I am wondering if anyone has asked why Firaxis chose to use square tiles instead of hex tiles. I have seen old board games (war types especially) that use hex tiles. Using them might alleviate the computational challenges that are often discussed. (I think the term is orthoginal). Any comments?
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
hex tiles vs square tiles
- Thread starter klevine
- Start date
RegentMan
Deity
I actually don't mind square tiles. What improvements would hex tiles provide?
Black Waltz
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 569
I must say I don't think there is any problems with the way its laid out. I remember playing this VERY sad wargame port on the PlayStation (Panzer General?) which used hex layout. But I think that what they have now is perfect for the needs. How would Hex improve the game?
(This has been debated before. 
)
One thing about using square tiles is you have 8 different directions to move from them. (4 sides, and 4 corners.) With Hex, you would only use the 6 sides. Thus you would actually *lose* some of what you have now.
(BTW: orthogonal refers to the current (square) tileset. Hexagonal would refer to hexes. )
)One thing about using square tiles is you have 8 different directions to move from them. (4 sides, and 4 corners.) With Hex, you would only use the 6 sides. Thus you would actually *lose* some of what you have now.
(BTW: orthogonal refers to the current (square) tileset. Hexagonal would refer to hexes.
)Wow, the replies come quickly!
It seems that this issue has been fully explored, and the votes are for the squares. I certainly would not want to buck the tradition! (Even if I wanted to do so, I doubt I would have enough influence to get Firaxis to to a major rewrite...)
Also, I did not consider the 8 vs 6 move choices. Compelling argument...
It seems that this issue has been fully explored, and the votes are for the squares. I certainly would not want to buck the tradition! (Even if I wanted to do so, I doubt I would have enough influence to get Firaxis to to a major rewrite...)
Also, I did not consider the 8 vs 6 move choices. Compelling argument...
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The standard argument for hexes is that with them all directions are equal. With square tiles you can walk/fire longer along the diagonals than in the cardinal directions.
Still, I think the Civ series should stick to the squares.
Still, I think the Civ series should stick to the squares.
Hex offers more realistic movement, with each direction being equal, and tends to divide the map better. It does also make it easier to compute distances, and makes movement, even for the player much easier and more realistic. Hexes also make the map look more natural, since there are much fewer right angles, and the hexagon shape is more appealing than the square for things like hills and forests.
And as far as Panzer General goes, I thought that that was about the best strategy game ever made. It was incredibly realistic, involved strategy and tactics on almost every level, was a great challenge, and was way ahead of its time. It's about 10 years old now and still easily beats out almost all of the new games coming out.
And as far as Panzer General goes, I thought that that was about the best strategy game ever made. It was incredibly realistic, involved strategy and tactics on almost every level, was a great challenge, and was way ahead of its time. It's about 10 years old now and still easily beats out almost all of the new games coming out.
SilverKnight
Prince
Down with the evil hexes!!! 
They're aligned with the traitorous Octagons, and they MUST be stopped! None are safe until all but FOUR sides are eliminated! ARGHH!!!
They're aligned with the traitorous Octagons, and they MUST be stopped! None are safe until all but FOUR sides are eliminated! ARGHH!!!
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
I'm an old board gamer, too. When Civilization (Civ1) was released I thought square tiles were outrageous and inefficient, too. It took me about one game to get over it. In retrospect, hexes gave you natural movement as long as you were moving directly along one of the six axes. But if you were moving to a hex in between you had to sort of "duck walk" the unit from side to side - not very natural.
I agree that maps turn out more natural looking, but the designers and our modders do a pretty good job with squares.
I agree that maps turn out more natural looking, but the designers and our modders do a pretty good job with squares.
Perfection
The Great Head.
What if they had equilteral triangles? 
Xerol
Emperor
put 6 equilateral triangles together and you get a hex. it would basically be the same thing but with more subdivisions and only 3 movement directions.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Hexes make more sense to me. But I understand that they 'scare' some people. Some wargame companies have taken to using offset squares or rectangles, to give a better depiction of range etc but I always find that just looks silly.
Padma - actually hexes have up to 12 directions possible - 6 corners and 6 sides, just like civ uses cides and corners.
