Please use hexagons instead of squares!
- Thread starter glanmark
- Start date
Bigfoot
Emperor
OK, you guys are all officially geeks! I never thought this topic could generate 6 pages of debate (and counting). As one of the old farts on this forum I have played lots of non-computer strategy games, because when I started playing them the PC had not yet been invented. 
Maybe it was all those Avalon Hill games, but I always thought that hexes are better because they eliminate the movement 'bonus' you get with a diagonal move on a square grid. Rivers and coastlines can be rendered more naturally too. Still, I would concede that my preference for hexes is most likely due to being inured to them through playing all of those strategy games.
When I was in high school I designed a game based on LOTR that used an octagonal grid with small squares in the corners. The squares were only used for fortresses and other special map features, otherwise they were ignored and the map was effectively a square grid. I have to admit that it was not very pleasing asthetically, but it was perfectly functional from a game-play standpoint.
Maybe it was all those Avalon Hill games, but I always thought that hexes are better because they eliminate the movement 'bonus' you get with a diagonal move on a square grid. Rivers and coastlines can be rendered more naturally too. Still, I would concede that my preference for hexes is most likely due to being inured to them through playing all of those strategy games.When I was in high school I designed a game based on LOTR that used an octagonal grid with small squares in the corners. The squares were only used for fortresses and other special map features, otherwise they were ignored and the map was effectively a square grid. I have to admit that it was not very pleasing asthetically, but it was perfectly functional from a game-play standpoint.
ew0054
Troll Extraordinaire
A man named Steve once said to me the following:
"I haven't touched a circuit board since 1986... and if the boss knew that, I wouldn't be working here!"
Eventually, Steve was no longer working at the company.
The thing about using hexagons instead of squares realtes to that because it would be something so... different, that it may take trouble getting used to. People who are used to the square array, or have not played on a hex grid in such a long time, may have so much difficulty in using it that they'll leave the Civ game, which would be a terrible thing.
Perhaps they could make it an option in for a future release or expansion pack, as it's kind of late to revamp something of that magnitude (I've been developing a city-building game in VB so I know what goes into it). I would definitely like to try out the hexagons, but I probably would prefer to stick with squares for a majority of the time.
The 1.5-tile rule may confuse players, although I think it's a good idea, having 1 movement point expended when moving on a diagonal probably doesn't affect the gameplay all that much. I personally think that counting it as 1.5 may detract from ti further. If you go to move a 2+ movable unit, and you only have 0.5 points left, people may become frustrated that they can't move the diagonal.
So I think we should keep it as squares with movement costs of one (like previous Civs), but perhaps allow the option of a hex grid in the future.
"I haven't touched a circuit board since 1986... and if the boss knew that, I wouldn't be working here!"
Eventually, Steve was no longer working at the company.
The thing about using hexagons instead of squares realtes to that because it would be something so... different, that it may take trouble getting used to. People who are used to the square array, or have not played on a hex grid in such a long time, may have so much difficulty in using it that they'll leave the Civ game, which would be a terrible thing.
Perhaps they could make it an option in for a future release or expansion pack, as it's kind of late to revamp something of that magnitude (I've been developing a city-building game in VB so I know what goes into it). I would definitely like to try out the hexagons, but I probably would prefer to stick with squares for a majority of the time.
The 1.5-tile rule may confuse players, although I think it's a good idea, having 1 movement point expended when moving on a diagonal probably doesn't affect the gameplay all that much. I personally think that counting it as 1.5 may detract from ti further. If you go to move a 2+ movable unit, and you only have 0.5 points left, people may become frustrated that they can't move the diagonal.
So I think we should keep it as squares with movement costs of one (like previous Civs), but perhaps allow the option of a hex grid in the future.
Yes. The problem (that I see) with that is that each pentagon will be facing one of five different directions. With hexagons, you can have them all oriented the same way (or closely enough that it doesn't matter).Crayton said:
I think people might have trouble getting used to the idea, but I don't think it's something they'll think about once they've played the game for 2 minutes. I definitely don't think it will drive people away from the game entirely. I think a game like Civilization (5) might be a good one to introduce this in, as there's a guaranteed customer base for it. I maintain that having a spherical world is worth it.ew0054 said:
I think it's unlikely that it could be practically implemented in that way. It's one of those things that's easy to build in from the beginning, but really hard to retrofit into a game with a different model.ew0054 said:
MattII
Prince
Didn't this come up a while ago and someone posted a link to a site where a guy was trying to built a Civ styled game on a 3D hexagonal world?
wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
I'm not really sure which is better, squares or hexagons.
