Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah... I like both but do prefer squares from a player perspective (but would also love it if we could have such a method on a spherical map, which seems to be somehow impossible.)
Possible Future Direction (personal view)
- Thread starter Koshling
- Start date
Hexagons also allow us to divide tiles into 6 triangles for certain purposes. That is another great advantage to them.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
Actually of the eight points of the compass, hexes miss at least six of them!
There is no real advantage here. Moving against the 'grain' of the hexes requires you to zig-zag and lose distance by doing so. Similar to what would happen on squares, if diagonal movement was not allowed! I'm not convinced that hexes in boardgames was anything more than a fashion.
rightfuture
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
I have to agree that tiles are superior.
Then why are most of the media we use in tile form instead of hex form.
I really really really dislike strongly the visual and strategic logic gaps of hex movement.
Like Yudishtira said:
I have to completely agree.( I stress again that zig-zags are the reason that hexes fail as simple representation of visual movement in games).
In every and I mean every hex game I've played, (and that is many), there is a zig-zag movement in normally used directions which doesn't follow logically with the normal movements of actual units.
The clear advantages of hexes can be overcome.
In normal usage in life, are we really using hexes?
I understand the map accuracy arguments but we are talking logical thinking here.
Let look at normal items that use tiles vs hexes.
How many hex organized OS's have been released? Windows 8 is all about tiles.
Name one that isn't?
How many hex organized monitors, web pages, smart phones, Tablets, Photos, pages of paper, windows, buildings, etc. use a hex layout for anything?
How many books are published with a logical hex layout? (Even books on strategy.) It is hard to even talk about hex coordinates in normal conversation.
Squares and tiles rule the logical world. EVERY hex game has zig-zag patterns in normal linear movement in certain directions (not visually logical or easy to plan).
Other than in maps (which for the most part are EASIER to navigate with tiles) and map accuracy distortions which tend to manifest themselves at poles, we are still logically THINKING about walking or moving in the normal N,S,E,W and the diagonal based directions. NE,NW,SE,SW etc.
How can movement (a large portion of the game) line up visually correctly in a hex based system when people think more about the 4 cardinal directions working correctly than the 4 diagonals?
Here are some examples to illustrate and prove my point.
Notice the zig-zag to normal East-West movement?
Even if you re-orient and align it differently.
North and south is now a problem.
This causes a visual problem with tracking movement, a problem in picking directions to move in, and a visual strategic problem (even if you can think in hexes).
-Which direction do you choose to easily go in to move East to West? Having to choose to jump up and down a hex to move in 2 directions, when you don't have that to do that in the other 2 is confusing.
and if the hexes are oriented the other way the North/South direction has the opposite problem.
- In a strategic sense, do you know which direction a unit is truly moving in after a turn? They could be going west, or north west? If they are going north/south it is obvious.
- In a visual management sense all this zig-zig complexity is confusing.
They also suffer from the 'Duck Tail' Effect.
arrangement issue for management which also makes for visual awkwardness.
The offset creates a visual disjunction(break) which makes it harder to position units in relationship to each other, and also makes things harder to line up correctly.
Where as a tile map
Can move freely in 4 directions (with no zig-zag)
And at least visually the diagonals look correct when moving.
Since strategy (for almost everyone) is a visual process, (we don't think in hexes normally either), for visual handling,
tiles is the only way to go.
So for display and movement strategy for the average person, Tiles
tiles is the only way to go.
2. Now when it comes to map generation, graphics and distance handling (the number one problem with not using hexes is distance is not correct in moving across diagonals.)
So I think that behind the scenes (terrain generation, graphics, maps) hexes do make sense at least in this area.
A tile grid doesn't handle
-overlapping of terrain,
-map distortions at the poles(see other types of maps) or
-quicker strategic turns (less than 90% of movement(hard right/left turns)
visually well, but that can be worked around.
So in terms of strategy both types of maps have their weaknesses.
Hex grids don't do naturally 8 direction movement correctly and make 90% turns and omnidirectional movement appear awkward.
For this reason alone, at least in moving and strategy,
Tiles should win = natural gameplay(at least for movement and display).
3. Octagons:
A solution may be found in using octagons.
They have 8 instead of 6 sides and handle diagonals better and could be used by ignoring the box in between each octagon in a tile arrangement for unit placement, (this little box in between could help solve river problems/graphics terrain overlaps I believe)
Regular Octagon Grid
Gives 8 directions (not six -hex)
another solution that has been mentioned
Vector Octagon Grid
become truly a octagon when the triangles are bi-sected(split in the middle)
example light gray lines:
The diagonal directions (and movement multipliers) are a bit muddled but can be worked out with a little corrective thinking. Check out the yellow lines.
But that can be resolved with the proper calulations and approximations.
Octagons may be a solution for integrating some of the issues, but may not be the total solution.
So it comes down to diagonals being the biggest and only real problem (most because of distances).
Hexes convey the advantage of subtle turning(less than 90% of movement in 2 directions) but eliminate some of the natural 90% turns and visualization.
