Hex vs squares

[Shurdus]

There are some "disadvantages" to hexes but those discussions are long passed.

This.

 

[Wolfwood]

This?

I think one of the disadvantages to some people is that you cannot move directly north or south. However, it is less of a problem, in my opinion, than the diagonal movement with square tiles.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, I pretty much repeated what he said. I was confirming that I think he was right. Not 100% sure, but I think so.

If you load up civ4 and take 30 seconds to set it up with world builder, you will be 100% sure it is a land bridge only.

I'm not asking anyone to argue, but if you do know reasons that hexes may be worse than squares I would like to hear them. I can't think of any on my own and would like to hear another view on it.

(I mean aside from thinking there are less options for moving your army, which I've already stated isn't really true)

Try searching for threads containing the word 'hex' from around February and March this year.

 

[onedreamer]

Can someone tell me what the upside of hexes are in comparison to the classic square tile look? It's reducing adjacent tiles from 8 to 6. Any benefit other than visual? Or is reducing adjacent tiles a good thing?

Visual is certainly a great part of the choice, but I think that the hexes also allow for a more tactical map exactly because of the reduced number of sides for each tile. It will be easier to try military manouvers on the map with the 1upt rule and hexes.

 

[onedreamer]

It wasn't true in civ4 and I'm pretty sure (but not certain) it was the same in earlier versions of civ.

It was possible in the earlier versions of Civ and even in SMAC. Btw, why do you speak of Civ4 in past tense ?

 

[cccv]

If you load up civ4 and take 30 seconds to set it up with world builder, you will be 100% sure it is a land bridge only.

I would have, but I don't have the game on my comp anymore. I needed the Hard drive space so I uninstalled it months ago.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Civ4 is definitely land only. Civ2 is definitely both (and so is SMAC, iirc). The only one I'm not really sure about is Civ3. I believe its land only. I remember using Civ2 for "Natural Canals", but I'm pretty sure I had to have a city for Civ3 no matter what. It's hard to tell, though, minor things like this tend to blend together.

 

[Schuesseled]

I would have, but I don't have the game on my comp anymore. I needed the Hard drive space so I uninstalled it months ago.

That Is Blasphemy!

 

[12agnar0k]

Maybe I was getting moving through cities to "cut a journey" mixed with cutting diagonally through the land bridge, but as you say, it certainly looks like its possible and hex's will cut this out to show the actual path.

You can find hexes EVERYWHERE in nature! Simplest example: honeycombs! (And they *are* very uniform)

Well, fair enough, but heres a point, if something is man made it is consider "un-natural" i.e it didnt exist before it was created, nature did not create it. Technically isn't an object such as a honey comb which can't be made without the bees interaction, i,e if their were no bees then their would be no honey comb structures, thus also "un-natural"
Surely you can't consider the creations of man to be against nature but the bees to be natural, after all both species were created via evolution, we are no different. Just more advanced. So any structure such as a honey comb or a dam built be beevers should be classed as "un-natural" perhaps given a title "friends of man-made" seeming as they are not men it can't be man-made .

 

[StittsvilleJame]

Maybe I was getting moving through cities to "cut a journey" mixed with cutting diagonally through the land bridge, but as you say, it certainly looks like its possible and hex's will cut this out to show the actual path.


Well, fair enough, but heres a point, if something is man made it is consider "un-natural" i.e it didnt exist before it was created, nature did not create it. Technically isn't an object such as a honey comb which can't be made without the bees interaction, i,e if their were no bees then their would be no honey comb structures, thus also "un-natural"
Surely you can't consider the creations of man to be against nature but the bees to be natural, after all both species were created via evolution, we are no different. Just more advanced. So any structure such as a honey comb or a dam built be beevers should be classed as "un-natural" perhaps given a title "friends of man-made" seeming as they are not men it can't be man-made .

deep.

 

[Ramesses]

deep.

Also wrong.

