Hexagonal Tiles have lost their flare

esemjay,

Ahhhhh... *NOW* i know exactly what you're talkin' about!

First, have a look at this entire thread for reference and pay extra attention to the inserted graphics in thumbnails.

Then;

-- The whole Hex grid mapping is basically a tilted isometric table which in terms of values dispatched from/by arrays is simply structured differently.
-- The basic ruleset has huge implications when it comes to ZoC handling in the current format. When i was referring to 12 directions, i wasn't kidding. it matters much *IF* someone should try freeing the 1upT clugs or provide a worthy solution to the zig-zag (Cavalry pathing analysis in the last reply) effect. And that includes new ZoC principles across the board.
-- 1.5 ratio is also key here. The last integer rounding trick could be used (somehow) to "jump_move" always with odd numbers rather that stocking movements balance in any given path tracking routines for both yours and the AI Units.

Directional movements are important to deployment tactics & indirectly, to the algorithmic parser that AIs must use. IMO, 6 is an arbitrary limit whereas 12 not only opens up a wildly rational concept of perspective distance & range but also an opportunity to re-ZoC the ruleset essentials.
As a result, possibly making you (or everyone else!) a lot more comfortable with intuitive Units control.
 
There are a number of things wrong in the game but hexagons are not it. And I don't see how screwing around with movement rules or the tiles will help anything at all.
 
Soronery said:
There are a number of things wrong in the game but hexagons are not it. And I don't see how screwing around with movement rules or the tiles will help anything at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with this there are many things wrong but I dont mind hexs.
 
I'm going to ask a question for those against hexagon tiles. That is, What do you want to improve by changing the movement/tile rules?
Do you feel that units need to move faster? or what?
 
SpearMan153 said:
set civ free no more tiles just 360 degrees of cardinal movement!

I like the idea of a single combined attack strength for all units attacking a hex. How would assigning damage work to the various units involved?
Click to expand...

Yes, the concept of cardinal movement sounds like a great idea to me. As far as damage to units, I am not sure but they could use random probability for one. How about this, if one unit attacks a hex with two units. That one unit can choose which unit to attack, the same as if you were attacking a stack. Perhaps collateral damage could come back into play like in Civ IV. I do know this, it would make the combat much more tactical, and interesting.
 
Sorry, but I just love hexs. More if they are implemented fro making a true sphere (plus pentagons) and see FINALLY a TRUE pole crossing and world true area.
 
Hexes make little difference. Slightly less intuitive, but leads to more organic-looking maps and distances are rendered more faithfully. More restricted movement (6 instead of 8 adjacent tiles) increases the effect of things like 1upt and zoc, but overall relevance to gameplay is limited... it's mostly going to be a question of style and associations.
 
Actually, early versions of Civ 4 had softer, organic tiles using just a square grid. They believed people would get confused by it though so sharpened everything up
 
I actually really prefer hexes to squares. They avoid the weirdness of diagonals. I think I remember in SMAC if you had a one tile wide diagonal strip of land, both sea and land units could move across the corners :crazyeye: Hexes are one of the few things I am still convinced are a definite improvement.
 
I like hexes, but I'll except squares so long as we don't go back to diamonds.
 
zyxpsilon said:
Spoiler :
esemjay,

ahhhhh... *now* i know exactly what you're talkin' about!

First, have a look at this entire thread for reference and pay extra attention to the inserted graphics in thumbnails.

Spoiler Point 1 :
the main issue is the zoc and how range & immediate movements are somehow limited when units are grouped tightly together.
Stacking is a mess of micman and doesn't really provide tactical edges besides pooled elements towards eventual combat phases. Don't get me wrong, it *is* important to have battle support and progressive strategy aimed at specific targets.

Although, i also almost clicked on 6 -- tactical layer for a very simple reason; it'd make or add some alternative combat gameplay elements. The danger being cumbersome while automation might be required in certain cases.

Secondly... 1upt isn't really the whole problem when one digs deeper into ai's algorithmic path or even, how slow proper deployment can get.

While you may think flanking is pointless, it sure is supposed to be an effective modifier **unless** a clog occurs barely outside the ring of the nearest 12 hex-tiles. That's where my transitional capacity above would solve many issues. By having free-will deployment (within 12 directions & appropriate distances) before combat begins, you'd actually use the 1upt to your advantage (or to the ai, btw) while keeping track - not of stacks - but of some available resources within reach.

It may seem complex at first, but the zoc ruleset is highly adaptable once the principle of pre-battle conditions is clearly defined & given much less restrictions to movement functionality.


Spoiler Point 2 :
as i said earlier in other threads the only (probable, imho) solution to the 1upt controversy is a transitional movements principle that uses all 12 directions from the hex instead of the limiting default 6 **during** tactical deployment for pre-battle & optimal path seeking by any sizeable groups of units -- this can also be done without having to extensively modify any in-code routines & functions.

Indirectly, this idea is a bit like what we see for built wonders around our cities; culps & corners are being used to locate items on a map.

Zoc ruleset can also account for clug restrictions when units move towards longer distances since they'd then have a corresponding range capacity. No more (what i dubbed) snaky curving waves path for cavalry for example by moving straight on edge lines between two hexes.
Heck, even units could stand on such lines & corners; overlap might not look nice but cows & horses do it -- why not units... If only for efficient (as in much less cumbersome) deployment.


Spoiler Point 3 :
about that controversial (and sometimes adversarial) 1upt concept.
There is a solution i've been thinking over ever since being caught in a loop of stuck movements in the games.
The clugs seem to be caused by zoc rules based on the default available six hexes directions.