3. So a possible solution comes from the tesselation (breaking things down into triangles) with an overlaid grid of tiles for movement and visual management as was previously suggested.
I would have to agree that the visual movement map should be tiled with omni-directional 8 way movement.
And the terrain/cartographic realistic map be underlaid as hexes split into triangles for more accurate distance and simulation modeling management for realism(with blurred, rough, and rounded edging it does not have to appear hexed).
Mathematical conversions(doesn't have to be perfect) can work between the two for information transfer (some things are easy either way).
The strategic advantages of quick turns, and movement from a hex standpoint can even be modeled and approximately modeled on a open free form map that is simply organized in tiles at the tactical/movement level.
Your whole goal is to represent a 360 degree (circle) of movement for the units and information organization and management.
Like with spreadsheets(Excel), information is organized linearly and not in hexes in the real world. Humans work with lines better.
You can't completely argue with the squiggly line hex pathing, not being ideal.
Overcoming diagonals can be a calculation or positioning adjustment behind the scenes)
Tiles organize visual information and direct lines better.
At some point you have to suspend judgement(and reality) for gameplay sake so you don't get lost in the details, and so you can get the game moving and actually built).
So if you had to pick one, Tiles and Open map Win, but underlying dynamics can be more accurately implemented using a triangle divided hex map underlay.
Please don't use hexes for visual or basic unit movement.
Tiles definitively win for that.
Here are few brief arguments quoted from:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9608.0
On the subject. I think it frames it well.
"Hexagons were chosen for wargame maps because they are the largest regular shape that can be tesselated. Tesselation is the "fitting together perfectly" of identical shapes. You can't do it with octagons. The only regular shapes that can manage it are triangles, parallellograms (including squares, rectangles, and diamonds) and hexagons."
"most options of movement for a regular network of all the same shape.
The result is that it ADDED movement flexibility over the more traditional "grid" maps.
"The reason I brought it up was that I don't like the idea you can't make a 90 degree left or right turn. I think it takes away options. "
"The old "Lords of Midnight" (anyone remember the venerable Sinclair ZX Spectrum ?) used a square grid with diagonal movement allowed at 1.5x cost. This made the "circle" (locus of points at equal distance) an octagon with lower distance, area and shape errors than
- a hex grid (where the 'circle' is itself a big hexagon)
- square grid with diagonal moves prohibited ('circle' = tilted square)
- square grid with diagonal moves allowed at same cost as straight moves ('circle' =square. This is the most UGH !)"
Circle movement inside a square monitor screen is what we are trying to ultimately simulate.
That is why tiles are superior representations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_engine
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resourc...ap-based-game-techniques-handling-terrai-r934
http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2008/04/16/understanding-hexagonal-tiles/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/hexGrid.htm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9608.0
Then why are most of the media we use in tile form instead of hex form.
I really really really dislike strongly the visual and strategic logic gaps of hex movement.
Like Yudishtira said:
Actually of the eight points of the compass, hexes miss at least six of them!
There is no real advantage here. Moving against the 'grain' of the hexes requires you to zig-zag and lose distance by doing so. Similar to what would happen on squares, if diagonal movement was not allowed! I'm not convinced that hexes in boardgames was anything more than a fashion.
I have to completely agree.( I stress again that zig-zags are the reason that hexes fail as simple representation of visual movement in games).
In every and I mean every hex game I've played, (and that is many), there is a zig-zag movement in normally used directions which doesn't follow logically with the normal movements of actual units.
The clear advantages of hexes can be overcome.
In normal usage in life, are we really using hexes?
I understand the map accuracy arguments but we are talking logical thinking here.
Let look at normal items that use tiles vs hexes.
How many hex organized OS's have been released? Windows 8 is all about tiles.
Name one that isn't?
How many hex organized monitors, web pages, smart phones, Tablets, Photos, pages of paper, windows, buildings, etc. use a hex layout for anything?
How many books are published with a logical hex layout? (Even books on strategy.) It is hard to even talk about hex coordinates in normal conversation.
Squares and tiles rule the logical world. EVERY hex game has zig-zag patterns in normal linear movement in certain directions (not visually logical or easy to plan).
Other than in maps (which for the most part are EASIER to navigate with tiles) and map accuracy distortions which tend to manifest themselves at poles, we are still logically THINKING about walking or moving in the normal N,S,E,W and the diagonal based directions. NE,NW,SE,SW etc.
How can movement (a large portion of the game) line up visually correctly in a hex based system when people think more about the 4 cardinal directions working correctly than the 4 diagonals?
Here are some examples to illustrate and prove my point.
Notice the zig-zag to normal East-West movement?
Even if you re-orient and align it differently.
North and south is now a problem.
This causes a visual problem with tracking movement, a problem in picking directions to move in, and a visual strategic problem (even if you can think in hexes).
-Which direction do you choose to easily go in to move East to West? Having to choose to jump up and down a hex to move in 2 directions, when you don't have that to do that in the other 2 is confusing.
and if the hexes are oriented the other way the North/South direction has the opposite problem.
- In a strategic sense, do you know which direction a unit is truly moving in after a turn? They could be going west, or north west? If they are going north/south it is obvious.