12 a nice number, because it splits the compass into 30 degree arcs. Makes for good depiction of vehicular movement (aircraft, ships, etc)
Padma - actually hexes have up to 12 directions possible - 6 corners and 6 sides, just like civ uses cides and corners.
12 a nice number, because it splits the compass into 30 degree arcs. Makes for good depiction of vehicular movement (aircraft, ships, etc)
I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.
And that is a good point. But hex maps traditionally have just used the six "side" directions, and not used the "points".
FWIW, I'm a wargamer from way back. I played extensively during the BC era (Before Computers
). Hex maps do provide an outstanding methodology for tactical maneuvering. But on the Grand Strategic scale of Civ, the orthogonal tileset used works very well, also.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Actually, the unit scale and combat modelling of civ would be best suited to the point-to-point map form, I think. Obviously it'd be hard to reconcile that with cities whose location is indeterminate at game start, though.
I don't normally notice the orthagonality (is that a word) unless I'm moving naval units - then the "shortest distance between 2 points is not a straight line" can be a bit odd.
I wonder if the poor distance modelling of an orthagonal system explains the difficulties the route-finding algorithm has sometimes - after all, if there are multiple routes which are all "shortest" that seems to add a layer of complexity.
I don't normally notice the orthagonality (is that a word) unless I'm moving naval units - then the "shortest distance between 2 points is not a straight line" can be a bit odd.
I wonder if the poor distance modelling of an orthagonal system explains the difficulties the route-finding algorithm has sometimes - after all, if there are multiple routes which are all "shortest" that seems to add a layer of complexity.
slothman
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2001
- Messages
- 1,223
I know, how about circles? Of course since they can fill completely weird shaped sections would be needed to fill in the gaps. That's not just 6 or 8 or 12 directions but infinity.
The point part of hexes, bad spells?, isn't really the same as corners of squares. The corners of squares actually touch another corner while the corners of hexes must go through an edge to get to another hex. I wouldn't want that to be included. Plus maybe 6 directions instead of 8 is better. More isn't always better. Of course 8 seems more realistic to me. If I had to use either 6 or 8 ways to relate someones position to my orientation I would choose 8.
All in all I haven't made up my mind. I am used to squares so I am biased.
The point part of hexes, bad spells?, isn't really the same as corners of squares. The corners of squares actually touch another corner while the corners of hexes must go through an edge to get to another hex. I wouldn't want that to be included. Plus maybe 6 directions instead of 8 is better. More isn't always better. Of course 8 seems more realistic to me. If I had to use either 6 or 8 ways to relate someones position to my orientation I would choose 8.
All in all I haven't made up my mind. I am used to squares so I am biased.
How about doing away with all kinds of polygons? There would just be a map where units and cities could be anywhere. Then you would make the game RTS to get realistic movement from point to point. Clicking around the map hectically to get your civ to do its stuff and get some advancing progress bars is a must, too. And galloping horses. After that you could change the name of the game to Awakening Of Countries or some such, put the game CD on your shelf to suck dust from your room, and actually go outside to get some fresh air and sun...
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Perfect General uses hexes and it feels very natural. Having 'only' 6 directions increases the tactical options, like Padma says. You get used to the occasional 'duck walk' far quicker than you get used to diagonal movement being so much faster than horizontal or vertical movement.
It still doesn't make playing on a real (planetal) globe feasible, but mapping one hemisphere onto a giant hexagon (pole in the center) comes close.
It still doesn't make playing on a real (planetal) globe feasible, but mapping one hemisphere onto a giant hexagon (pole in the center) comes close.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Pembroke: Having a "continuous" game map is actually a sensible option. Plenty of turn-based wargames use it, altho they're typically more tactical simulations than grand strategy.
The biggest problem in converting Civ to a such problem would probably not be unit movement, but handling citizens working in the city radius.
The biggest problem in converting Civ to a such problem would probably not be unit movement, but handling citizens working in the city radius.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
While you do have that kind of "duck walk" with hexes, you get it even moreso with squares. Whenever I'm exploring, I never move in straight diagonal lines, I always move right or left, then up or down and never use the diagonals even if the diagonal gives me a straight line, because it reveals much more area than walking in a straight line, but takes the same amount of time (even though it should take about 41% longer.) You still have that duck movement with squares, and it's even much more greatly exagerated and unrealistic.