The way squares work (in Civ at least) is that there are actually TWO distinct kinds of movement possible -- normal face-to-face movement or a diagonal movement that is basically two face-to-face movements done at once (left and then up, or left and then down, etc.) -- kind of like chess where the Knight gets to move in an L shape ... well here it is an L with an equal horizontal and vertical shape ... like how the king moves basically.
With hexagons there's only one kind of movement.
So squares (implemented in Civ) introduce more strategy in terms of the Chess-style strategy outlined above.
But hexagons is just more closer to reality and it expands the strategy involved in one kind of movement that is present in both squares and hexagons. To get the "best" of both worlds in terms of strategy you would allow for hexagons to be used like squares with two movements in certain L shapes counting as just one move ... but then you would lose the reality aspect and lost the reality-seeming aspect that square diagonal moves have.
On balance, I would prefer hexagons.
The way squares work (in Civ at least) is that there are actually TWO distinct kinds of movement possible -- normal face-to-face movement or a diagonal movement that is basically two face-to-face movements done at once (left and then up, or left and then down, etc.) -- kind of like chess where the Knight gets to move in an L shape ... well here it is an L with an equal horizontal and vertical shape ... like how the king moves basically.
With hexagons there's only one kind of movement.
So squares (implemented in Civ) introduce more strategy in terms of the Chess-style strategy outlined above.
But hexagons is just more closer to reality and it expands the strategy involved in one kind of movement that is present in both squares and hexagons. To get the "best" of both worlds in terms of strategy you would allow for hexagons to be used like squares with two movements in certain L shapes counting as just one move ... but then you would lose the reality aspect and lost the reality-seeming aspect that square diagonal moves have.
On balance, I would prefer hexagons.
cierdan said:
There aren't two kinds of movement. There's just one. Tiles are depicted as being squares, but they're effectively octagons. What you see is irrelevant; all that matters is the number of directions you can move. You just can't tile a 2-dimensional plane solely with octagons.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
It's two different kinds of movement because one is faster than another
My .2 points:
Hexagonal grid would scare casual player. Hexagonal grid usually associate with hardcore wargames. Then I was starting playing startegy games I did't want to play hexagonal - they were scaring me. It take expirienced gamer, who want more realism to prefer them.
Hexagonal grid would scare casual player. Hexagonal grid usually associate with hardcore wargames. Then I was starting playing startegy games I did't want to play hexagonal - they were scaring me. It take expirienced gamer, who want more realism to prefer them.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I don't think a casual gamer would associate it with hardcore war games because a casual player might not even know about hardcore wargames. (they'd probably be more likely to associate it with Settlers of Catan.. a really good simplified, strategic game)
wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
hexagons won't scare casual gamers.
A board game known popularly as "Chinese Checkers" uses hexagons. (They are physically shaped as circles to put the pegs into them and the pegs are round but geometrically, functionally speaking they are hexagons).
A board game known popularly as "Chinese Checkers" uses hexagons. (They are physically shaped as circles to put the pegs into them and the pegs are round but geometrically, functionally speaking they are hexagons).
Sir espectral
Chieftain
My head burns......
I remember a game on which the map was absolutely made with hex, and it had spherical shape. It simply doesnt allow you to zoom out up to see a planet. You can choose the map point in the spherical minimap. AND, you can take a geograph map: you see how it is made with a lot of ovals pasted in the central ring. A fully hexagonal map is possible. The system would store the map as i said. It may be shown as continuous hexagons removing the "blank" ones and, for moving, simply connects the top polar hexagon from an oval with the opposite oval polar hexagon. (if they are 6 ovals,a central hexagon will connect each)
Better, forget that
I remember a game on which the map was absolutely made with hex, and it had spherical shape. It simply doesnt allow you to zoom out up to see a planet. You can choose the map point in the spherical minimap. AND, you can take a geograph map: you see how it is made with a lot of ovals pasted in the central ring. A fully hexagonal map is possible. The system would store the map as i said. It may be shown as continuous hexagons removing the "blank" ones and, for moving, simply connects the top polar hexagon from an oval with the opposite oval polar hexagon. (if they are 6 ovals,a central hexagon will connect each)
Better, forget that
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Krikkitone said:
No, they'll probably associate it with that creepy guy they know who plays ASL in his mom's basement.