- In a visual management sense all this zig-zig complexity is confusing.
They also suffer from the 'Duck Tail' Effect.
arrangement issue for management which also makes for visual awkwardness.
The offset creates a visual disjunction(break) which makes it harder to position units in relationship to each other, and also makes things harder to line up correctly.
Where as a tile map
Can move freely in 4 directions (with no zig-zag)
And at least visually the diagonals look correct when moving.
Since strategy (for almost everyone) is a visual process, (we don't think in hexes normally either), for visual handling,
tiles is the only way to go.
So for display and movement strategy for the average person, Tiles
tiles is the only way to go.
2. Now when it comes to map generation, graphics and distance handling (the number one problem with not using hexes is distance is not correct in moving across diagonals.)
So I think that behind the scenes (terrain generation, graphics, maps) hexes do make sense at least in this area.
A tile grid doesn't handle
-overlapping of terrain,
-map distortions at the poles(see other types of maps) or
-quicker strategic turns (less than 90% of movement(hard right/left turns)
visually well, but that can be worked around.
So in terms of strategy both types of maps have their weaknesses.
Hex grids don't do naturally 8 direction movement correctly and make 90% turns and omnidirectional movement appear awkward.
For this reason alone, at least in moving and strategy,
Tiles should win = natural gameplay(at least for movement and display).
3. Octagons:
A solution may be found in using octagons.
They have 8 instead of 6 sides and handle diagonals better and could be used by ignoring the box in between each octagon in a tile arrangement for unit placement, (this little box in between could help solve river problems/graphics terrain overlaps I believe)
Regular Octagon Grid
Gives 8 directions (not six -hex)
another solution that has been mentioned
Vector Octagon Grid
become truly a octagon when the triangles are bi-sected(split in the middle)
example light gray lines:
The diagonal directions (and movement multipliers) are a bit muddled but can be worked out with a little corrective thinking. Check out the yellow lines.
But that can be resolved with the proper calulations and approximations.
Octagons may be a solution for integrating some of the issues, but may not be the total solution.
So it comes down to diagonals being the biggest and only real problem (most because of distances).
Hexes convey the advantage of subtle turning(less than 90% of movement in 2 directions) but eliminate some of the natural 90% turns and visualization.
3. So a possible solution comes from the tesselation (breaking things down into triangles) with an overlaid grid of tiles for movement and visual management as was previously suggested.
I would have to agree that the visual movement map should be tiled with omni-directional 8 way movement.
And the terrain/cartographic realistic map be underlaid as hexes split into triangles for more accurate distance and simulation modeling management for realism(with blurred, rough, and rounded edging it does not have to appear hexed).
Mathematical conversions(doesn't have to be perfect) can work between the two for information transfer (some things are easy either way).
The strategic advantages of quick turns, and movement from a hex standpoint can even be modeled and approximately modeled on a open free form map that is simply organized in tiles at the tactical/movement level.
Your whole goal is to represent a 360 degree (circle) of movement for the units and information organization and management.
Like with spreadsheets(Excel), information is organized linearly and not in hexes in the real world. Humans work with lines better.
You can't completely argue with the squiggly line hex pathing, not being ideal.
Overcoming diagonals can be a calculation or positioning adjustment behind the scenes)
Tiles organize visual information and direct lines better.
At some point you have to suspend judgement(and reality) for gameplay sake so you don't get lost in the details, and so you can get the game moving and actually built).
So if you had to pick one, Tiles and Open map Win, but underlying dynamics can be more accurately implemented using a triangle divided hex map underlay.
Please don't use hexes for visual or basic unit movement.
Tiles definitively win for that.
Here are few brief arguments quoted from:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9608.0
On the subject. I think it frames it well.
"Hexagons were chosen for wargame maps because they are the largest regular shape that can be tesselated. Tesselation is the "fitting together perfectly" of identical shapes. You can't do it with octagons. The only regular shapes that can manage it are triangles, parallellograms (including squares, rectangles, and diamonds) and hexagons."
"most options of movement for a regular network of all the same shape.
The result is that it ADDED movement flexibility over the more traditional "grid" maps.
"The reason I brought it up was that I don't like the idea you can't make a 90 degree left or right turn. I think it takes away options. "
"The old "Lords of Midnight" (anyone remember the venerable Sinclair ZX Spectrum ?) used a square grid with diagonal movement allowed at 1.5x cost. This made the "circle" (locus of points at equal distance) an octagon with lower distance, area and shape errors than
- a hex grid (where the 'circle' is itself a big hexagon)
- square grid with diagonal moves prohibited ('circle' = tilted square)
- square grid with diagonal moves allowed at same cost as straight moves ('circle' =square. This is the most UGH !)"
Circle movement inside a square monitor screen is what we are trying to ultimately simulate.
That is why tiles are superior representations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_engine
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resourc...ap-based-game-techniques-handling-terrai-r934
http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2008/04/16/understanding-hexagonal-tiles/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/hexGrid.htm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9608.0
What is so important about cardinal directions? Why are right angles magically significant? Squares give you two straight line directions that are not distance-distorting. Hexes give you 3 (so that's 50% better!)
