Hex vs squares

[SandmanPiers]

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?

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

From the interviews I've read and seen from E3, it seems to be a cosmetic choice. It'll allow for more natural looking terrain and transitions from one type of terrain to another.

And I suppose it makes more sense too (how come going diagonally with squares took the same amount of time as going to a side?).

 

[manu-fan]

It's also about realism and correctness. No moving diagonally cheating. The distance between the middle of one hex and the middle of any adjacent is the same. Commonly acknowledged in gaming, but taken a while for Sid to realize

Cheers.

 

[cccv]

Also, it doesn't really reduce the options from 8 to 6. Units now have more movement to compensate for it. So if a unit wants to go straight left, it will move diagonal up/left, diagonal down/left and it will still have moved straight left, like it would have with the squares. This just makes it so, as mentioned, everyone isn't always moving diagonally everywhere when they explore.

 

[jacortina]

Also, given 1 unit per tile and a solid battle 'front', there very well could/would be a reason to have fewer tiles adjacent - no more than two units would be able to make a melee/close quarter attack on a single spot in the line instead of three. This difference in number of units that can be brought within striking range would be even greater for ranged troops shooting over those front line units.

 

[Calouste]

Also, given 1 unit per tile and a solid battle 'front', there very well could/would be a reason to have fewer tiles adjacent - no more than two units would be able to make a melee/close quarter attack on a single spot in the line instead of three. This difference in number of units that can be brought within striking range would be even greater for ranged troops shooting over those front line units.

Yes, one of the weird things with tiles is that you could have two units diagonally adjacent forming a battle front and an enemy unit could still slip between them via another diagonal connection. That no longer exists with hexes. Don't think there is that much difference between tiles and hexes for the economic side of the game, but there sure is for combat and exploration.

 

[LordOfTheGeeks]

I've always thought it would be more realistic to use hexes, what with diagonal movement allowing units to cover more distance.

 

[12agnar0k]

Yes their is advantages,

1. Everything should look neater, more natural and prettier because it will be less "square" which is very unnatural. Not that a hexagon is a natural shape either , but atleast its not uniform in design.

2. Movement, before you could have ships and land units crossing in the same spot.
I.e in a 4 square box (4 tiles in a square) the top left being water, the top right being land, the bottom left being land and bottom right water, you can cross both naval and land units over this junction, which is impossible, accept for tidal bridges which aren't in the game.
The hex's will cut diagonal moves out, so this removes this occurance.

3. Diagonal moves on a square grid is the fastest way to get from one end to the other. This is removed in the Hex grid with each move only possible to joining hex's no "jumping" as moving diagonal is effectively.
This also as others have said improoves strategic placing, less units are being used in civ5 at one time, and with 1upt you might struggle to hold an efficient front with square tiles, also move sides equals more ways for an enemy to attack.

All in all, Hex's will bring some benefits to the game.

 

[PieceOfMind]

2. Movement, before you could have ships and land units crossing in the same spot.
I.e in a 4 square box (4 tiles in a square) the top left being water, the top right being land, the bottom left being land and bottom right water, you can cross both naval and land units over this junction, which is impossible, accept for tidal bridges which aren't in the game.
The hex's will cut diagonal moves out, so this removes this occurance.

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.

 

[mjs0]

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.

 

[civ_king]

Squares violate Euclidean geometry, a square is 1.414s (s being side length)

 

[cccv]

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.

I guess I'm not sure either, but I seem to remember that if two land tiles were diagonal to each other with water tiles on the other sides, like

LW
WL

the land tiles would look connected, but a ship could pass through them going from one W up there to the other.

Whatever the case, I see nothing but advantages to the hexes anyway. Not sure why some people don't like it, unless they just felt let down that it didn't seem like a big change to them after it was hyped as a big change.

 

[Cheetah]

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.

Bolding by me.

I thought I remembered - and I just verified in Civ2 Gold - that diagonal crossing of such terrain is possible by all units in Civ2.

 

[Deggial]

Not that a hexagon is a natural shape either , but atleast its not uniform in design.
All in all, Hex's will bring some benefits to the game.

You can find hexes EVERYWHERE in nature! Simplest example: honeycombs! (And they *are* very uniform)
Also in botany you will find hexes (granted, they maybe not be as uniform as honeycombs). Hexes are the most efficient way (and nature always is "searching" for optimal structures as they need least energy) to fill a given space.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I guess I'm not sure either, but I seem to remember that if two land tiles were diagonal to each other with water tiles on the other sides, like

LW
WL

the land tiles would look connected, but a ship could pass through them going from one W up there to the other.

Whatever the case, I see nothing but advantages to the hexes anyway. Not sure why some people don't like it, unless they just felt let down that it didn't seem like a big change to them after it was hyped as a big change.

Well I guess I'm saying that what you seem to remember is wrong. Don't know why, but you pretty much repeated the description that agnarok already gave.

Ultimately I don't really care to argue about whether hexes are better than squares or vice versa. There are some "disadvantages" to hexes but those discussions are long passed.

Bolding by me.

I thought I remembered - and I just verified in Civ2 Gold - that diagonal crossing of such terrain is possible by all units in Civ2.

I would stand corrected. Been a while since I've played the earlier versions but civ4 I'm still playing PBEM turns every week.

 

[Ramesses]

Of course, Civilization has yet to pioneer the holy grail of 4X gaming: Hexes with 12 pentagons to create a spherical map.

I'll figure out how to make it work if it's the last thing I do.

 

[Earthling]

Any benefit other than visual? Or is reducing adjacent tiles a good thing?

It actually is a good thing - insofar as it's a poor argument to say it's a bad thing to reduce freedom of movement. Any previous civ game could have managed with hexes too with only minor rebalancing and perhaps could have turned out better regarding combat. Essentially, you're just trading one perception for another - not being easier to "run around enemies and slip through major forces" means on the other hand that controlling and positioning around territory becomes important.

It also makes for a bit better balance regarding various abilities likely/already confirmed in civ5 combat, like ranged attacks and bombardments, or zones of control.

The last thing - considering non-combat situations, we see the other major advantage in that hexes can create better maps and do not really sacrifice anything significant. Cities essentially can be placed and developed with the same number of tiles (well, they've increased the radius to three, but the standard radius of two works out about the same.) And there are not any other particular problems with resources or other large-scale orientations relevant to gameplay.

Unfortunately, I do think there will still be significant problems with bottlenecks and roflstomping of AI military, because the combat system has been changed to one-unit-per-tile limits, which I think will mostly create lots of massive chokes and favor human tactical advantages far too much. But I don't think that really is enhanced by a choice of hexes or squares, it would be a design concern either way.

 

[Schuesseled]

can't be 100% but i think 12ag is right.

 

[Savoir10]

Bolding by me.

I thought I remembered - and I just verified in Civ2 Gold - that diagonal crossing of such terrain is possible by all units in Civ2.

Yes possible by land and water in Civ2. However only possible by land in Civ 3.

 

[cccv]

Well I guess I'm saying that what you seem to remember is wrong. Don't know why, but you pretty much repeated the description that agnarok already gave.

Ultimately I don't really care to argue about whether hexes are better than squares or vice versa. There are some "disadvantages" to hexes but those discussions are long passed.

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

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)