Natural refers to any and all products resulting from non-technological processes; that is, if something that is made requires any knowledge or skill, and the subject that makes it was not born with it, it is not "natural".

Honeycombs are natural; they are made by bees, and the skill they use is one that has been programmed into their minds since birth.

All of humanity's lasting achievements are unnatural, as they invariably require the humans that make them to have skills which are taught to them after birth, or to use devices which had to have been made by other humans using skills taught to them after birth.

Gorillas have been known to use simple tools and weapons for hunting smaller creatures. This is most likely unnatural, as the gorillas that use these tools probably require knowledge that is kept alive through teaching, not through inheritance by birth.

 

[PeterWimsey]

Also wrong.

Natural refers to any and all products resulting from non-technological processes; that is, if something that is made requires any knowledge or skill, and the subject that makes it was not born with it, it is not "natural".

Honeycombs are natural; they are made by bees, and the skill they use is one that has been programmed into their minds since birth.

All of humanity's lasting achievements are unnatural, as they invariably require the humans that make them to have skills which are taught to them after birth, or to use devices which had to have been made by other humans using skills taught to them after birth.

Gorillas have been known to use simple tools and weapons for hunting smaller creatures. This is most likely unnatural, as the gorillas that use these tools probably require knowledge that is kept alive through teaching, not through inheritance by birth.

Birds can't fly unless they are taught, and a lot of predators have to be taught to hunt by their parents - if the parents are killed, the babies will never learn how to hunt. But I don't think that these are unnatural. As for gorillas using tools, I suspect that each one just sort of figures it out for themselves...but even if it were passed down through teaching, that wouldn't explain how the first gorilla learned it.

 

[mjs0]

Maybe I was getting moving through cities to "cut a journey" mixed with cutting diagonally through the land bridge, but as you say, it certainly looks like its possible and hex's will cut this out to show the actual path.


Well, fair enough, but heres a point, if something is man made it is consider "un-natural" i.e it didnt exist before it was created, nature did not create it. Technically isn't an object such as a honey comb which can't be made without the bees interaction, i,e if their were no bees then their would be no honey comb structures, thus also "un-natural"
Surely you can't consider the creations of man to be against nature but the bees to be natural, after all both species were created via evolution, we are no different. Just more advanced. So any structure such as a honey comb or a dam built be beevers should be classed as "un-natural" perhaps given a title "friends of man-made" seeming as they are not men it can't be man-made .

Like Ramesses, I would contend that there is a fundamental difference between structures built by instinct (spider webs, beaver dams, honeycombs, termite mounds, bird's nests, etc.) and structures that require intelligence to design and build.

The former have arisen directly as part of the process of evolution and the instinct to build them is born into the creatures that do so. For example, the process of natural selection naturally leads to an increased chance of survival of spiders that build better webs.

The latter are an indirect result of the evolution of our mental powers and the ability to build them is learnt after birth. Natural selection does not play a role in improving architecture! (Except possibly for little pigs that build houses out of brick instead of straw )

Birds can't fly unless they are taught, and a lot of predators have to be taught to hunt by their parents - if the parents are killed, the babies will never learn how to hunt. But I don't think that these are unnatural.

The natural part of this process is the maternal/paternal instinct to teach the offspring the specific skill required for survival. The better natural teachers improve their offspring's chance of survival and thus serve natural selection.


Oh...and just for fun, here is my favourite naturally occuring hexagon, at the North Pole of the planet Saturn! No lifeforms involved!

 

[civ_king]

but but but... God must have done it therefore it's unnatural, damn I just got lost in my sarcasm thought sequence

But yes, hexs are sublime

 

[12agnar0k]

Also wrong.

And so are you, as another fellow pointed out, a baby lion cub does not know how to hunt from birth, it is taught it by its parents. I'm sure it will try to kill and eat without being taught though. Whos to say the bee does not learn the process of building a honeycomb from a parent, is it born and knows what to do immediatly even if it is all alone, I'm not an expert on Bees so I cant answer that properly.