On a pure practically point - pathing calculation have a lower branching factor on a hex map, which means the game is likely to run faster (pathing is a major source of AI turn time consumption)
On a pure practically point - pathing calculation have a lower branching factor on a hex map, which means the game is likely to run faster (pathing is a major source of AI turn time consumption)
rightfuture
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
Diagonal movement is just jacked up in hexes, and two distinct directions N-S, or E-W are awkwardly eliminated through the diagonals.
Hex pathing is just to much of a visual leap to be good for most humans.
Besides I don't want to be limited to 6 movements.
Just imagine limiting your self from a square(4 directions) to a triangle(3 directions) for quick movement. Basically a triangle is 2 squares, You can make two movements(triangle) to make the same movement you made in on 1 square.
This needlessly adds turns to a long game.
but even though a hex can be broken down into triangles, it undermines direction.
Hexes sacrifice one row of direction for simplified movement. That sacrifice removes options and limits movements just for the sake of making things quicker, it is a sacrifice of gameplay for speed and gameplay options trump speed when it is workable.
So for visual strategy, ease of movement, and common adoption, tiles is a better way to organize overall. Hex just oversimplifies a direction and causes unnecessary confusion.
Sure hexes are simpler to program and easier on system resources, but so were 8 bit graphics.
Start with tiles, Civ IV did, and go with the benefit of 8 directions.
Notice how confusing the hex tile can be to go in a consistent direction in my pic(gray lines)?
Choice is great when not artificially imposed. Have to choose which way to go north?
Fine for strategic flanking maneuvers and quick turns(which can be simulated in tiles), but not hexes.
Notice how the left/right east/west is completely natural in my pic. It should be that way in each natural direction.
For realism and practical game designer sake, I understand the arguments for processing and realism for maps and terrain (yes I have programmed extensively even in the early days, even with high level, science grade math), but a hex underlay is the only way to overcome the limitations of the hex to movement and proper information organization. The limitations of tiles can be altered with creative calculations for the better part. Translating the other way to avoid limitations is too truncated. Heck the existing C2C can have approximate diagonal movement modifiers to satisfy people, and that is one of the biggest arguments.
It is worth the performance investment. Besides only a percentage of people like hexes, the rest are annoyed.
Hex pathing is just to much of a visual leap to be good for most humans.
Besides I don't want to be limited to 6 movements.
Just imagine limiting your self from a square(4 directions) to a triangle(3 directions) for quick movement. Basically a triangle is 2 squares, You can make two movements(triangle) to make the same movement you made in on 1 square.
This needlessly adds turns to a long game.
but even though a hex can be broken down into triangles, it undermines direction.
Hexes sacrifice one row of direction for simplified movement. That sacrifice removes options and limits movements just for the sake of making things quicker, it is a sacrifice of gameplay for speed and gameplay options trump speed when it is workable.
So for visual strategy, ease of movement, and common adoption, tiles is a better way to organize overall. Hex just oversimplifies a direction and causes unnecessary confusion.
Sure hexes are simpler to program and easier on system resources, but so were 8 bit graphics.
Start with tiles, Civ IV did, and go with the benefit of 8 directions.
Notice how confusing the hex tile can be to go in a consistent direction in my pic(gray lines)?
Choice is great when not artificially imposed. Have to choose which way to go north?
Fine for strategic flanking maneuvers and quick turns(which can be simulated in tiles), but not hexes.
Notice how the left/right east/west is completely natural in my pic. It should be that way in each natural direction.
For realism and practical game designer sake, I understand the arguments for processing and realism for maps and terrain (yes I have programmed extensively even in the early days, even with high level, science grade math), but a hex underlay is the only way to overcome the limitations of the hex to movement and proper information organization. The limitations of tiles can be altered with creative calculations for the better part. Translating the other way to avoid limitations is too truncated. Heck the existing C2C can have approximate diagonal movement modifiers to satisfy people, and that is one of the biggest arguments.
It is worth the performance investment. Besides only a percentage of people like hexes, the rest are annoyed.
Acularius
King
I've never really understood the need to argue about the concept of hexes and tiles, to me they are simply a playing field that I need to take into account for the strategies that I employ.
What I'd be more concerned about is how much of a challenge the game is going to be and re-playability.
So if hexes proved more advantageous, such as the modeling of the map or visa versa, then I would side with that argument.
At the moment, the only thing I see with tiles is the ability to move on the cardinal plane, which does not really strike me as beneficial or absolutely neccessary, and does not strike me as the greatest point in its favour. I can still employ choke-points, establish Oblique strategies, and dominate the field. I can also, fail to hold the defensive position, not hold a tempting enough position, and lose the field.
Both tiles and hexes offer me this opportunity, so the concept of moving on the cardinal plane does not strike me a greatest reason to favour it.
So far, I view the hex in a better light since the pros tend to outweigh the cons for it.
That's largely opinionated, but better modeling of the map and a global view tend to go a long way seeing as the cosmos part of the game would at some point require a global view, or at least benefit from having one.
