upgrade these to Roads, then Improved Roads, eventually to Interstate 40 or the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
All movement goes along these pathways. Construction of Improvements and other off-road structures on the map is by application of resources, not units like 'Builders', OR Builders could build a new Trail to the Improvement as part of starting construction.
Any group of 2 or more of the same type of Military Unit requires a General. Getting Generals would require a combination of Social Factors, Cultural Factors, Civics, and probably Military Campaigns to get more of them. Great Generals would remain Something Else, obtained through a separate Great Person mechanism of some kind.
Speed of travel over any transportation path would vary wildly with the terrain, technology of road construction, technology of the units using it (including Trade Routes) and, especially for military groups, Clausewitz's "Friction of War" - the random crap that no one can explicitly foresee, but is always there: sudden rain turns the road to mud for a few days, the General's mistress loses her pet dog, etc. Better Troops and Better Generals would reduce these kinds of obstacles, but never remove them entirely.
In that game, units moved strictly by paths or roads between points. There was no 'map movement'. The game was set in the 18th century, when in fact armies could only move by roads of some kind, and the game also required that any movement of more than (as I remember) 1 - 2 units together had to have a (relatively scarce) General with them.
Adjusting that for a wider time-scale game like Civ, we could use the fact that people make trails all over the landscape, even in Neolithic conditions (there is evidence of trade in resources over relatively long distances going back to 4 - 5000 BCE).
So, first we modify the 'road' system in that every Human place on the map - tribal huts, barbarian camps, Improvements, Cities, City States, etc - starts with a 'trail' leading to the nearest other Human Habitation on the map. Later, you might improve/upgrade these to Roads, then Improved Roads, eventually to Interstate 40 or the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
All movement goes along these pathways. Construction of Improvements and other off-road structures on the map is by application of resources, not units like 'Builders', OR Builders could build a new Trail to the Improvement as part of starting construction.
Any group of 2 or more of the same type of Military Unit requires a General. Getting Generals would require a combination of Social Factors, Cultural Factors, Civics, and probably Military Campaigns to get more of them. Great Generals would remain Something Else, obtained through a separate Great Person mechanism of some kind.
Speed of travel over any transportation path would vary wildly with the terrain, technology of road construction, technology of the units using it (including Trade Routes) and, especially for military groups, Clausewitz's "Friction of War" - the random crap that no one can explicitly foresee, but is always there: sudden rain turns the road to mud for a few days, the General's mistress loses her pet dog, etc. Better Troops and Better Generals would reduce these kinds of obstacles, but never remove them entirely.
