Hexagon Grids

[occam]

No - it is possible to have a right angled equilateral triange - however this requires that all three angles are right angles, and isn't possible on a flat surface.

I am sorry, Sagji, but I am not referring to YOUR alarm bells.

In addition, many things that are possible can still cause alarm bells to ring. For example: alarm clocks.

If I had said it wasn't possible, ok, call me Euclid and disabuse me. But I carefully didn't say that... so you should exercise equal care.

Otherwise, it's just non-Euclidean correctness.

- O

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not the same distance, it just takes the same amount of time to travel.

But in Civ, doesn't that amount to the same thing? (Said the man who had supposedly admitted defeat on the subject).

 

[nullspace]

Here's some evidence that a diagonal move is a longer distance than an adjacent move: In the beginning of the game, when you're exploring the fog, a diagonal move will reveal five new squares, but an adjacent move will only reveal three new squares. The diagonal move reveals more terrain because you've moved farther. So, in order to explore quickly, you should move diagonally whenever you can. On a hex grid, any move will reveal three squares.

 

[The Flame]

I think it would be more realistic if they dumped the whole grid system.

It would work too - cities and improvements would have a certain size of pixels to be placed anywhere, and the terrains would go by pixels also. As for unit movement, they would only be able to move a number of pixels.

This would require more strategic thinking, make the game more realistic and interesting, and wouldn't be too hard to make either.

 

[occam]

Here's some evidence that a diagonal move is a longer distance than an adjacent move: In the beginning of the game, when you're exploring the fog, a diagonal move will reveal five new squares, but an adjacent move will only reveal three new squares.

nullspace, I found this to be very clever. I am definitely stealing this idea.

- O

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I believe Civ players are mathematically capable enough to understand pythagoreas. The point about squares, though, is so that stack-of-doom's become even easier to bust before, as it's exposed to 8 stacks rather than 6. That alone is reason good enough.

 

[Larklight]

I believe Civ players are mathematically capable enough to understand pythagoreas. The point about squares, though, is so that stack-of-doom's become even easier to bust before, as it's exposed to 8 stacks rather than 6. That alone is reason good enough.

But... you could simply amalgamate the 8 stacks into 6 bigger ones... SoDs are dangerous in your land, where you'll have the roads to be able to attack where-ever and when-ever you like. Adjacent squares aren't really an issue, unless I've totally misunderstood you.

 

[The Flame]

For some reason, IMO, hexagons look kind of ugly. I dunno why, they just do.

 

[Traitorfish]

Here's some evidence that a diagonal move is a longer distance than an adjacent move: In the beginning of the game, when you're exploring the fog, a diagonal move will reveal five new squares, but an adjacent move will only reveal three new squares. The diagonal move reveals more terrain because you've moved farther. So, in order to explore quickly, you should move diagonally whenever you can. On a hex grid, any move will reveal three squares.

That's to do with the placement of tiles, not movement speed.
It is a good point, though- a hexagonal system would always lead to 3 squares being revealed (ignoring for hills, improved LOS, etc.)
Y'know, the more I think about it, the more the hex system does seem to be superior.

 

[ecv]

Changing to hexes would be great! Then you could play on maps that looked like this http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/16701/241E02E67A3B4FCDB6713735DD43BD07.jpg
except with more lively graphics.

 

[Defiant47]

But in Civ, doesn't that amount to the same thing? (Said the man who had supposedly admitted defeat on the subject).

It does not. The mathematics of city maintenance, particularly those of distance to palace, consider diagonal distances. For examples, two cities (one the capital) lined up diagonally with 3 squares between them would be considered a distance of 4*SQRT(2) for the purposes of calculating the maintenance (that value would then go through difficulty modifiers, size modifiers, etc.).

 

[The Flame]

Here's an example why squares display distance unrealistically:

Let's say you move a unit up diagonally and then down diagonally. That would land you 2 squares from where you started. You could travel the same distance in the same amount of turns going straight. In real life though, moving diagonally that way would take longer to get to the same destination as going straight.

 

[JujuLautre]

... Means that the 'S' key touches the keys a,w,e,d,x and z. If your keyboard was Civ, S would only touch a,w,d and x (and diagonally be connected to q,e,c, and z) - and be kinda strangelookin. Got it?

