Hexagons more restrictive on movement?

[QwertyKey]

I'm not sure if I'm the only person who didn't realize this from the beginning or what, but I'm seeing this...

While being allowed to go diagonally, Civ4 was effectively octagonal. At first glance it seems as logistics becomes easier in Civ5 but it in fact becomes harder.

 

[xmen510]

I am not sure how it would become harder?

 

[QwertyKey]

Maybe it's easier... I guess that's hard to interpret. It is more restrictive though.

 

[Drago Askani]

Clearly you've never played a game with hexes, the only movement difference really comes in the Diagonal area as you can't sneak past enemy troops with those type of movements, you have to take a slightly wider path if your goal is to circumvent them. Other then that its nearly identical.

 

[Gath]

Yep, we were able to move in 8 directions, now we can only move in six.

I think its an improvement though, hexagons are superior to squares in most respects.

 

[MSTK]

Of course they're more restrictive, how can anyone not see that? It's the difference between 8 paths and 6. Do you think anyone forgot to notice this?

The advantage of a hexagonal grid isn't that there is more places to move. The advantage is that each place you can move is equidistant to where you started. That means no moves that magically increase your speed by 14% arbitrarily, and no moves that allow you to move through a normally impenetrable line of forces by magic.

The only moves being restricted are the ones that break the geometry of the world.

 

[l3illyl3ob]

Even though previous civ games had 8 movement paths to each tile, it was not octagonal, because that would imply that all 8 paths were equal, which they were not.

With the square tile system, there were many ways to game the movement system in order to avoid obstacles, deek out enemies, move to places faster than you should otherwise be able to, etc. All because diagonal movement allows you to essentially move in two directions at once instead of one. Essentially you could take large zig-zag or V paths to your destination in just as many turns as it would take to walk straight there. Hexagons will ensure that this is not possible.

Also note that while there's less movement paths, there are still more sides to each tile, and that gives the ability to create much more natural looking landmasses. Just the ability to avoid 90 degree angles all over the place will go a long way (even if they're all 60 degree angles, that's a lot less jarring to the human eye).

 

[axi]

There is the possibility of diagonal movement in hex grids as well. Check in the wikipedia entry for hexagonal chess, the way bishops move.

So there can be 6 straight and 6 diagonal moves, more than the 8 of a square grid.

Fast units like cavalry could be given the ability to perform such moves inbetween slower enemy units (while being fired upon of course).

 

[AlpsStranger]

There is the possibility of diagonal movement in hex grids as well. Check in the wikipedia entry for hexagonal chess, the way bishops move.

So there can be 6 straight and 6 diagonal moves, more than the 8 of a square grid.

Fast units like cavalry could be given the ability to perform such moves inbetween slower enemy units (while being fired upon of course).

I'm not sure I actually want to see that be allowed in Civ5, but that is kinda cool.

 

[AlphaShard]

Below I think is the problem some are having with the Square movement, is that you could have two units diagonal from each other represented by the circles. Because of the sqaure grid it allows for an unrealistic movement between those two units that should be effectivly blocking that space. If those two units are on a Hex space then you can't move diagonally through them.

O/
/O

 

[Modiga-Disabled]

What always annoyed me about square grids was during the early game, if you parked a ship on your coast's border, enemy ships could sail right past it, unless you put your ship on a flat bit of coastline. Effectively the coast was two tiles thick in some parts and only one tile thick in others.

 

[Shiggs713]

What always annoyed me about square grids was during the early game, if you parked a ship on your coast's border, enemy ships could sail right past it, unless you put your ship on a flat bit of coastline. Effectively the coast was two tiles thick in some parts and only one tile thick in others.

this is exactly why squares are inferior to hex's. Its simply unrealistic. The hex isn't going to be some magic pill though, its not perfect, but far better than squares.

 

[Yxklyx]

Hexagons might also (realistically) promote more battles in the open field - since it's easier to block.

