Please use hexagons instead of squares!

[Atrebates]

You could do it with pentagons provided the world thins out to 5 tiles next to north, same with 4 for squares or 6 for hexagons provided you stick to 'capping' the poles. The problem is thinning the tiles out... can you retain normal movement or mind a spherical gameworld.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

well with pentagons, the issue isn't that they need to be impassible, it's more the issue of how to display it along those points. Because a 'hexagon with pentagons spheroid' is essentially ~20 Triangles put together
5 Northern, 5 Southern 10 Equatorial each triangle consisting of a group of hexagons with pentagons at the corners.

The question is how you display those triangles

Assume you are on triangle A

""\x/
__A__
x/"""\x

Where the x's are would be blank, so you would see the large triangle that you are on with black regions coming out of its vertices.
when you reached a 'Pentagon' it dould just be displayed as a hexagon with one of the directions blocked by that region of blackness.. would be a bit strange but would still allow normal movement (less territory would be available to cities near those, but... the bigger the map (in hexes) the less that matters, since you only need 12 pentagons for any size sphere.

The other issue would be in displaying the whole map as a flat form... for that the most sensible way would probably be in a sliced format (the equatorial band with triangles coming out for the northern and southern regions)
./\/\/\/\/\
|............|
|/\/\/\/\/\|

 

[apatheist]

Krikkitone, I don't see how displaying a hexagon with one direction being impassable is superior to just not allowing entering the pentagon. The former case has tiles that look like other tiles but behave differently, while the latter is a special case that is obviously and visibly so.

There is no issue with displaying the map as a flat form. You zoom in close and it's effectively flat, while from a distance it looks round, like looking at the Earth from orbit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Krikkitone, I don't see how displaying a hexagon with one direction being impassable is superior to just not allowing entering the pentagon. The former case has tiles that look like other tiles but behave differently, while the latter is a special case that is obviously and visibly so.

There is no issue with displaying the map as a flat form. You zoom in close and it's effectively flat, while from a distance it looks round, like looking at the Earth from orbit.

Well no it doesn't. If you have a pentagon surrounded by hexagons, it does not fit on a flat surface without distorting the hexagons. Just showing the local flat surface doesn't work if
1. you are near one of the triangular 'sides'
2. you are also near one of the 'corners'

The point is the distortion is not just 'at' the pentagon, it is all around it, and slowly fades away as the pentagon goes away.

Now for a 'pretty picture' view you can have it zoom in and just distort all the shapes that are not near where you are, but if the 'hex' three spaces away from you is a pentagon, the map will be distorted. That means if you want a 'functional' view then you will have a flat hexagonal grid but with chunks missing. (which is effectively what the map is, the chunks that are missing merely depend on what your perspective is..ie where you are centered)

So for a mini-map 'pretty picture/general overview' map one would want the ability to have different projections (basically: spherical, flat+distorted, or flat+disjointed)
for a main map view, you could have the same situation but most likely you would want flat+disjointed.

Because being Near, not just On, the pentagon, even if it is clearly labeled will lead to a wierd distortion if the map has no 'edges'. so it is best just to put the 'edges' in (because it's not that one direction is impassible, one direction doesn't exist.. there is nothing in that direction)... an impassible pentagon doesn't make that clear and distorts the map. A chunk out of the map can make that clear.

 

[apatheist]

Ah, ok, I see. Yes, the hexagons would be distorted around the pentagons. I am fine with that, though. They would still be approximately the same dimensions, and they would definitely be real 6-sided hexagons. Besides, a game map with Civ dimensions would have (potentially) 10,000 tiles (Standard map in Civ3), of which only 12 would be pentagons. With that scale, the distortion would be pretty mild and only rarely encountered.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, with ~10,000 spots, each 'triangle' would be ~ 500 hexes (~ 30 on a side) so pentagons would probably less than 10 spaces away most of the time. So there would always be the distortion (or the 'null space' depending on whether you wanted effect or information...basically like playing with the grid off or on) but it wouldn't be something you would worry about, and the map could automatically rearrange to make the 'null space'/ distortion be in the least annoying place possible. (so you would notice it, but probably wouldn't worry about it because it would rearrange as you went through/ near a 'pentagon' (which would look just like a hexagon)

 

[warpstorm]

Why not use triangles instead?

 

[Truronian]

What's ultimately popular is quality. If you choose to make an inferior game because a superficial element is more popular, you will likely suffer in the long run.

And how do you know that a hex based game is going to be superior? History is certainly against you, as the most popular games have always been square based.

Rebuttals only apply to actual arguments. All you have done is repeatedly state your opinion. You don't have a leg to stand on so there's nothing to rebut.

