Hexagons or squares? What do modders think?

[Drakken]

An age old question... Hexagons or Squares? But what does the modding community think? What would you like to see from CIV 5?

I am squarely in the hexagon corner!

Facts: A hex based city with 2 rings of hexagons would have 18 workable tiles and a center city tile. Square based cities with the thick cross border has 20 workable tiles and a central city tile.

I will make the case for hexagons and invite someone else to make a good case for squares, because I couldn't do it justice. Hexagons would allow for the following improvements:

1) Cities would expand culture in a more circular and equadistant manner.

2) Cities work zones would fit together better. You could actually build an unlimited number of cities without any overlapping work zones and with no spaces being wasted between cities either.

3) No diagonal movement... nuf said...

4) You would be able to more easily create battle lines to prevent enemy units from sneaking through into your rear areas.

5) Almost all good in depth strategy games use hexagons...

What do you think?

 

[The Great Apple]

I'm fine with Civ 4 squares.... but I'd also be fine with hexes.

Hmmm... mabye hexes are marginally better, as everything can be defined more precisely, and, depsite it sounding a bit more complicated, it would probably end up being simpler (only 6 places to move rather than 8).

OTOH, squares are better from a programmers point of view, as you can have nice grid referances... although like you say it's been done in other games just fine.

I think I'll sit on the fence for now.

 

[Master Lexx]

I think you can also use hexagons good in programming. Besides this: Battle Isle was wonderful, and hexagons are really the best! But it could be difficult, really difficult to change this in civ4. Too many functions to change.......

 

[Jesus Civs]

Chess is the classic square based game...

Squares have the following advantages (in my opinion):

1. Simplicity with co-ordinates (X,Y) from a modding/programming point of view

2. Plotting maps on an X-Y plane is simpler than using a hex based plane, i.e. copying a map from a book or a .bmp file

3. A square offers 8 direction movement possiblities, hexes only offer 6 (although equidistant as some might argue as a greater advantage)


Can Civ 4 be changed into hexagons?

 

[Kael]

As a math challenged modder I have to vote squares.

 

[Leonel]

You can make Civ4 have hexagons?!

Hehe probably not but I'd be great with hexagons as well. I also love the points that Drakken as it would give a better sense of realism. Although it'd be pretty weird for me to try and use a keypad on a hexagonal game field.

 

[MrC]

You forgot the option triangles!

And when it comes to programming, hexagons are almost as easy. It is still a matrix.

 

[Zuul]

I dislike that moving diagonal takes same movement points as sideways. If the movement system was upgraded squares are better, else I vote for hex.

 

[Gyathaar]

Coordinates for hex squares is not that hard..

The x and y axis is just at an angle of 60 degrees to eachother instead of 90 degrees.

 

[Drakken]

Just so everyone knows this is an idea for CIV 5. I was just wondering what the modding community thought of the square versus hexagon debate. Many of the best ideas included in future versions of CIV come from the modding community.

The feedback has been great! Keep it coming...

I'm with you Zuul. The diagonal movement is what really bothers me about squares the most.

I don't doubt as many have mentioned that programming hexes might be a little more difficult for the developers. However, I think they would be up to the task!

 

[Tarkin1980]

Personally, I cant see anything that would make squares the preferrable system. Though squares can probably do everything that hexes can do, hexes just does everything so very much better.

So yeah, even though I've never thought of squares as a problem until I saw this thread, I'd be thrilled to see a hex based civilization.

 

[Chesster]

I grew up with Avalon Hill; I prefer hexagons.

Big debate about it here

 

[Exel]

Hexes are superior for strategy war games. But Civ is not a war game, it's, well, a civilization game that also allows you to wage war. And Civs have always had tiles. So I must go with supporting squares on this one, although for any other strategy game I'd recommend using hexes.

 

[Drakken]

Hey everyone I love all the input. I had a private message telling me that my point number 3 about diagonal movement was vague and they wanted to know what problem I had with it. I apologize for my lack of specificity as I did not explain well. So I am here to elaborate. I put in the following screenshot as a visual aid.

Firstly on a square based map moving in all 8 directions are not equadistant. To be precise if moving in the four directions up, down, left, and right is equal to 1 movement point; then moving in one of the four diagonal directions is equal to approximately 1.414 movement points. In the game however moving in all directions costs you units the same amount. Therefore moving in diagonal lines lets you move physically farther for movement cost. In my opinion a bit of an exploit. Note: On a hex grid you can move in six directions which are all the same distance.

Secondly and more importantly diagonal moves are devastatingly unrealistic in a tactical/strategic wargame. I would have to agree with Exel that CIV 4 is not only a wargame. However, when it comes to the map, it is used mostly to conduct warfare and/or to defend your civilizaton. Therefore hexes vs squares has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Take the following example:

The Persian player has 2 archers and a spearman in 3 adjacent spaces. Even though the units are adjacent to one another the Japanese warrior can walk right between them with no bad effect whatsoever. Look closely at the map. If the 2 archer units are occupying the entire squares they are in, how can the warrior unit just walk right past them? Note with a hexagonal grid you can never move between 2 adjacent units. This allows for better defensive line formation which seems to be lacking in the present game.

 

[sligo]

I grew up with Avalon Hill as well, and have a preference to hex's. I was kind of suprised when Civ4 shifted their squares back the 45 degrees.

One option not mentioned is one based upon geographic area and area of influence. Niether hexes or squares, but area occupied on land. Huh? You say? Ok... Think for a moment. When you look at a flat printed map of the world, it appears that Greenland is bigger than Mexico. But when you look at a globe, it's the other way around. This is due to the distortion of translating a round object to a flat object. We all know that international flights always take what appears to be arcing routes, but, on a globe, they are actually straight and more direct.

With that said, I think it is possible to actually program a gaming environment (be it Civ or whatever), which offers the entire globe as its "battle ground" where your units are identified by their location on the globe - lattitude + longitude. Movement is scaled not in squares, but in actual distance from point to point. Sure, you can move your unit 360 degrees, which makes for some difficulty in the interface, but takes us to a very high level of realism. Finally, your planes can get from one end of the map to the other by flying over the north (or south) pole, and not taking the traditional long route.

I once played a space battle game using miniatures set up on protractor-like stands. You played it on the floor. Though you lost the third-dimension of real space, you had the added realism of actual distance to your target without an arbitrary grid. My ship could move 10 inches, at 43 degrees. My range to the target was measured with a ruler (or measuring tape). I think the same concept can be done in a Civ type game as well.

- Sligo

 

[Alpedar]

I'm for hexagons exactly becose of arguments drakken.

Maybe except argument 2) becose i dont like city borders et all. Imo instead of city borders, citizens should be able to work any tile, but with eficiency loosing as function of travel time there (city in roaded land can work on more distant tiles than city in jungle).

 

[siroxo]

One thing I like about the fat-cross radius is that you are forced to either waste squares or overlap. Thy could easily make it into a 5x5 square, which would tesselate, but that would remove some of the city placement strategy. Thus I don't think that fitting together is a good argument in favor of hexegons.

 

[Ranbir]

Squares.

As for gaps in line.

Well Civ used to have a counter of that, called ZOC. For some reason, it isn't in 4.

Squares are better than Hexagons. Squares are better than hexagons.

Chess is played on Squares!

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Would much rather have hexes myself.

 

[A Silly Goose]

I don't see a real problem with squares in Civ, honestly. The game is to an exploration of civilization and the workings of society as Star Trek is to an exploration of philosophy and the workings of the mind--Civ simply doesn't have nor requires a tactical level of detail that demands anything fancy like hexagons, and the Enterprise series sucks downright abysmally.