Not to revive a dead horse, but I think there is one solution that has passed us all by... Square hexagons.
__________
_][__][__][_
[__][iiiii][__]
_][__][__][_
Each tile has 90* angles yet maintains full borders with 6 other tiles.
There has also been talk about buckyballs... There are actually 3 polyhedrons that are conducive to hexagon globes:
1. The dodecahedron: 12 pentagons that form the basis for the buckyball
2. cube
3. and a tetrahedron.
Needless to say, the dodecahedron looks most like a globe but there have been complaints about the 12 pentagons being too numerous. If this is you, try the cube with 6 squares or the tetrahedron with 4 triangles.
__________
_][__][__][_
[__][iiiii][__]
_][__][__][_
Each tile has 90* angles yet maintains full borders with 6 other tiles.
There has also been talk about buckyballs... There are actually 3 polyhedrons that are conducive to hexagon globes:
1. The dodecahedron: 12 pentagons that form the basis for the buckyball
2. cube
3. and a tetrahedron.
Needless to say, the dodecahedron looks most like a globe but there have been complaints about the 12 pentagons being too numerous. If this is you, try the cube with 6 squares or the tetrahedron with 4 triangles.
People that suggest all these wierd shapes seem have never played a hexagonal map game. The beauty of the hex map is the radial range of a unit coming from a point is equidistant everywhere.
Soon people will use Civ IV modding capabilities to create truly amazing scenarios depicting historical battles. But they will be limited by the map. For those who aren't interested in combat, it doesn't matter what map type it is.
Another issue confusing this discussion is the spherical globe v the cylinder globe we have. This separate from the hex v square map and should be treated separately. There are serious issues both 2D map types when trying to model a sphere. But I really resent the fact the world is still not a sphere. When will I be able to launch a bomber from Russia to the US over the north pole? When will the world be represented like it truly is?
Soon people will use Civ IV modding capabilities to create truly amazing scenarios depicting historical battles. But they will be limited by the map. For those who aren't interested in combat, it doesn't matter what map type it is.
Another issue confusing this discussion is the spherical globe v the cylinder globe we have. This separate from the hex v square map and should be treated separately. There are serious issues both 2D map types when trying to model a sphere. But I really resent the fact the world is still not a sphere. When will I be able to launch a bomber from Russia to the US over the north pole? When will the world be represented like it truly is?
Well Saad, what do you think about the geometry discussed in the previous post? I tried not to put too much information in there so that everyone else can chip in their 2 cents (or 2 dollars, if you have it).
Personally, I think that hexagons are the way to go. True, there is a separate strategy for dealing with corner-corner borders, but I think the equidistant thing is more important.
How should the 3D map be set up? The buckministerfuller ball seems to be a favorite, yet I'd like everyone to know there are other options. To append the previous list of 3 potential polyhedrons: any of the 5 platonic solids will work.
4. Isosahedron
5. Octohedron
Note that whenfilled with hexagons the Cube will look like an Octohedron and the Dodecahedron will look like the Isosahedron and vice-versa. The Tetrahedron will look like itself. This is all a matter of vertex:side ratios.
Personally, I think that hexagons are the way to go. True, there is a separate strategy for dealing with corner-corner borders, but I think the equidistant thing is more important.
How should the 3D map be set up? The buckministerfuller ball seems to be a favorite, yet I'd like everyone to know there are other options. To append the previous list of 3 potential polyhedrons: any of the 5 platonic solids will work.
4. Isosahedron
5. Octohedron
Note that whenfilled with hexagons the Cube will look like an Octohedron and the Dodecahedron will look like the Isosahedron and vice-versa. The Tetrahedron will look like itself. This is all a matter of vertex:side ratios.
Instant_Cereal
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 264
Hmmmm, hexagons, squares, diagonal squares, octagons, and so on. I know what I prefer. How 'bout none? I really liked Rome: Total War's approach. Sure, it still somewhat had tiles, but the idea was not to have 'em and deviate from a traditional boardgame characteristic.
