Hex grid versus squares

[marcustcicero]

I just bought this game a while ago after playing CIV1 ~ 12 years ago. Has any body else wondered why the square grid is still being used rather than hexes? For the novice, this may all seem fine but a square grid causes movement to be inaccurate along the corners of the square whereas hexes do not. Surely, if a honey bee can make a hex grid, certainly a programer can in 2003 AD. As I recall, most computer war games use a hex grid. Hope this is not a forbidden question. Just wondering.

 

[CrackedCrystal]

First Welcome to CFC!!

I think that they did this just so they could build off of the previous versions of Civ. There is a loyal base of players and they are sticking with what is proven to work.

 

[warpstorm]

Hex grids are fairly easy to implement. The reason is probably the people like to move in the cardinal directions. Hex grids don't allow that. They have to be biased so that either east-west or north-south movement is forbidden.

Plus square grids are a little bit easier to program (not that much but a little).

You can correct for the error by having 'diagonal' movements cost 1.5 (actually the square root of 2) and get a fairly accurate movement and still use squares. This is more easily implemented by having the base cost be 2 and diagonals being 3. In any case, Firaxis didn't.

You can't swing a dead cat without finding things that don't make perfect logical or historical sense in Civ3. The bottom line is, is the game system fun?

 

[pompeynunn]

One advantage of the square grid is that you can use the keyboard keypad to move units easily - with a hex grid, you will be forced to use the mouse. I find it quicker sometimes to use the keyboard.

 

[Hateincarnate]

Bit of a weighty thread on that very subject here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36732&highlight=square+grid

 

[Hurricane]

I would have liked to see hexes, but Civ3 uses the popular approach with tiles, too. Which is probably the reason for its massive sales numbers.

 

[Stapel]

Though I agree with pompeynunn:

One advantage of the square grid is that you can use the keyboard keypad to move units easily - with a hex grid, you will be forced to use the mouse. I find it quicker sometimes to use the keyboard.

I think hexes would be better!
Would it be possible to try hex grids in some kind of test? It would be more realistic...

 

[DaDoo]

With hexes you can only move in 6 directions. With squares you can move in 8. I really rather not lose those 2 directions just so civ3 would look like other strategy games.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Nitpick; there's no reason you could give movement commands via the numerical keyboard just because you switch to hexes. If we arranged the hexes to rule out east-west movement, we'd simply make the '4' and '6' keys inactive, just like '5' is already.

That said, I rather like squares in Civ. Sure they make distances work out slightly strangely, but hexes wouldn't be perfect either (since the planet would still be cylindrical), and my poor brain rather appreciates being able to move straight along four axes rather than three.

 

[Turner]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
(since the planet would still be cylindrical)

See, that's the problem I have with Hexes. . . when I think globe, and with Civ3 (or any civ, for that matter) you don't even have a mercator projection, you have a cylinder. But I can't get globe out of my mind, and I keep seeing the world as a soccer ball, where you would have a pentagon with five hexes around it. I just can't see civ this way, even though I know intellectually that the civ world is a cylinder, not a globe. . .My mind just resists the idea of hexes.

I dunno, tho. Maybe it would work.