 

[Geek113377]

the hex tiles, ranged bombardment, and 1 unit per tile will make field battles inevitable. this is more like history: armies made lines on the field, they didn't just travel in a huge stack from city to city. SoDs are unrealisitc, in the real world, you aren't going to fit 4 catapults, 10 axemen, 4 spearmen, 6 swordsmen, 2 horse archers, 5 longbowmen, and a chariot (32 units) onto a land area equivalent to a medieval farm. that's just not possible, the units are too big! @l3illyl3ob: your point about V patterns being equal to straight patterns is a good one. that always annoyed me that i needed 2 tiles of units instead of 1 to cut off a path.

 

[Takeda]

Ah this topic again

The basic problem with earlier civ games' square grid was that they hacked diagonal movement into the game. It's a four sided polygon but the game allowed you to move in 8 directions by moving off the corners of the squares in addition to their faces. This created all kinds of ridiculous and illogical unit movement given the geometry of the game world. For example, a unit can move from point A to point B in a straight line or by zig zagging up and down the diagonals of the tile grid, and it can do either in the same amount of movement points. This clearly violates a fundamental law of basic geometry, and it allowed units to skirt around enemies and made blocking units on the map nearly impossible, and thus made forts useless.

Hexes aren't quite perfect either, but they're the best we have in grid based gaming. Hexes produce some wonky orthogonal movement, but other than that they are superior to squares in every way. Ideally we would want to use octagons, but octagons unfortunately do not tessellate. So hexagons it is.

 

[mrt144]

Ah this topic again

The basic problem with earlier civ games' square grid was that they hacked diagonal movement into the game. It's a four sided polygon but the game allowed you to move in 8 directions by moving off the corners of the squares in addition to their faces. This created all kinds of ridiculous and illogical unit movement given the geometry of the game world. For example, a unit can move from point A to point B in a straight line or by zig zagging up and down the diagonals of the tile grid, and it can do either in the same amount of movement points. This clearly violates a fundamental law of basic geometry, and it allowed units to skirt around enemies and made blocking units on the map nearly impossible, and thus made forts useless.

Hexes aren't quite perfect either, but they're the best we have in grid based gaming. Hexes produce some wonky orthogonal movement, but other than that they are superior to squares in every way. Ideally we would want to use octagons, but octagons unfortunately do not tessellate. So hexagons it is.

And yet, those games were still very fun.

 

[frekk]

Hexes???

OMG!!

I always wanted civ5 to be hex-based, but I never dreamed they'd actually do it. This is wonderful!

 

[frekk]

the hex tiles, ranged bombardment, and 1 unit per tile will make field battles inevitable. this is more like history: armies made lines on the field, they didn't just travel in a huge stack from city to city. SoDs are unrealisitc, in the real world, you aren't going to fit 4 catapults, 10 axemen, 4 spearmen, 6 swordsmen, 2 horse archers, 5 longbowmen, and a chariot (32 units) onto a land area equivalent to a medieval farm. that's just not possible, the units are too big!

While it has definite benefits in terms of more realistic movement (all vectors being equal), and while things like radii are going to be more like circles than crosses, I don't think it's going to solve the SOD. The ability to bypass positions is not what creates the SOD. The SOD doesn't need to sneak about - it plods along, usually in a relatively direct line towards a city, regardless of whatever stands in the way. There are ways to truly eliminate SODs, but most of them involve heavily increasing micromanagement. Things like supply rules, infrastructure limitations, etc. The only thing I can think of that would limit the SOD without adding too much micromanagement is implementing a system of limitations for command/control/communication, whereby the number of units that could be moved in a single turn would be restricted. Most people would chafe at such a restriction, I think.

Also, I'd have to say, the size of a tile was always bigger than a farm, no matter how the distortions of time and space in the game are figured. A city fits on a tile. 32 units ought to be able to fit into the space occupied by New York, whether each unit is a brigade or a single man.

 

[Yakk]

Note that "zones of control" emulated diagonal movement being "longer" than strait movement a tad.

You couldn't "cut a corner" to bypass units with zones of control.

Hexes mean that someone can slow you down by being in the way, even without zones of control, without having to form strange square-shaped lines.

 

[eireksten]

@frekk:
You realize that SoD's are effectively eliminated by the fact that you can't have more than one unit (of the same domain) on the same tile?