Hexagon Grids

[hgthechinese]

The more I play, the more I think that the grids of the game should be hexagons instead of squares; it would make a lot more sense strategically and mathematically. Does anyone else think so?

And for noobs that do not know what I mean, hexagon grids are shaped like the WEASDZX keys on your keyboard, so each grid is adj to 6 others instead of 4.

 

[Lord Neil]

Um in the current grid 1 square has 8 squares adjacent to it...

 

[Wolfwood]

Yup, the hexagon discussion has been popping up a zillion times in the past. I think most strategy gamers would love to see it in Civ, but many seem to feel that it is not really needed.

I always vote for hexagons, though... They'd make the distances between the "squares" even, unlike they are with the squares...

 

[Zhahz]

The current system works great for me...but it'd be interesting to have hexagons. Maybe it's something they should consider for Civ V, but it's not likely to ever happen with Civ IV, eh?

 

[hgthechinese]

Um in the current grid 1 square has 8 squares adjacent to it...

Oh, right, 8, not 4, sorry about that....but as a result, you can go at super speed when you go diagnoally, which is the biggest disadvanage in terms of fairness compare to a hex.

 

[JujuLautre]

hexagon grids are shaped like the WEASDZX keys on your keyboard

* Looks at his azerty keyboard *

Don't get it

Apart from this, I think this is an interesting idea, but it's hard to do such a big change. Perhaps BTS will allow modders to do this?

 

[RERomine]

The more I play, the more I think that the grids of the game should be hexagons instead of squares; it would make a lot more sense strategically and mathematically. Does anyone else think so?

What's the fascination with hexagons? I've played lots of games with hexes, but it doesn't bother me using squares.

 

[Wolfwood]

The fascination with hexes is that the distance between the spot that your unit is on and all the adjacent spots is the same. Unlike in the square, where the diagonal spots (squares) are "further away" than the others, but take the same number of movement points to get to.

The good old a^2 + b^2 = c^2 at work here...

 

[Holycannoli]

I'm all in favor of hexagons. The square system seems so dated.

 

[Antilogic]

Same here...but I'm guessing that's a Civ5 thing. It would make figuring out the "fat cross" for cities easier, I think--you would actually work a more circular region, and your culture would spread differently.

 

[Larklight]

The more I play, the more I think that the grids of the game should be hexagons instead of squares; it would make a lot more sense strategically and mathematically. Does anyone else think so?

I agree- actually, even the diamond shapes went with me better (I know you can rotate by 45 degrees, but then the map goes strange and all the farms line up dead).

Would you have the hexes alighned in verticle or horizonal bands? I prefer verticle, but not for any particularly good reason. AoW was like that though.

 

[RERomine]

The good old a^2 + b^2 = c^2 at work here...

The new math is at work here where a = b = c

Changing from the (x,y) coordinate system for position either didn't occur to them or they decided it would deviate too much from the previous game designs. Also, from a programming perspective, using the coordinate system is logically easier to work with.

 

[Bushface]

I would utterly hate hexagons, because I like to draw maps of my worlds and use squared paper for that purpose. Paper printed with hexagons is something I have never seen - triangles, yes, but oh so expensive, being a specialist product.
But what about doing away with any form of grid and calculating distances point to point, as happens in the real world ? Presumably without using the over-the-pole or great circle distances used for long distances on a globe, or allowing for the distortion in a Mercator projection, just a virtual piece of string on a flat map. City influences would be truly circular, there would be small circles within which to improve resources, farms and the like could be built more or less anywhere (and farms could extend to cover any suitable land not otherwise used), rivers could meander (automatic irrigation of farms within a certain distance of the river, watermills very close, etc.), and there would have to be some minimum distance between any two improvements. A developed map would thus look more like a European landscape than the archetypical American grid.

 

[RERomine]

The only games I know of where some form of grid system isn't used are simulations. Games modeled on the board game concept always seem to use either hexes or squares. This is not to say what you are suggesting is impossible, because it certainly can be done. I think economics play a roll in these types of decisions, however and when money is involved, the cheapest method will be used.

 

[Hero]

I vote for hexagons too. In addition to improving movement and city radius, I think it would create better-looking coastlines.

 

[Antilogic]

Definitely on the coastlines. I guess we'll just have to make a strong lobby when they start on Civ5.

 

[occam]

I would utterly hate hexagons, because I like to draw maps of my worlds and use squared paper for that purpose. Paper printed with hexagons is something I have never seen - triangles, yes, but oh so expensive, being a specialist product.

Hexagonal graph paper exists, is cheap and plentiful. Orderable online at many obvious sources.

You can also print out your own!
http://printables.not2wait.com/documents/printable_graph_paper.html

Cheers!
- O

 

[hgthechinese]

I play Romance of the Three Kingdom XI (not sure if the English version is out yet or not), it is a very good stretegy game defly comaprable to Civ 4 and it is a lot better than its older installations as a result of switching to hex from squares. Wait, actually it STILL uses squares, but they just adjusted the squires a little so you get the hex-effect. I'm sure this is just as easy to program as the "regular" square map.

See
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/837/837540/img_4103154.html
for an example of the grid system.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, right, 8, not 4, sorry about that....but as a result, you can go at super speed when you go diagnoally, which is the biggest disadvanage in terms of fairness compare to a hex.

You don't move any faster, it only looks that way because, graphically, the square is widest at the diagonals. I would've thought that this was obvious.
The current system is best- it allows a fairly free movement without being too complex (I can see a 12 or 16 directional system being hard to get used to).

 

[Tyrael]

I like the hexagonal square layout two posts above. It'd be easier to implement, what with still having something resembling coordinates and city tiles/improvements not needing to be re-implemented to fit into hex-shapes.