Hexes vs Squares

[isau]

I've seen several people comment that hexes are a bad thing, or "the same thing as squares." I'm a little surprised by this but feel maybe we should have a short discussion about the reason a designer would think to use a hex system over a square one. I'm not in one camp or another over which is "better", but some people seem genuinely confused.

The basic reason to use hexes over squares is not because (to quote no one in particular) "that's how they do it in board games." It's because of geometry. Hexes are more accurate system of tracking movement for strategy purposes. The distance from the center of the current tile to any given tile in a hex system is always exactly 1 move. No matter what direction you move in, the distance or move count never changes.

Contrast this with a square system. The distance to any square that is N, S, E, W is 1 move. The distance to any square that is NE, SE, SW, NW is 2 moves. By always moving diagonally on a square board, you cover a greater distance. Any unit that has an odd number of moves (or is in a situation where landscape lowers movement to an odd number), in particular, behaves strangely. This is especially evident with units who have only 1 move.

The only thing you lose, kind of, in a hex system is the ability to move either directly east or west or north or south (depending on the orientation of the tiles)--you end up zig-zagging. However, the elimination of "corner skipping" evident in square-tile games is often seen as a sufficient reason to ignore this limitation.

 

[vincentz]

If you take a square, you have something the human mind has easier to cope with.
You can use NumPad for movement without trouble.

Hexes are more accurate system of tracking movement for strategy purposes. The distance from the center of the current tile to any given tile in a hex system is always exactly 1 move. No matter what direction you move in, the distance or move count never changes.

So its "more correct". LOL...... CIV 5 doesnt even show the decimals in the movement system..... And even if it did, you can still attack or move a "full" move with 0.1 movement points left, and it would still take 3 turns for a unit with 1 move and a unit with 2 moves to cross 3 tiles of hills with trees. So to defend it with realism or strategic advance is IMO BS.

I'm very disappointed in the dev team. NO ONE seems to have any creativity or thinking outside the box. The movement system should have been changed many many versions ago.

And is it really necessary at all to have Hexes or Squares???

LETS SEE INOVATION PLEASE.....

 

[Junuxx]

You can use NumPad for movement without trouble.

The alphanumeric part of a keyboard has hexagonal adjacenies, so that isn't really a good argument.

Squares are boring, hexes are awesome. Just look at a city's fat cross or a coastline or a civ's borders in Civ 4 and I think it should be obvious that hexes are better.

 

[Collic]

Hexes are just better. They look more attractive, fit together more organically, and better represent movement distances. I don't think anyone could really make the argument that square tiles are better

And is it really necessary at all to have Hexes or Squares???

LETS SEE INOVATION PLEASE.....

If you stray from a tile system movement computation will get slower. The total war series uses an abstracted 'movement range' and it's slower at path-finding than tile based systems. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Honestly, most alternative solutions would just slow the game down without adding a huge benefit.

 

[sketch162000]

Hexes are just better. They look more attractive, fit together more organically, and better represent movement distances. I don't think anyone could really make the argument that square tiles are better

Well, you lose two movement directions with hexes, and the 1upt forces you to put your units into a formation, which would be easier done on a standard grid...Civ IV maps looked like they were made from Lego, though. Octogons perhaps?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Well, you lose two movement directions with hexes, and the 1upt forces you to put your units into a formation, which would be easier done on a standard grid...Civ IV maps looked like they were made from Lego, though. Octogons perhaps?

Go ahead, tessellate some octagons. I'll be anxiously waiting for this.

The hexagon thing is a case of baby-with-the-bathwater criticism. Hexagons are just better. Civ should have switched to them *ages* ago. I'll have discussions about virtually any of the other Civ5 changes, but anyone who states that they actually dislike the hexes is herd-raging rather than considering each feature on the merits.

I'd kill for a modified Civ4 with hexagons and Civ5 terrain to tide me over while I wait for expansions/patches.

 

[Jediron]

Hexes are good and the one of the thing they have done right with CIV5; atleast their are six "corners"

 

[Ogrelord]

I would prefer octagons.

 

[KingYosef]

I think Octagons would be better for the fact that Hexes minimize movement options.

Squares allowed 8 directions to move, Hexes reduces that amount.

 

[Zomgmeister]

Oh puh-lease, octagon people — try to draw an octagon grid.

 

[lonemessiah]

This does make me laugh. People thinking that an octagon grid would be better than hexes. You would have to force gaps between the octagons and would end up with a square grid again. Hexagons are the best method, they look better, they flow better and they allow far better blocking of movement. For example to get to the other side of a unit blocking your way with square requires 2 moves, on a hexagon grid it takes 3.

 

[Psyringe]

Seriously suggesting an octagon map is a bit like Marie Antoinette seriously suggesting that people should eat cake. There is no cake. Octagons cannot form a gap-less map. In the end, Marie didn't really know much of the situation she was talking about, and, well ...

