The hex grid can be inproved.

[Fire Bringer]

The hex grid can be improved by simply adding 1 or more grids on top of 1 base grid. A unit can still take up 1 tile, but you can move a half tile. This can solve the problem of being able to shoot over the British Chanel.

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/t/images/triangle_grid.or.graph.gif

 

[bonafide11]

The hex grid can be improved by simply adding 1 or more grids on top of 1 base grid. A unit can still take up 1 tile, but you can move a half tile. This can solve the problem of being able to shoot over the British Chanel.

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/t/images/triangle_grid.or.graph.gif

So you're proposing a triangle grid? And people thought playing on squares looked unnatural, imagine playing on triangles!

 

[LordRahl]

This can solve the problem of being able to shoot over the British Chanel.[/url]

How is that a problem? It's a freaking strategy game, not archery simulation. Gameplay ALWAYS trumps realism...

 

[Dbob]

Why is one of the most common arguments against ranged bombardment a single situation on a world map that not everyone who buys the game even plays?

Plus some late game naval units supposedly can have a bombardment of 5 or 6 hexes, so you should be more worried about being able to lob a shell from the North Sea to the Irish Sea, because England probably won't be more than 5 hexes wide.

 

[snapple232]

When you have a game where military combat goes from cavemen to ICBMs you're gonna have a problem maintaining a realistic scale no matter what you do. If you want to get realistic, archers should have a range of zero but artillery should be able to shoot like 10 tiles. Neither situation is optimal gameplay, so as someone said above gameplay > realism.

 

[Everstar1981]

I'm all for "inproving" things.

On a more serious note, how do we know for sure exactly how wide the English Channel will be? Have there been any screenshots of Earth maps yet?

 

[MrBanana]

Maybe the channel will be two tiles wide? Problem solved.

 

[Fire Bringer]

So you're proposing a triangle grid? And people thought playing on squares looked unnatural, imagine playing on triangles!

I'm not proposing a triangle grid, I wanted to find a grid with 1 overlapping one. Units could still take up 1 tile, but terrain wouldn't have to follow that rule.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I'm not proposing a triangle grid, I wanted to find a grid with 1 overlapping one. Units could still take up 1 tile, but terrain wouldn't have to follow that rule.

I fail to see how this would improve anything, and not only make lot of things confusing/difficult. If you really think it would be an improvement, then I think you need to explain how you think it's supposed to work.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Why does everyone assume that because archers can fire over lakes that they can fire over a "chanel" [sic]?
It is really not difficult at all to have an implementation such that archers can fire over lakes but not over sea. If archers can indeed fire 2 tiles away, I am pretty confident Firaxis would do it that way.

That means we don't need any of these wacky ideas to prevent archers firing over a channel.

 

[The_J]

It is really not difficult at all to have an implementation such that archers can fire over lakes but not over sea.

Yes, could be done, but that would feel imho inconsistent.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, could be done, but that would feel imho inconsistent.

Do you consider Civ4 inconsistent in that you can build boats on sea but not on lakes? Same with lighthouses and so on.

Also, graphics-wise lakes almost certainly would look not as wide as a 1-tile wide channel, but this is yet to be proven.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Now, an archer over channel contest would be fun !

 

[The_J]

Do you consider Civ4 inconsistent in that you can build boats on sea but not on lakes? Same with lighthouses and so on.

Yes, somehow i do.
It does not happen very often, but then it feels sometimes inconsistent, yes.