What I'd be more concerned about is how much of a challenge the game is going to be and re-playability.
So if hexes proved more advantageous, such as the modeling of the map or visa versa, then I would side with that argument.
At the moment, the only thing I see with tiles is the ability to move on the cardinal plane, which does not really strike me as beneficial or absolutely neccessary, and does not strike me as the greatest point in its favour. I can still employ choke-points, establish Oblique strategies, and dominate the field. I can also, fail to hold the defensive position, not hold a tempting enough position, and lose the field.
Both tiles and hexes offer me this opportunity, so the concept of moving on the cardinal plane does not strike me a greatest reason to favour it.
So far, I view the hex in a better light since the pros tend to outweigh the cons for it.
That's largely opinionated, but better modeling of the map and a global view tend to go a long way seeing as the cosmos part of the game would at some point require a global view, or at least benefit from having one.
rightfuture
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
I think the Cons of Hexes way outweigh the pros.
Modeling and Simulation is a big part of the evolving game, but gameplay ultimately wins,
CIV and C2C's strength is in it's depth of detail, so it's simplistic representation and speed.
I would err on the side of quality of gameplay in this case and use tiles (8 directions)
way over the confusion and alienation that hexes bring.
Remember that my full argument says that only movement and visual strategy needs to be limited.
That is why tiles should not be sacrificed it that arena. Notice I did not argue any of the map, terrain, or modeling arguments, except for tactical strategy and movement.
My view is not opinionated but backed by logic.
A dual approach is best if workable.
Civ V's tiles were a big functional change in movement options(downgrade), and as usual I find it awkward for that reason.
Hexes are a limiting box, and challenge and re-playability are not affected by tiles or significantly improved by switching to hexes. More is lost than gained by sacrificing them.
This is not my opinion, I can play hex games just fine, after playing hundreds of games, I developed frustration and reason based thoughts on why hexes are less playable.
Gameplay should and will trump terrain and map issues, and slight performace gains, but with the right overlay you can have both for different reasons. Over and over again tactics overall suffer with hexes. Tiles give more options.
I think my arguments above are sound and mostly complete.
I want to make a clear statement, that you all consider tiles for the reasons because they are superior(not for terrain or maps) but for gameplay.
The same argument goes for Civ 5 and quick games, if you want to play a simpler game that takes an hour to play, or has less features buildings, and options, then hexes works for strategy and movement.
Great for gamedesigners who are lazy making individually placed terrain in maps, and people who want less options for movement. But for realism 8 directions is more like the 360 degree movement in real life and representational enough that most games use it. Hexes are the compromise, I don't believe that the Philosophy of C2C was to compromise gameplay, but to improve it by extending it when it added something.
Feel free to consider using hexes to model the maps and terrain in conjunction.
Just Don't drop 8-direction tile movement.,
Modeling and Simulation is a big part of the evolving game, but gameplay ultimately wins,
CIV and C2C's strength is in it's depth of detail, so it's simplistic representation and speed.
I would err on the side of quality of gameplay in this case and use tiles (8 directions)
way over the confusion and alienation that hexes bring.
Remember that my full argument says that only movement and visual strategy needs to be limited.
That is why tiles should not be sacrificed it that arena. Notice I did not argue any of the map, terrain, or modeling arguments, except for tactical strategy and movement.
My view is not opinionated but backed by logic.
A dual approach is best if workable.
Civ V's tiles were a big functional change in movement options(downgrade), and as usual I find it awkward for that reason.
Hexes are a limiting box, and challenge and re-playability are not affected by tiles or significantly improved by switching to hexes. More is lost than gained by sacrificing them.
This is not my opinion, I can play hex games just fine, after playing hundreds of games, I developed frustration and reason based thoughts on why hexes are less playable.
Gameplay should and will trump terrain and map issues, and slight performace gains, but with the right overlay you can have both for different reasons. Over and over again tactics overall suffer with hexes. Tiles give more options.
I think my arguments above are sound and mostly complete.
I want to make a clear statement, that you all consider tiles for the reasons because they are superior(not for terrain or maps) but for gameplay.
The same argument goes for Civ 5 and quick games, if you want to play a simpler game that takes an hour to play, or has less features buildings, and options, then hexes works for strategy and movement.
Great for gamedesigners who are lazy making individually placed terrain in maps, and people who want less options for movement. But for realism 8 directions is more like the 360 degree movement in real life and representational enough that most games use it. Hexes are the compromise, I don't believe that the Philosophy of C2C was to compromise gameplay, but to improve it by extending it when it added something.
Feel free to consider using hexes to model the maps and terrain in conjunction.
Just Don't drop 8-direction tile movement.,
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
For a creature with bilateral symmetry there are 6 cardinal directions up/down, forward/back and left/right. The last two convert into North
Speaking of time consumption (this is a tad offtopic) I profiled the mod recently and found that the mod was calculating what was IMO too many paths. It was calling the newpathcostfunction over 100,000 times in my developed game on a Gigantic map. I was potentially thinking that a good way to help performance would be to aggressively cache the path cost results at least for stacks, so each unit with the same amount of movement in a stack doesn't have to recalculate the paths again and again. Just a thought, I don't know how much work you've done in that area since you moved the pathing engine into the DLL.
