Please use hexagons instead of squares!

[Pounder]

cities would be only 17 tiles in stead of 21.

would that be an issue.

edit: or are the city sizes unlimited in civ4.

 

[Crayton]

17 tiles wouldn't be an issue as long as either citizens required less food or tile produced more. Both are likely because Civ4 is a new game.

And... Path1 is the same distance as Path2, but Path1 has less displacement, 1.5 as you said. I, personally, don't see what it matters.

I like hexagons because the distance between two connected tiles is constant. It is also easier to draw circles (if anybody cares)!

 

[Deep_Blue]

Actually it doesnt matter 1.5 or 2 , I just wanted to put a picture for Hexagons to make it easier to discuss about them.

 

[apatheist]

for plane earth square is the choice , for round earth hexagons can be used instead.

That's not quite true. You cannot approximate a sphere using just hexagons, you have to use hexagons with the occasional pentagon. That's why soccer balls/footballs look the way they do.

 

[Deep_Blue]

Actually yes you need both hexagons and pentagon to cover a sphere. The point is squares cannot be used for that.

 

[wombatoftruth]

Actually yes you need both hexagons and pentagon to cover a sphere. The point is squares cannot be used for that.

So in other words, neither hexes nor squares will lead to an accuratley rendered flat map of a round object, so the hexes won't really be a better representation of a planet than the squares. I say stick to squares for Civ. I'll happily leave hexes to when I pull out my copies of Ogre or GEV.

 

[Deep_Blue]

at least hexagons can be combined with pentagons to cover a sphere , But how can squares alone be used in spehrical maps? also what is the shape that can be combined with squares to do that? lets say triangles are used with squares .. this will not give a smooth spherical object.

 

[Markus6]

You cudn't use both hexs and pents on a map, it'd be so annoying to play on!

 

[Crayton]

How about just Triangles!
Break the pentagons and hexagons into triangles and only allow movement across shared sides not shared cornors.
I think, however, triangles would be most painful to play on. The more sides the better. And remember: you can't tessalate dodecagons.

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

You cudn't use both hexs and pents on a map, it'd be so annoying to play on!

Not really. It would mean that cities on the pentagon squares have smaller city radiuses of 16 total spaces instead of 19 for hexagons and movement gets a bit screwed up, but I think it would still work pretty well.

 

[SonicX]

There'd be only 12 pentagon tiles on a 100x100 map.
That 0.12 % of all tiles.

 

[apatheist]

There'd be only 12 pentagon tiles on a 100x100 map.
That 0.12 % of all tiles.

It would be a bit of an ugly hack, but the map generator could make those all impassable terrain.

 

[SonicX]

Doesn't matter, it also effects surround hexagons.
And it would be a very ugly hack because the pentagon always appear in the same places, just above and below the equator with equal distances...

 

[apatheist]

It would affect the surrounding hexagons, but it wouldn't have the jarring problems of different tiles having different move possibilities.

Also, realize that those wouldn't have to be the only impassable tiles, nor that impassable means a special type of tile. One could be a single tile mountain, while another is a 3-tile inland sea, another is a long mountain range, etc. You would be able to predict that a specific tile is impassable, but you wouldn't know how it was impassable, nor would you know the shape and size of the impassable area.

 

[Akka]

Now, seriously, this is really not worth the bother...

 

[t0mme]

Why on earth is Firaxis, Sid and other sticking with squares when the vastly superior hex system exist? Is there a reason for this or just history?

Why is it vastly superior? Except for the fact that you can make better world maps (allthough the Civ3 world maps didn't look too bad) can somebody give me a good example in which hexagons have a noticable impact on gameplay (mind you, noticable)?

If it's only a cosmetic thing, then it sounds nice, although I can imagine that it's hard to get used to if there are no grid lines.

 

[frekk]

I like hexes better. Movement is represented better, but much more than that, hexes give a more natural look to how terrain is distributed and a much better look to the game, overall. Borders would be a bit jagged, and you wouldn't have, for instance, a big square or rectangular forest land. Coasts would look alot more natural. I would just much prefer hexes, even though I realize it is too late. I'm sure people would really appreciate the look if they saw it & would quickly realize its superiority.

@t0mme - there would still be a grid, of course, it would just be a hex grid.

Here's an example from another game that uses hex to show how you have a grid:

 

[t0mme]

I like hexes better. Movement is represented better, but much more than that, hexes give a more natural look to how terrain is distributed and a much better look to the game, overall. Borders would be a bit jagged, and you wouldn't have, for instance, a big square or rectangular forest land. Coasts would look alot more natural. I would just much prefer hexes, even though I realize it is too late. I'm sure people would really appreciate the look if they saw it & would quickly realize its superiority.

So it's a cosmetical thing then as I yet fail to see how movement is better represented. Pleeeeeaaaase enlight me

 

[rujikin]

Randomness: 20N-Gon's

LoL But with hexagon's you could flank and if they made it so that units can attack from different sides all at once and gain an attack bonus from flanking...

But I don't think this conversation will affect the game since it probably is mostly done and it would be stupid to remake the entire game, we should start suggestions for CIV-5 Get an forum for idea's on civ 5.... You know their going to make it

 

[frekk]

So it's a cosmetical thing then as I yet fail to see how movement is better represented. Pleeeeeaaaase enlight me

It's both - diagonal movement is screwy on squares because you're actually travelling farther than if you travelled in horizontal or vertical lines (simple Pythagorean theorum tells you why). But with hexes all distances are always equal, no matter which direction you move in. It just happens that it also has better aesthetic qualities, as well.