(No offense though. There's no shame in not knowing tesselation limits, although I'd expect people to understand the impossibility of their suggestion pretty quickly in a discussion.)

I'm with the OP here, I think hexes are a good idea because they introduce some realism into movement. With the square system, a unit that march (say) 50 kilometers a day could suddenly move 75 kilometers if it just chose to go northwest instead of north. Doesn't really make sense.

However, vincentz is correct when he says that the human mind is more used to square grids. That's why, imho, any game with hexagonal terrain needs to make the tile borders very clear, to avoid player confusion. For Civ5, the developers went exactly the opposite way - they consciously chose to obfuscate the tile borders, made tiles and features bleed into each other even more than in Civ4, to have a more "organic" look of the map. To me, this was a bad decision. It creates pretty screenshots at a cost of usability, which is never a good idea imho.

 

[vincentz]

I agree it looks better. For sure 100%.
I agree its easier to block other units.
I agree its more correct movement.

BUT as in said example :
Squares : Unit moves East = 50 km. Unit move North East = 70.7 km (c2=a2+b2)*****
BUTBUTBUTBUT.....
Hex : Unit with 3 moves left moves East to a hill with forest = 50 km. Unit with 0.1 move left move North East to a hill with forest= 50 km.
See my point? It doesnt really matter that movement is more "correct" when it basically is this much flawed in the civ series, which made me suggest a nontile game.
Alternatively to "fix" this a unit would have to have at least 1.0 to perform an attack or a move and restover (0.9 and down) movement points would be carryover to next turn. (or maybe a max of 0.5 MP)
It always bugged me that a unit with 1 movement points could cross a hill with forest in same speed as a unit with 3.
Just doesnt make any sense IMO



***** Btw, would it be possible to mod Civ4 to use 0.5 for straight movement and 0.7 for diagonal?

 

[Charles Martel]

I think Octagons would be better for the fact that Hexes minimize movement options.
Squares allowed 8 directions to move, Hexes reduces that amount.

By that wonderful reasoning, circles would be even better, since they'd allow for an infinite number of directions!

And to those naysayers who say "But octagons don't tasselate!", I reply: "Then le'ts play Civ on the hyperbolic plane!"

 

[man-erg]

In total effect on gameplay, I haven't noticed any difference at all between hexes and squares.

With the increase in computing power, surely there shouldn't be a need for squares, hexes or any of those antiquated board game ideas any more? Total war campaign map manages to do it. For me the design change from squares to hexes is superficial. Underwhelming. A move to a total war style would be much more interesting.

 

[CornPlanter]

I cannot possibly understand why people dont like hexes per se. Squires are so artificial it's not even funny. Going in zigzags takes the same amount of time as going straight line... I'm very happy Civ finally dropped them. They should have moved to hexes some time around civ3 release.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

By that wonderful reasoning, circles would be even better, since they'd allow for an infinite number of directions!

And to those naysayers who say "But octagons don't tasselate!", I reply: "Then le'ts play Civ on the hyperbolic plane!"

Penrose Tiles. It's the only way forward...

 

[Kid R]

Well this was anticipated a great deal before the game came out, but in retrospective it hasn't made nearly as much difference as was thought, and after about 10 minutes you don't notice any more. If it has to be hexes to make the Civ 5 combat work fine, whatever. I'm certainly not strongly in favour either way. Hexes appeal to my inner math nerd, but a square grid is more familiar to the eye from virtually all other walks of life.

Tiles vs. no tiles:
The whole aesthetic underpinning Civ is a board game transported to the computer, and tiles are a big part of that. They help the mind get a clear handle on where everything is. Unrestricted movement to any spot point would be a war game - there are lots of good war games, but it wouldn't be Civ. I think Civ 5 is as close to a war game as you would want to go anyway (it may even have stepped over the line a little )

 

[Mathias]

Penrose Tiles. It's the only way forward...

Umm... which way is foward?

 

[Ninja2]

And is it really necessary at all to have Hexes or Squares???

LETS SEE INOVATION PLEASE.....

No, it's not necessary to have hexes or squares. Look at any RTS map, they don't need squares or hexes. Ahh, but it's realtime you say, movement is fluid. So what? Give a unit in CIV a movement radius (i.e. distance) per turn, and modify the range (speed) by the type of terrain they are traversing. Also give them a combat radius. Then, add on the WEGO system from Combat Mission. In essence, all movement occurs at the same time. Every player plots his units moves, then hits End Turn, and orders are executed. If, after the movement, the combat radius of your unit overlaps that of the enemy, combat (or ranged bombardment) will/can occur. This allows for several neat results: 1) The AI can plan while the human players takes his turn. 2) Multi-core CPU's can be utilized to do parallel plotting.

This is just an example of how radical innovation could have brought something else to the series.