Acularius
King
The Hex offers 6 sides of natural movement.
The Square offers only 4 sides of natural movement.
The other 4 points require the square to be broken down into 2 right angle triangles, which results in the square root of 2 to move on the diagonal plane. On that note, even simplifying it as 1.5 to me strike me as pretty lazy (I mean no offense to anyone, and I know in hindsight that even saying 'no offense' it still makes me feel pretty bad.) On that note, if one was going to round the number to the tenth decimal place on the square root of 2, then it should be 1.4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
Granted, I still don't see the importance, more of playing Devil's Advocate which should always be done. I tend to think that the additional 4 directional points from the tile ultimately came from someone being 'lazy'.
As I've said, I don't really mind either or, but I would rather the hexes as it represents a better world in a global sense as compared to tiles. As for simulation, when it comes down to it ultimately a game is nothing more than a simulation that involves humans interacting with it and following its rules. So regardless of hexes and tiles I'd still be able to enjoy the game.
On a side note, I've never found the hexagonal movement awkward. It was actually the only good part of CiV, but since the rest of the game was horrible (badly handled)... It just fell out of favour for me and I went back to CIV, not because of the tiles but because of the content.
Ultimately, its not what I'm playing on, its what I'm playing with...
Edit: I never knew people considered hexes annoying.
The Square offers only 4 sides of natural movement.
The other 4 points require the square to be broken down into 2 right angle triangles, which results in the square root of 2 to move on the diagonal plane. On that note, even simplifying it as 1.5 to me strike me as pretty lazy (I mean no offense to anyone, and I know in hindsight that even saying 'no offense' it still makes me feel pretty bad.) On that note, if one was going to round the number to the tenth decimal place on the square root of 2, then it should be 1.4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
Granted, I still don't see the importance, more of playing Devil's Advocate which should always be done. I tend to think that the additional 4 directional points from the tile ultimately came from someone being 'lazy'.
As I've said, I don't really mind either or, but I would rather the hexes as it represents a better world in a global sense as compared to tiles. As for simulation, when it comes down to it ultimately a game is nothing more than a simulation that involves humans interacting with it and following its rules. So regardless of hexes and tiles I'd still be able to enjoy the game.
On a side note, I've never found the hexagonal movement awkward. It was actually the only good part of CiV, but since the rest of the game was horrible (badly handled)... It just fell out of favour for me and I went back to CIV, not because of the tiles but because of the content.
Ultimately, its not what I'm playing on, its what I'm playing with...
Edit: I never knew people considered hexes annoying.
rightfuture
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
If you only use the four sides of a square, a six sided hex is better. But if you use the diagonals of a square/ tile, you have 8. The natural shape of a hex limits one of the four directions. Eaither north/south, or east/west is split into two directions. You end up having to negotiate between the two to go in a straight line.
I've played many hex games, and I always find a way to play them, I just find them a little awkward in back and forth movement in two directions.
Always in hexes, 1 direction (N/S, or E/W) depending on the orientation of the hex, is split between 2 different ways of back and forth going in a direction. It is inconsistent with the other 2 directions, and it gives 2 choices for going in a direction one way, and only one in another. This is inconsistent. So when you go north or south you have 2 choices to get there, but when you go east or west there is only 1(or vice versa), this just isn't consistent. Basically you drop a natural direction and navigate between the close by one, NE and NW for example, and you keep moving in a zig-zag pattern to follow a straight line (in only 2 directions but not the others).
This is why it can be annoying.
You can think about it, movement should be the same in any direction. With hexes this is simply not true. Hexes are just an over-simplified way to do movement to match the natural conveniences of using triangles to manage maps and terrain distances to keep them consistent.
Diagonals in a tile or square cross differently than N,S,E,W and the major complaint is that the distances are wrong. Visually this makes sense, and using a map in the real world, like google maps, you always go in those directions when the roads travels in diagonals. On a hex map, the directions vary depending on which way you are turned - not easy or consistent. And when lot's of things are moving or changing positions (like the ai players) it is a lot harder to follow, the differing rules.
An Octogan gives equal movement to all 8 directions. Not a zig-zag in 2 instead of a straight line. Tiles are just taking a square and making it seem like a normal map, in a grid of same sized distances.
Hexes are not consistently the same with directions.
Hexes didn't drive me out of Civ V, poor simplified gameplay did. But it was frustrating that you had to play different in different directions. If you are a real life unit, you are limited by your map. In tiles you are prevented from going in a straight line.
Basically hexes prevent you from easily going in a straight line in 2 directions.
I've played many hex games, and I always find a way to play them, I just find them a little awkward in back and forth movement in two directions.