I'm sorry you did not understand it was irony Diamondeye; it's just that, on an azerty keyboard, the a q z w are not on the same place; so weasdzx does not represent anything

 

[RERomine]

It's not the same distance, it just takes the same amount of time to travel.

Only if we assume the units move faster on diagonals. If that is the assumption, I can except it. It's easier to accept than a triangle with three right angles

Obviously, the more sides the game shape has, the more it is true to movement, time and distance. The only ones I've seen used in games are squares and hexes. Seems like hexes would eliminate more perception issues with movement, but I still say as long as the player understands how movement works, hexes or squares don't matter. Personally, it doesn't matter to me which ones are used.

 

[occam]

Obviously, the more sides the game shape has, the more it is true to movement, time and distance.

Actually, there is a huge jump from squares to hexagons, since those shapes fall on either side of a critical test... 'are the centers of all adjacent squares the same distance away' ... going beyond hexagons has very limited payoff, especially compared to the hexagon payoff.

- O

 

[occam]

For some reason, IMO, hexagons look kind of ugly.

On bare graph paper, maybe. Hexagons are missing some visual alignment that squares have.

But coastlines and borders look MUCH better in hexes. Much more organic.

Also, the city cross would no longer be irregular if hexes were used, and they would interlock better (no wasted space). Although, maybe irregular is better by demanding more judgment.

- O

 

[rickb]

I think it would be more realistic if they dumped the whole grid system.

It would work too - cities and improvements would have a certain size of pixels to be placed anywhere, and the terrains would go by pixels also. As for unit movement, they would only be able to move a number of pixels.

This would require more strategic thinking, make the game more realistic and interesting, and wouldn't be too hard to make either.

Actually pixels wouldn't work either because they are still arranged in a grid! You're just making the squares be 1 pixel in size. Moving diagonally 1 pixel is still a different distance than moving horizontally or vertically 1 pixel.

Now that I think about it, if you kept track of fractional movements, that might sorta kinda work, although it might be just be an overcomplicated nightmare. Like say we give units a base movement of the square root of 2. That fractional bit accumulates when you don't move diagonally, and somehow you work out how to handle that fractional bit to determine how you can move into the next grid. Obviously in dealing with a real-time game movement at pixel level, there's no problem, but figuring out how to split movement up into turns is the issue. I'm trying to think how turn-based games like Fallout, Silent Storm, etc, handle it.

 

[Larklight]

Actually pixels wouldn't work either because they are still arranged in a grid! You're just making the squares be 1 pixel in size. Moving diagonally 1 pixel is still a different distance than moving horizontally or vertically 1 pixel.

The game wouldn't measure it in pixels, the game would use [Miles/Kilometers] (probably the former). Depending on what scale you were viewing at, it would mocve you a certain distance. The scale is too large for a squares based pixel system to have any effect.

 

[Defiant47]

The way I see it there are two non-hex solutions:

1) Use the Dungeons and Dragons system. That is, every other diagonal move costs one point, and every other diagonal move costs two points (the first one costs one point). Of course, this could get tricky with terrain of different movement cost.

2) Make diagonal moves 1.5 times the cost, and retain the Civilization movement method. The Civilization movement method is that a unit can finish a move if it still has a bit of movement left, whereas the Alpha Centauri movement method is that a unit has to try to move twice into a square that requires double its movement. For example, an empty diagonal move would require 1.5 movement points, allowing a scout an additional 0.5 movement to finish. A diagonal move into a forest would take 3 movement points, and so on.

Of course, this would mean that most of early game diagonal movements would be the same, which is acceptable given that you can move 4 movement points' worth of distance with a 2 movement point unit either way (scout moves onto an empty tile, then onto a forest/hills). However, with roads it would change, with higher movement units it would change (especially navies), and it would at least take into account the different distance diagonally.

 

[RERomine]

Actually, there is a huge jump from squares to hexagons, since those shapes fall on either side of a critical test... 'are the centers of all adjacent squares the same distance away' ... going beyond hexagons has very limited payoff, especially compared to the hexagon payoff.

- O

It was late here and I didn't actually think about that, but it is true. Maybe it's something we can have the bees work on

The only real step up from hexes is polar coordinates.