Hexagon Grids

[warpstorm]

Ah, the weekly hexagon thread...

 

[Larklight]

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.

This could lead to people micro-managing so that their troops had a cheap move for next time, then leaving them waiting. If the expenisve moves do carry across turns of being stationary, then we could lead to that (what bad phrasing of me). If they didn't, units would get like a sprint start.

The second idea is much better. But not as good as hexes

 

[Defiant47]

The second idea is much better. But not as good as hexes

Well, I think overall the second idea with a square grid would be better than a hex grid. A square grid is already in place, people always gripe about change, and this is an easy solution.

Hexes are optimal and better than square grids, but the external factors push the square grids (+ my idea) over the edge.

 

[The Flame]

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

I agree, coasts would look more organic and the city squares would interlock better (I was noticing the other day how strange the diagonal coasts looked ). However I believe that it would be harder to create shapes like we have right now (squarish farms and cities, for example). With hexes they might look kind of weird, since they would have to be more hexagonal. Square shapes mixed with hexes would look odd IMO.

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.

It would only be slightly different though, because with pixels you could arrange movement in a circular shape much easier, rather than using the grid system. Think of RTS games (like Age of Empires games). They used pixels for building buildings, which eliminated the grid system. This could also be implemented in Civ (might make the game more complicated though). As for units, they would have a certain movement radius, which would work very realistically.

 

[Larklight]

I agree, coasts would look more organic and the city squares would interlock better (I was noticing the other day how strange the diagonal coasts looked ). However I believe that it would be harder to create shapes like we have right now (squarish farms and cities, for example). With hexes they might look kind of weird, since they would have to be more hexagonal. Square shapes mixed with hexes would look odd IMO.

The farms wouldn't have to be hexish- they could take on some organic shape, covering most but not necessarilly all of the tile. Maybe even grow with useage (as in, more of the land is used, not it becomes more fertile)!

Or we could abandon the use of a farm to represent a farmed tile and instead cover the tile in farmed land.

People complaining about the change? Tell them it was like that in Civ I. Anyone who played Civ I will welcome the change (I hated the switch to verticle and horizonal grids!) and anyone who didn't willveneer the desicsion as a fundamental need and holy requirement.

 

[LAnkou]

the problem with Hex tile is that you can't go "straight" in two direction (north/south + East/West)

let's say hex are straight horizontally, to go straight north, you will have to zig/zag NorthEast then NorthWest tehn NorthEast then...

how would you handle the arrow pad with hex? (i just click on the destination, but there may be some people playing only with keyboard...)

hexes have the disadvantage of their advantage: they are hexagones!!!
When you discribe a situation you can't say "three tiles east, one north", it will be "three tiles east, one north east". Not very nice.

Square grid can be described with up down, left right.

And a part from the fact that you explore faster on diagonals, what is the flaw in gameplay with squares? I mean, how can you exploit the square grid ?

 

[hgthechinese]

the problem with Hex tile is that you can't go "straight" in two direction (north/south + East/West)

let's say hex are straight horizontally, to go straight north, you will have to zig/zag NorthEast then NorthWest tehn NorthEast then...

how would you handle the arrow pad with hex? (i just click on the destination, but there may be some people playing only with keyboard...)

hexes have the disadvantage of their advantage: they are hexagones!!!
When you discribe a situation you can't say "three tiles east, one north", it will be "three tiles east, one north east". Not very nice.

This is the first (and only) reasonable argument for squaure grid I've seen. But seriously, does anyone play w/the keyboard (or know any1 that does?) it would be a huge pain in the butt moving units on railroad.

As for the straight in 2 direction thing, if you go in a direction where it is "impossible" to go straight, u can always have the 30 degree zigzag, and if you explore using that pattern then zoom out a bit, you will see that your path is (almost) straight. most importantly, that is only graphical, and does not affact the gameplay. As for the naming, you can see my earlier post of the semi-hex-w/-offset-square screenshot of another game, in which there IS a simple coordinate system naming all tiles. this should be sufficient for communication purposes....and then again, you dont tells "go north 5 and east 7 to go to a bunch silver" all the time when you play the game (and you definately never do that in single player), so it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

[Traitorfish]

how would you handle the arrow pad with hex?