-- the only way, imho, is to allow for transitional steps towards the second outside ring of tiles... For a total of immediate 12 directions unless (as it happens) zoc prevents some "escaping" tactics.
-- in a sense, the path calculations must consider a 1.5 ratio of accessible distances from the tile you're in and trying to get away from.
-- while this may feel like a scape goat for indirect ways to unclug a steady pace of deployment, you also should be aware that the targeted lines of sight or range values have some meaning. Right now neither can help if you're stopped within a zoc.
-- the ruleset would need a total rework (specially for ais) for things such as any army in tight groups.

Frankly, the 1upt has a knack for stalling progress. If the zoc is altered... The lag effects would possibly feel much less awkward.


Spoiler Point 4 :
Sure... any ruleset limitations are open-ended in such principle.

If green-hex is where you Unit stands & blues are the only current possible movements. And Black-Z's are enemy owned.
Then, the un_zocced yellow tile South-East would be within immediate range & distance capacity to (white arrow) move.

Thus, un-clugging and tactical "escapes" from the situations at hand.
Much easier deployment before combat... TBS remember?

Now just imagine that YOUR green_unit is surrounded by 6_blues(5,4,3,2,1 or none) of your own & there's no ZoC limitation, in this case.
That's what this system does.



Spoiler Point 5 :

Not exactly... when considering a newly added 12 directions scope, any unit has to "scan" for possible targeting areas within it's movement range & capacity to escape some ZoC limitations.

Having Move-Points is just a process to reach tiles; take Cavalry for example...

- They too must zig-zag their ways on the path to actually reach far away tiles (in every directions, btw).
- Anything inbetween destination & every consecutive steps has the potential of stopping them directly on their tracks because of neighboring ZoC rules.
- Thus why multiple "pathing" at 30o angles (instead of 60 only, lateral) opens up not only the immediate external ring of 12 tiles but a *lot* more ahead where available points deplete (as usual) until enforced to stop on any hexes within range.

I'll replace the links with Spoiler Tags & Quotes, good idea.

EDIT; The following image will make it all the more obvious;

A) How it currently works... Such a horseman will need a total of *4* turns to reach the southern tile. Without any considerations to a ZoC or obstacles on that path.
B) But... reaches there in slightly less than *3* turns & unclugs whatever other Units (nearby or behind it) happen to be aiming in the same general direction!




then;

-- the whole hex grid mapping is basically a tilted isometric table which in terms of values dispatched from/by arrays is simply structured differently.
-- the basic ruleset has huge implications when it comes to zoc handling in the current format. When i was referring to 12 directions, i wasn't kidding. It matters much *if* someone should try freeing the 1upt clugs or provide a worthy solution to the zig-zag (cavalry pathing analysis in the last reply) effect. And that includes new zoc principles across the board.
-- 1.5 ratio is also key here. The last integer rounding trick could be used (somehow) to "jump_move" always with odd numbers rather that stocking movements balance in any given path tracking routines for both yours and the ai units.

Directional movements are important to deployment tactics & indirectly, to the algorithmic parser that ais must use. Imo, 6 is an arbitrary limit whereas 12 not only opens up a wildly rational concept of perspective distance & range but also an opportunity to re-zoc the ruleset essentials.
As a result, possibly making you (or everyone else!) a lot more comfortable with intuitive units control.
Click to expand...

zyxpsilon,

I apologize for the long wait for a reply- I needed some time to actually read the thread and analyze the discussion.

From what I'm gathering from these points, you are suggesting more complex rules to path-finding. The rules you are suggesting; to extend the game's understanding of possible moves from the "zig-zag" pattern to movement "via lines" through zones of control; sound like a massive improvement to the system that is currently in place. It would make path-finding and the rules involving movement actually make sense.

In particular, Point 4 makes clear what should have happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but (referencing the graphic), if the blue tiles were occupied by either impassable terrain or by hostile units, you would not be able to pass through them along the white line; because "by the line" movement would not escape the zones of control.

If the system you propose is to work, while maintaining the spirit of the mechanic, then "by the line" travel should have the same negative modifier as if it were passing the terrain that the line borders. To clarify, in the image attached to Point 5, I have the following stipulation:

Passing between the hills should cost the same number of turns as passing over the mountains. This could be checked for through the game testing if the tiles you are "skipping" both have hills, and applying the movement penalty to them. Moving along the line should count as two moves, but it should allow you to escape the zones of control that you encounter by zig-zagging around the map. If the "line" movements don't take up two points, you run into the same problem as diagonal movement in previous civilization games.

So long as the rule sticks to the stipulation, the system you propose is a vast improvement over the "I can only move to adjacent tiles" movement currently in the game; substituting it with a logical and effective system that remains true to the spirit of the mechanic, while not limiting you to the failures in the pathfinding.

-- Esemjay
 
esemjay said:
So... because a lot of people disagree with my reasoning, I now like Hex Tiles? I'm not following your reasoning...
Click to expand...

you have trouble following alot of things, you came out against hexes most people put you in your place. what are you doing posting? Dont you have to go put your next war on a spreadsheet and animate it? lol operation fox.:rolleyes:
Moderator Action: Such posts are not allowed here.
 
masonryan said:
you have trouble following alot of things, you came out against hexes most people put you in your place. what are you doing posting? Dont you have to go put your next war on a spreadsheet and animate it? lol operation fox.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
/ignore
Moderator Action: To mention, that you've put someone on the ignore list, is considered trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
AI Cheating
Replies
2
Views
472
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Q
Fundamental problem of tiling
Replies
2
Views
458
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
322
Draynul
D
Thunderfall
New CivFanatics logo Ideas created by AI
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Thunderfall
Thunderfall
D
Hexagonal World Wrap
Replies
2
Views
412
GeneralZIft
GeneralZIft
Top Bottom