Not everything in Nature is Natural. Although that point is entirely debateable.

Anyway, My original point which seems to have skewed into a pointless definition of the word nature was that a Sqaure is a less "natural" formation than a hexagon. I mean for example, we can see a hexagon in saturn's structure, we don't see giant floating sqaures in the cosmos, not sure on how much this is speculation or fact though .

 

[Peng Qi]

I don't know why people keep saying this. Maybe because one of the Firaxians said it in an inteview or the closed demo?

It wasn't true in civ4 and I'm pretty sure (but not certain) it was the same in earlier versions of civ. Only land units have ever been able to cross the diagonal gap. Unless you were playing a mod using the Unofficial Patch where for less than a week a bug was introduced that caused ships to be able to cross such boundaries, it hasn't happened in civ4.

This is not true. Civ1 and Civ2 allowed both land and sea units to cross diagonal gaps. It was removed in Civ3 and did not come back for 4.

I was actually sad to see it go, as it was a good way to represent sail-able rivers (and I think was used in such a way on the Civil War scenario for Civ2) and very narrow straits.

 

[Kid R]

Actually I think what the Firaxian said has been mangled slightly. My recollection is that he said in Civ4 it was unclear, simply by looking, who could move diagonally through such a junction and thus confusing, whereas with Civ5 there is no ambiguity because all tiles meet on edges not corners.

IMO diagonal mountain ranges in Civ 4 are more visually confusing than land bridges (i.e. can you go through the mountains or do you have to go round?) Also at the source of rivers, will it incur river-crossing penalty or not if you attack diagonally past the end? Or across the corner of a 90' bend in the river even - perhaps that should incur 2x penalty! Obviously you find out when you get there but that's no help when planning the approach.

Re. nature - snowflakes are hexagon shapes. But salt crystals are cubes, which is kind of square. I was going to say mint stems which are square in cross section but maybe that's no good like bee honeycombs because mint is a living thing. (Can't believe I actually contributed to that argument, my apologies

 

[12agnar0k]

Stop ruining my "squares are un-natural" arguement with your factual knowledge .

As for Mountain diagonal crossing, yes thanks for that, this is the same as the "water units crossing diagonally over land issue", Technically you are walking over mountains which are unpassable by only "half crossing" them, using a valley to travel through, which is acceptable logic, but with Hexagons the whole "half crossing via diagonal shortcut" will be removed, a mountain obstruction will be just that you will need to go round it, not just "sneak" through it in the shortest point as with hexes that will be removed.

 

[PeterWimsey]

This?

I think one of the disadvantages to some people is that you cannot move directly north or south. However, it is less of a problem, in my opinion, than the diagonal movement with square tiles.

I'm not sure that this is a real disadvantage - but whether or not it's true depends on how the hexes are oriented - you certainly can set up hexes so that you can move directly north and south - or east and west. But you can't have NSEW all at the same time.

However, the restriction on moving directly in one direction only applies if you move an odd number of turns - moving *two* hexes (or four, etc.) will always move you straight in the direction you want.

 

[Louis XXIV]

This is not true. Civ1 and Civ2 allowed both land and sea units to cross diagonal gaps. It was removed in Civ3 and did not come back for 4.

I was actually sad to see it go, as it was a good way to represent sail-able rivers (and I think was used in such a way on the Civil War scenario for Civ2) and very narrow straits.

Ah, I forgot about the Civ2 Civil War scenario. That did indeed use the dual crossing feature of rivers. Fun scenario too (until I was clearly going to win, faced invisible cities, used the go to feature for new units, and had them walk in circles. Civ2 was great, but still had some clear flaws).

EDIT: I seem to remember strategic crossing locations for major rivers, so I'm not entirely positive they used the land/sea bridge technique entirely for that scenario.