Simple- rather than using 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 to represent SW,S,SE,W,E,NW,N,NE (respectively), use 1,2,3,7,8,9 to represent SW,S,SE,NW,N,NE (working under the assumption that N/S are retained, which would probably be the case).

 

[Larklight]

Simple- rather than using 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 to represent SW,S,SE,W,E,NW,N,NE (respectively), use 1,2,3,7,8,9 to represent SW,S,SE,NW,N,NE (working under the assumption that N/S are retained, which would probably be the case).

And then 4 and 6 could be used for scrolling through units/tiles! Genius!

 

[Perfection]

Hexagonal grids are okay but everyone knows Great rhombitrihexagonal tiling makes for the best grids

 

[hgthechinese]

Um.........or not the diff size grids will def make this game a lot more to program and make the map confusing even to advanced players.

 

[Perfection]

I think it opens up amazing new tactics here buy allowing one to play the tighter hexagons and squares or the more open dodecagons.

 

[hgthechinese]

That is true. But I think that itself is the problem. It will open up to TOO many new things that, A, ppl will drop back down a steep learning curve and B, all the other aspects of the game will seem far less important and fun compare to the tactical warfare. Who would build a spaceship when there are huge, complex maps of enemy to fight?

 

[Traitorfish]

Erm, I think Perfection was joking. Either that, or he's utterly mad and can be safely ignored. Either way works.

 

[occam]

And a part from the fact that you explore faster on diagonals, what is the flaw in gameplay with squares? I mean, how can you exploit the square grid ?

LAnkou,

Heh, that exploration thing was pretty valid and a good demonstration, and here you are dismissing it already. No one said that a square grid leads to exploits on a massive scale. If it did, the issue would be settled already, in favor of hexes. And it won't be anything unbalancing, because the AI uses squares also.

No, most of the objection stems from things being inaccurate with regards to distance... things like distance corruption will be a little off. You can cover more of your land with fewer aircraft, because you gain a little range on the corners. That kind of thing.

Since all the units can move in all the directions on the squares (you don't have pawn- or knight-moves like in chess), the only way it can matter is if a unit has multiple moves... imagine, if you will, staging a coastal invasion... the attacker has a stack of transports that carry a huge land force... the defender has a stack of naval units that can sink the transports if they reach them... if the defender has a better move, they obviously get to drive off the attacker... otherwise the attacker gets to sail around just outside the range of the defenders and look for an opportunity...

... but if they attacker has a slight move advantage, they can reach so many more squares on the coast on a given turn where they could be blocked on hexes.

In general, blockades are easier on hexes than squares.

But no one has claimed it is anything dramatic. For some people, preserving distance is needed for immersion.

- O

 

[The Flame]

In the end, even though it is unbalanced, it balances iself out. We use the squares, and so do the AI. Because the AI (or the other human player) gets the same grid as you do, it balances.

 

[Perfection]

That is true. But I think that itself is the problem. It will open up to TOO many new things that, A, ppl will drop back down a steep learning curve

It's not steep. It would all be pretty simple rules.

and B, all the other aspects of the game will seem far less important and fun compare to the tactical warfare. Who would build a spaceship when there are huge, complex maps of enemy to fight?

Oh it would impact all the facets of the game including building and researching!

Erm, I think Perfection was joking. Either that, or he's utterly mad and can be safely ignored. Either way works.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

 

[Wolfwood]

It will open up to TOO many new things that, A, ppl will drop back down a steep learning curve and B, all the other aspects of the game will seem far less important and fun compare to the tactical warfare. Who would build a spaceship when there are huge, complex maps of enemy to fight?

Not that steep compared to the jump from CivIII to CivIV. And why would the type of the map affect your interest to build a space ship? I cannot understand that at all...

 

[GVBN]

Just get rid of grids. That would be more realistic than squares and hexagons

 

[The Flame]

Just get rid of grids. That would be more realistic than squares and hexagons

agreed (I mentioned this earlier)