My argument was that the world is built around squares and rectangles. When was the last time you saw a hexagonal building, or border, or room, or CD case etc. Humans even tried to map the spherical world using squares, such is the affinity. Humans prefer squares and as such they are more likely to buy a game based around squares as it will seem more natural (Once again history is on my side).

 

[apatheist]

I meant 10,000 hexes. A standard Civ3 map is 100x100, or 10,000 squares, so I figured I would go with a number that worked with that. Then each "triangle" of hexes would be 5,000 hexes (edit: fixed my math, thanks Krikkitone).

Krikkitone, I just figured out what your username meant.

Why not use triangles instead?

I don't like triangles . Besides that, I don't have any good reasons. Well, actually, it would throw the movement conventions out of whack and distances and movement rates and tile improvements and all that would have to be adjusted much more than with a switch from squares to hexes. Also, the worlds would have to be substantially bigger in terms of number of tiles, which would impair performance.

And how do you know that a hex based game is going to be superior?

I don't know that it's superior. However, I see no reason that it's inferior and since it allows spheroid worlds, that's enough for me to be convinced.

History is certainly against you, as the most popular games have always been square based.

It is a fallacy to assume that their popularity was due to use of squares.

My argument was that the world is built around squares and rectangles. When was the last time you saw a hexagonal building, or border, or room, or CD case etc. Humans even tried to map the spherical world using squares, such is the affinity. Humans prefer squares and as such they are more likely to buy a game based around squares as it will seem more natural (Once again history is on my side).

Your data are valid, but you make logical leaps that are not supported. Squares are easy to draw. A 2-d map is easily broken up into squares because you can use Cartesian coordinates. You could use hexes for it, but then you'd have to use a less simple coordinate system which would offer no advantage. Square-shaped buildings are easier to construct, as well as to fit furniture within them. Etc. In other words, there are plenty of reasons for using rectangular shapes in the real world that don't have anything to do with the nebulous and unsupported assertion that "squares are more natural," and few, if any of those reasons apply to a game like Civilization.

 

[Truronian]

I don't know that it's superior. However, I see no reason that it's inferior and since it allows spheroid worlds, that's enough for me to be convinced.

So whats the point in risking the change from squres to hexes if your not going to nessecarily end up with a better game (if its not broke...). As for spheroid world, when was the last important political event that happened at the south pole?

It is a fallacy to assume that their popularity was due to use of squares.

So the fact that square based games are generally more popular than hex based games means nothing?

Your data are valid, but you make logical leaps that are not supported. Squares are easy to draw. A 2-d map is easily broken up into squares because you can use Cartesian coordinates. You could use hexes for it, but then you'd have to use a less simple coordinate system which would offer no advantage. Square-shaped buildings are easier to construct, as well as to fit furniture within them. Etc. In other words, there are plenty of reasons for using rectangular shapes in the real world that don't have anything to do with the nebulous and unsupported assertion that "squares are more natural," and few, if any of those reasons apply to a game like Civilization.

Regardless of where the affinity for squares originates from to state that one does not exist is wrong. Why is art work rectangular? Why did the inventors of chess use squares? Why do manufacturers use rectangular boxes? There have been tests done to see which regular shapes people prefer subliminally, and squares came second (after pentagons due to their relationship wit phi).

Of course, if Civ IV is truely as good as the manufacturers claim then prehaps a hex based mod will be possible.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The reason to use hexes v. squares or triangles is

1. the 'corner problem' (not all directions are equal) this applies even more so to Triangles [each triangle has 12 neighbors 3 you enter through sides, 3 through corners, and 6 turning through corners]

2. Squares Can't be used to make a decent spherical map

#2 isn't that strong of a point because a decent spherical map really isn't necessary until the Modern/Industrial Age anyways (when people start actually being able to get over the poles).. the reason nothing important happens there is due to unique geopolitical considerations.. (the Americans and the Soviets agreed to make it international territory... otherwise there would be an oil rush there with possible wars.)

Truronian does have a point in that people are more used to thinking with a square grid (Cartesian Coordinates, 4 directions on map, etc.)

Overall, (considering both the 'naturality' of squares and the greater 'sensibility' of hexes) I'd say it's not a change that is vital but it would be a slight improvement in the of the map (I say slight because of features like automove, that start simplifying the impact of this whichever way it is decided)

(e.g.)
Sea-Land
Land-Sea
If you have squares like that...are the Sea Squares connected? Are the Land squares?...the answer has to be given by special rules rather than only one common sense answer (with Civ 3 the answer is No, Yes)... The same thing appens with the City radius... why don't you get those corner squares, they are also 2 away from the city.


