skullmaker
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 6
what about using hexagons instead of squares?
Hexagons
- Thread starter skullmaker
- Start date
The pros and cons of using hexes vs square tiles has been discussed many times in the past Each has their good points, but since Conquests is an expansion for Civ3, I think you can rest assured that such a basic piece of the game will remain unchanged. 
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I think we ruled that Squares actually support more movement than Hexagons.
Because with squares you can N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, NE. That's 8. But with Hexagons you can only go N, NW, SW, S, SE, NE.
Octogons would equal the movement of squares, but then that's just pointless.
Because with squares you can N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, NE. That's 8. But with Hexagons you can only go N, NW, SW, S, SE, NE.
Octogons would equal the movement of squares, but then that's just pointless.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Of those 8, you normally use only four (the diagonal ones). So for most purposes, hexagons give more options.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I use all 8. While diagonal movement can be cheaper, sometimes you just plain need to move in one of the cardinal directions.
In any case, it's a moot point for Civ3. I can say with confidence (look at all the screen shots) that it will remain 8 directions.
In any case, it's a moot point for Civ3. I can say with confidence (look at all the screen shots) that it will remain 8 directions.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
I think its safe to say that hexagons provide a better, more realistic divison of the terrain, but that they may seem too strange to players that are not used to them.
It's of course useful to be able to move in 8 directions as it is now, but its very "gamey" to be able to use diagonal movement, where the units suddenly increases its speed with ~50%.
Anyway, there's no way there's going to be hexagons in any CIV3 expansion, and probably not in CIV4 either.
I think it would greatly improve my game experience though - but then I'm used to hardcore war board games, so hexagons are familiar to me.
It's of course useful to be able to move in 8 directions as it is now, but its very "gamey" to be able to use diagonal movement, where the units suddenly increases its speed with ~50%.
Anyway, there's no way there's going to be hexagons in any CIV3 expansion, and probably not in CIV4 either.
I think it would greatly improve my game experience though - but then I'm used to hardcore war board games, so hexagons are familiar to me.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
I like this idea....
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
TheNiceOne is right....just about EVERY one of those old Avalon Hill and SSI board games from the 1970's, 80's and 90's was based on hexes and not squares, for the simple reason that it made movement in all directions more 'realistic' and even.
Hmmm....I've been giving it some thought, and it wouldn't be hard to do with Civ3.
You see, Civ3 is not really based on squares, it is based upon positional dots.
All Civ3 cares about is that each item (be it a unit, or city, or a terrain tile) is placed in the exact CENTRE of each positional dot.
And if they overlap slightly, then so much the better for blending two items together without a noticeable join.
(This is not strictly true for the terrain tiles, which in Civ3 are placed BETWEEN the 'position dots'.....but the positioning is always the same, so the same rule applies)
I have been doing some experiments.
First look at the green version below, which is what we are all used to.
Now, with only the minimum of coding change, and using the same 'positional dots' as above, all that is required is to prohibit the East-West movement to create hexes instead of squares, as I have done in the red version.
This red version looks flat.....like in an overhead shot.
But if North-South movement is prohibited, then the hexagonal terrain tiles now have the illusion of depth perspective, as in the blue version.
Now there is no way this is going to be in Conquests!
But I don't see why it would not be possible in a future Civ4.
Civ is always evolving, and it is needs to keep up with the times and abandon these old fashioned square maps, for the following reasons:-
* Movement = this becomes more realistic'....especially diagonal movement.
* Visual Appeal = terrain looks more natural....instead of in noticeable square chunks.
* Animation = only 6 directions instead of 8 are required....making unit creation quicker (believe me!).
Hmmm....I've been giving it some thought, and it wouldn't be hard to do with Civ3.
You see, Civ3 is not really based on squares, it is based upon positional dots.
All Civ3 cares about is that each item (be it a unit, or city, or a terrain tile) is placed in the exact CENTRE of each positional dot.
And if they overlap slightly, then so much the better for blending two items together without a noticeable join.
(This is not strictly true for the terrain tiles, which in Civ3 are placed BETWEEN the 'position dots'.....but the positioning is always the same, so the same rule applies)
I have been doing some experiments.