Always in hexes, 1 direction (N/S, or E/W) depending on the orientation of the hex, is split between 2 different ways of back and forth going in a direction. It is inconsistent with the other 2 directions, and it gives 2 choices for going in a direction one way, and only one in another. This is inconsistent. So when you go north or south you have 2 choices to get there, but when you go east or west there is only 1(or vice versa), this just isn't consistent. Basically you drop a natural direction and navigate between the close by one, NE and NW for example, and you keep moving in a zig-zag pattern to follow a straight line (in only 2 directions but not the others).
This is why it can be annoying.
You can think about it, movement should be the same in any direction. With hexes this is simply not true. Hexes are just an over-simplified way to do movement to match the natural conveniences of using triangles to manage maps and terrain distances to keep them consistent.
Diagonals in a tile or square cross differently than N,S,E,W and the major complaint is that the distances are wrong. Visually this makes sense, and using a map in the real world, like google maps, you always go in those directions when the roads travels in diagonals. On a hex map, the directions vary depending on which way you are turned - not easy or consistent. And when lot's of things are moving or changing positions (like the ai players) it is a lot harder to follow, the differing rules.
An Octogan gives equal movement to all 8 directions. Not a zig-zag in 2 instead of a straight line. Tiles are just taking a square and making it seem like a normal map, in a grid of same sized distances.
Hexes are not consistently the same with directions.
Hexes didn't drive me out of Civ V, poor simplified gameplay did. But it was frustrating that you had to play different in different directions. If you are a real life unit, you are limited by your map. In tiles you are prevented from going in a straight line.
Basically hexes prevent you from easily going in a straight line in 2 directions.
Acularius
King
I don't really have much of a rebuttal, at this point, pretty much finished with my last post on hexes vs tiles.
I did agree with your statement on Civ 5 though, which was a better summation than what I had placed.
Back to an earlier point, finite resources in a completely closed system.
Have world value for the resources. Once a certain amount has been used, run checks to close a mine at random, however, it could not happen at all and it checks again until a mine is actually closed. That way the world will at least have a minimum amount of a certain resource flowing in it, but with the potential to have a little bit more.
Essentially just view the entire world's resources as a GIANT pie, as technology develops humanity gains access to a little more of that pie, but how it is divided amongst humanity is largely up to the player(s) and the AI in the world.
Your goal, is to own the most pie, or be the last one standing on said pie OR go out and find more pie (cosmos stage).
I like pie.
About the square vs. hex discussion:
1) There is no good square tessellation of a globe (and I strongly prefer using a globe).
2) The argument of zig-zagging in one major direction ignores that the way Civ4 does it there are even more than 2 choices in flat terrain for the first step. There are 3 and using the diagonals only for movement usually is the better strategical choice. So in a Civ4-like system you zig-zag most of the time. Once you add terrain optimal paths get complex in either case.
3) Octagons are only squares in disguise. There is no real difference.
4) Most of rightfuture's arguments come down to that his thinking works in the major directions and has difficulties thinking in 6 directions. That might also be the case for others but once you add a globe that kind of thinking is void anyway (except in short distances, in longer distances think of how planes fly).
My vote is for a hex tessellated globe.
1) There is no good square tessellation of a globe (and I strongly prefer using a globe).
2) The argument of zig-zagging in one major direction ignores that the way Civ4 does it there are even more than 2 choices in flat terrain for the first step. There are 3 and using the diagonals only for movement usually is the better strategical choice. So in a Civ4-like system you zig-zag most of the time. Once you add terrain optimal paths get complex in either case.
3) Octagons are only squares in disguise. There is no real difference.
4) Most of rightfuture's arguments come down to that his thinking works in the major directions and has difficulties thinking in 6 directions. That might also be the case for others but once you add a globe that kind of thinking is void anyway (except in short distances, in longer distances think of how planes fly).
My vote is for a hex tessellated globe.
I don't really like randomness in there. Better to have at least a certain amount of predictability.
Acularius
King
The predictability comes from the minimum amount of resources that will enter the system, to ensure that there is enough.
An example, we'll use copper.
There is X amount of copper in the world, and Y amount of tiles that X can be mined from. (You may change X and Y to any value to wish)
X is the minimum amount overall that will enter the closed system by the end of the game.
Y is the amount of locations around the 'Earth' (We will call it such) that you can mine copper from.
Initially the ability to mine copper will be slow and inefficient, once say 5 percent of the copper supply has been mined, a mine that is being worked will close down. Just 1 mine. As the game progresses, somewhere past 30% (At this point, the New World equivalent should be discovered), more mines at a checkpoint can be closed down (determined by the before mentioned check).
The predictability is that the mines will be closed down. That's what happens in a closed system, with finite resources. The resources currently extracted will never leave the system, they may exchange hands, but ultimately they are there for trade, diplomacy or pillaging. [Forgot to add, meeting the demand of your population and equipping your military.]
Once the 100% mark has been reached, for the minimum value, the mines start running checks and begin to be closed at random.
That's all I was suggesting. It would maintain the finite system that is desired under a closed system, while maintaining a minimum amount of resources that SHOULD be in the system.
This X value can be decreased or increased depending on the difficulty value one wants, a harder game would have less resources overall, while an easier game would have more and greater inflation.