PS The hex based spheroid has 20 'triangles' 5 North, 5 South, 10 Equatorial

 

[Crayton]

Heptagons!

1. Divide a hexagon into 3 rhombi.
2. Attach a fourth rhombus to the hexagon
3. Tessalate this 7 sided figure to your choise of size.
.____
/.... _\
\__/

Okay, the grid system would be useless but it would add a more non-artificial aspect to the game.

 

[apatheist]

So whats the point in risking the change from squres to hexes if your not going to nessecarily end up with a better game (if its not broke...).

A poor choice of words. I meant, all else being equal, I don't see that hexagons are worse than squares, and all else is not equal since hexagons enable spheroids.

As for spheroid world, when was the last important political event that happened at the south pole?

Your perspective is too narrow. It's not about the poles; it's about the shape of the world. Think Northwest Passage. Think Great Circle routes. Think Soviet and American bombers passing each other over the North Pole to drop nuclear bombs on each other. Think about how the equatorial regions of the Earth have more area than the temperate zones. These facets are missing from the game as is and they cannot be in the game at all with square tiles.

So the fact that square based games are generally more popular than hex based games means nothing?

Based on what you've presented, yeah. Correlation is not causation.

Regardless of where the affinity for squares originates from to state that one does not exist is wrong.

You are mistaken when you call it an affinity. In the cases I cited, there are real, practical reasons for choosing rectangular shapes.

Why is art work rectangular?

Not all of it is. As I recall, the statue of David is slightly less regularly shaped.

Why did the inventors of chess use squares?

I'll see your chess and raise you Chinese Checkers. Chess is not all games.

Why do manufacturers use rectangular boxes?

Because they are easier to manufacture and stack. Because the contents are often rectangular. Because they have no interest in creating a geodesic dome out of shipping containers.

There have been tests done to see which regular shapes people prefer subliminally, and squares came second (after pentagons due to their relationship wit phi).

Really? Do you have a source for this? I doubt there is a legitimate study that supports the broad claims you are making.

 

[Atrebates]

Think about how the equatorial regions of the Earth have more area than the temperate zones. These facets are missing from the game as is and they cannot be in the game at all with square tiles.

Noooo, a spherical gameworld means more plains and jungles to deserts to grassland. I prefer grassland and it would be shunted down the list of abundance.

 

[Crayton]

The random-world algorithims don't have to assign desert and jungles to the tropics or maybe they will make the tropics smaller.

A spheroid world would be cool because aren't there only certain tile increments that can be made into a sphere. World sizes would be more standard. Hopefully if Civ5 has Hexagons you can choose: sphere, plain, cylinder, double-wrapping cylinder, ellipsoid, etc..,

 

[apatheist]

Noooo, a spherical gameworld means more plains and jungles to deserts to grassland. I prefer grassland and it would be shunted down the list of abundance.

As Crayton said... why would you change the shape of the world without changing your map generator? It makes no sense. Besides, the Civilization model of terrain is pretty primitive; it's not like all tropical land is useless jungle. That's something that should be fixed anyway.

A spheroid world would be cool because aren't there only certain tile increments that can be made into a sphere. World sizes would be more standard. Hopefully if Civ5 has Hexagons you can choose: sphere, plain, cylinder, double-wrapping cylinder, ellipsoid, etc..,

That's pretty cool. I don't know how useful that is, but I guess it could be cool to have a toroidal world or something.

 

[Atrebates]

I've found that the Civ world tends to follow the real world, Jungles and plains equatorially then deserts to grassland. After all tundra is only ever polar, other terrain seems to be found in suitable locales

 

[Crayton]

Civ3 did a good job of placing the correct terrain at the right latitudes. Whichever style of map-generating they do, however, they won't "bog down" the civ experience by placing too much Jungle or other sub-par terrain.

How about those heptagons! You can build three types of Hexagons out of them: 2*1*2 (shown below), 2*2*2, and 2*3*2. These Hexagons can then be used to build those Buckminister-Fuller balls.
.____
/....._\
\__/...\
.\____/

 

[apatheist]

I thought the heptagons were a joke. Realize that your heptagons are functionally equivalent to squares. Each one has 4 neighboring tiles. Whether you make the border a straight line or jagged doesn't matter.

 

[Crayton]

Actually, they are functionally Hexagons. You'd have to draw a series of them to understand. I'd post it, but those things are so hard to draw, maybe I'll upload an image. They would border 6 other tiles without cornor-cornor touching. They are unique because they can be oriented in 6 different directions instead of 1 (which is what squares and hexagons give you). It was originally a joke, until I started drawing all-over my notebook. The only advantage I can think of is a really random looking map.