First look at the green version below, which is what we are all used to.
Now, with only the minimum of coding change, and using the same 'positional dots' as above, all that is required is to prohibit the East-West movement to create hexes instead of squares, as I have done in the red version.
This red version looks flat.....like in an overhead shot.
But if North-South movement is prohibited, then the hexagonal terrain tiles now have the illusion of depth perspective, as in the blue version.
Now there is no way this is going to be in Conquests!
But I don't see why it would not be possible in a future Civ4.
Civ is always evolving, and it is needs to keep up with the times and abandon these old fashioned square maps, for the following reasons:-
* Movement = this becomes more realistic'....especially diagonal movement.
* Visual Appeal = terrain looks more natural....instead of in noticeable square chunks.
* Animation = only 6 directions instead of 8 are required....making unit creation quicker (believe me!).
Attachments
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Actually, a 1.5 move cost for diagonals would correct the exploit on diagonal moves.
Firaxis and Breakaway are well aware of hexes and pseudo-hex as above. They cut thier gaming teeth on the old wargames also. In fact, I know that the Breakaway guys have made some hex wargames (board type) also.
It's not much more difficult than squares to implement if you do it from the beginning.
To do it now would mean redoing all the pathfinding code, all of the corruption code, the city development code, the worker AI code, and some stuff I'm no doubt forgetting. Not exactly what I'd call a minimum of code changes.
Firaxis and Breakaway are well aware of hexes and pseudo-hex as above. They cut thier gaming teeth on the old wargames also. In fact, I know that the Breakaway guys have made some hex wargames (board type) also.
It's not much more difficult than squares to implement if you do it from the beginning.
To do it now would mean redoing all the pathfinding code, all of the corruption code, the city development code, the worker AI code, and some stuff I'm no doubt forgetting. Not exactly what I'd call a minimum of code changes.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
At least after roads. Before that a 1 move unit will move one square and a 2 move unit 2 squares anyway.
No, Kryten and I said, there's no way we'll see this in a CIV3 expansion, although one can hope (but not expect) it for CIV4.
Maybe the biggest change if changing to hexagons is that a city without an expanded culture radius only has 7 squares to work on instead of 9, and that the full city radius will cover 19 instead of 21 squares. It will feel strange since we're used to 9/21, but it will look and function better with a circle than the cross we have now.
Colonel Kraken
Deity
Originally posted by Kryten
TheNiceOne is right....just about EVERY one of those old Avalon Hill and SSI board games from the 1970's, 80's and 90's was based on hexes and not squares, for the simple reason that it made movement in all directions more 'realistic' and even.
Ah . . .
thems the days. Good ol' hex movement. I have boxes and boxes of old AH, SSI, SSG, and VG games in a big box down stairs. Aahh, the memories. 
If we can think of all the dots (as Kryten describes) as being the same distance from any "adjacent" dot, the current system seems okay. Don't the squares function like octagons, having eight adjacent spaces. Of course, octagons wouldn't fit together. But without the grid showing, isn't that what we have from a functional perspective?
I like it the way it is. Besides, I'm used to it.
I like it the way it is. Besides, I'm used to it.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I'm not against hexes, many games use them well (and, yes, I played all those Avalon Hill games too - still have some in my closet). For Civ4 I wouldn't be against it, but I think it would just break things too much to consider it for Civ3, even if there were to be more expnasions.
Mad Hab
Warlord
While moving on Civ III, I always try to go North, South, East or West, since that's always a better move than moving diagonally (it covers more terrain with less moves). Hexagons would make each direction equally valuable.
The only problem I see with hexagons is they complicate moving a bit. Or it's only me that uses the numeric pad (8 directions) to move my units
But yeah, I'd rather see an hexagon-based map in Civ IV...
Cheers,
Mad Hab
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Soooo.....
"A small step for a player, but a giant leap for programmingkind!"
DisruptiveIdiot
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 319
I personally think that neither work =\ with hexes you can't move directly east/west but with squares you get the unfair advantage of diagnol movement.
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
I miss the old AH hexes. i always found hexes much easier to fortify a border, and since C3 got rid of ZOC, then hexes are much more realistic. It would also allow the ability to siege a city. With squares, it takes to many units.