The Y value can be determined by the size of the map one is playing on, or how spread out the resources should be. Increasing the Y value, the amount of spots that can be mined, will allow the resource to be mined by more people. The smaller Y value would inevitably force monopolies on some finite resources, especially something like Tin or Titanium.
Furthermore, one can just turn off the random checks at the checkpoints to have 'infinite' finite resources and the 'Black Market' proposition can therefore be changed from a system to hold on to the excess to siphon off the excess of the greater volume of finite resources.
I'd imagine you can also make certain mines more likely to pass the check than other mines if one wanted to make a scenario map. So that some mines are more likely to close than others.
There is a measure of predictability, the mine will eventually close and the world would have at least this much of a certain resource in it. The randomness of it all is 'when' it will close.
[Saving dice roll, I'm a DM. XD]
I'm just trying to conjure a system that met the specifications that I've seen through this thread.
-A 'closed' system.
-Finite resources are actually 'finite'.
-Some measure to allow an 'open' and 'infinite' resource system, but make it optional.
-Random
The system I've described above would work for finite and renewable resources. Renewable resources are much simpler and work on an open system. To stop from having too much, one just introduces a 'spoilage' system, which progressively gets less severe over certain resources as the game progresses and storage technologies become better.
After Edit:
A point I forgot to add and keeps being mentioned is some form of 'random'.
For the sake of realism I prefer an open system as resource usage is far from closed.
I prefer a system in which the randomness is part of the initial world generation, but from there it is not random (but it might seem to you in some parts because you don't know everything about the world at the start).
Acularius
King
No, realistically even until now, the resource system of Earth is rather closed.
That is also what I've been referring to as a system for this entire time as well... Earth as a whole.
Not the separate countries on it, but the entire Earth as the system from which the countries play their game on...
That was also my pie metaphor, the world is essentially a pie, and humanity just fights over it. The slice we can take from the Earth just gets bigger as we develop better technologies, but ultimately we will only have the pie.
Up until the point where the game can extend the system to asteroid mining or extra terrestrial colonization, we are generally stuck with what Earth provides.
If I remember correctly from one of my elective classes, to provide everyone on this planet with the same standard of living as the average American, you would need the resource equivalent of 2 Earths.
To provide everyone with the equivalent of a high end private jet businessperson, it would be somewhere above 5 Earths.
[If I remember the story correctly, I think for the businessperson part it should be higher, but I guessed conservatively.]
Basically, once it is mined, that unit of copper will stay in the system, regardless if you turn it into a luxury or a tool.
Edit: Unfortunately, even the soils deplete unless properly manage by restoring the need materials. That would require A LOT of work...
Input is closed (for non renewable resources), but output is far from closed in the current way resources are used on earth. They are used up by being burnt for energy or by being spread too thinly to be efficiently harvested (resources can be considered at different entropy levels depending on what form they are used in).
Very few resources are efficiently recycled so an open system fits far more at the current time.
Acularius
King
Ah, that part I figured would be dealt with modifiers gifted out by technological advancement.
That, and I already put up a rather flexible open system...
So I tried a closed system.
Basically when it comes down to it, that'll probably be the next colossal decision once tiles vs hexes are finalized.
Mixing the 2 systems results in problems and balancing issues, hence my suggestion to keep it one or the other in dealing with finite resources.
Generally I've been suggesting the base, not the systems that would rely on it afterwards, such as harvesting efficiencies and manufacturing outputs.
Edit:
In its essence I am more concerned with what the Primary Industries shall be working with, after that I will concern myself with the Secondary and Tertiary sectors.
To be frank, statements like these annoy me to the extreme. If you dislike hexes, fine. Speak for yourself. But don't artificially embellish your argument by claiming that "most humans" or "the average person" feel the same way you do - unless you can present some verifiable, empirical data which shows that "most humans" and "the average person" (whatever that means, exactly) indeed can't grok hex maps. Since there are scores of wargamers who play on hex maps and actually prefer them to square tiles, I do not believe that this is the case.
The one point which your essay with all its illustrations boils down to is that you dislike the zig-zagging movement on hex maps because a) you find it awkward, and b) it is not how people or units would actually move from point A to point B. The first point is a purely subjective feeling not necessarily shared by others. To the second, my reply is that movement on a square map is not how people or units would actually move from point A to point B, either. Or do you only move in straight lines and 90 degree turns when you take a walk in the countryside?
Movement on any map that uses tiles, square or hex, is an abstraction of one kind or another. We should not take it "literally". Which is why I would argue that all the complaining about zig-zagging is really quite beside the point. Besides, as AIAndy pointed out, people frequently make zig-zagging movement on the CivIV tiles as well.
Square tile maps are no more "logical" or "natural" than hex maps. It comes down to what one is used to, it comes down to what one prefers aesthetically, and it comes down to both formats having some objective strengths and weaknesses (the ability to move in cardinal directions vs. consistent distance / movement modelling and the ability to tile a globe). I prefer hexes aesthetically, and for me, the cartographic advantages they offer far outweigh the loss of the cardinal directions. But that is really a personal judgement, and I don't pass if off as anything else than that.
