What do hexagons bring to the game ?

[Naokaukodem]

I guess that there is less distance distortion, but is it an improvement since we already did fine with 4 iterations before and that it isn't that big of a deal ? If at least hexes were perfect, but there is still distance distortion with them, it's just that it is less visible.

Above that, there is now only 6 directions to go with, instead of 8 previously. Theoretically it's less possibilities, and practically I can already see that those impassable mountains are more annoying with the hexes system. At least in Civ4 we could go through a mountain pass quite easily, and it was fun. (well, it is fun retrospectively at least)

So why all the fuss about a hexagon system ? I don't think it adds much to the game, I even think that it makes movements less flexible.

 

[Naokaukodem]

No no you're not back in 2010, but it hit my brain when people was referring to "evolution" of civ series in the Civ7 forum, that's just that.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Hexes are 50% better than quadrilaterals. It's just math. You can't argue with math.

 

[Quintillus]

Hexagons bring twice as many directional options when compared to triangles, while still avoiding the diagonal-is-twice-as-quick (perceived) issue with square.

My personal opinion is hexes versus squares versus isometric tiles doesn't make a huge difference in Civ. Coastlines arguably look more natural in III/IV with squares (with coastlines that are stylized to not be exact squares) than they do in V/VI with hexagons, as there just aren't that many hexagonal coasts in the real world.

It is possible that the 1 UPT aspect of V/VI would play worse on a tile-based map, although that it would play different is the only thing I'd commit to. Having two more directions of travel would likely make it harder to block off paths (intentionally or incidentally), which could be an improvement.

I find it more interesting to ponder alternatives. What if we had truncated square tiles, aka octagons?

The movement would be similar to in Civ IV (you'd move between octagons, which are in a grid like a square), but the central diamonds could have different graphics based on which octagons surrounded them.

Or what about a truncated icoashedron, aka a football?

That wouldn't be enough tiles for a Civ game, but who hasn't wanted a fully 3D spherical-esque grid in a Civ game? Maybe there's a many-sided polyhedron that would act similar to a gigantic European football and would work well for making a Civ game have a close-enough-to-equidistant-tile map on an actual 3D globe?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Hexes are 50% better than quadrilaterals. It's just math. You can't argue with math.

50% better doesn't tell quite much. How many percents more would it need to be perfect ? 100% more is just the double; and 50% half-better.

@Quintillus Hexes and pentagons would be ok if they allowed a spherical map indeed. But at this rate, why not make, at least movements, gridless ? We could have hexes and pentagons for citizens, but gridless moves for units. (as to battle bonuses/maluses, they would take account of the tile our units are in I guess)

 

[Gori the Grey]

How many percents more would it need to be perfect ?

Whatever percents that is, hexagons are 50% closer to it than quadrilaterals are.

Since you may not know my jolly posting style, I'll add a so that you'll know I'm just funning with you.

 

[Quintillus]

But at this rate, why not make, at least movements, gridless ?

Serious answer: Civ is a strategy game with tactical elements. IMO the main benefit of gridless systems is for real-time tactical games.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Ara: History Untold has dynamically generated tiles of different shapes and sizes

 

[JNR13]

Movement is the same distance in all directions when it comes to moving between any two adjacent tiles.

Personally, I think natural features look better on a hex grid because anything following the edges can have softer turns. Even for artificial structures, having an offset of half a tile between tile centers from row to row can make things feel more natural.

Of course, in the end it comes down to execution. It seems that in VII, the hex shape will be much more highlighted as more things conform strictly to the shape, whereas in VI there was a deliberate attempt to obscure the grid shape here and there.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Hexes simply mean the spaces between each tiles are of equal distance. You also get more natural looking land formations...although as mentioned, coasts will never look quite right.

I guess it's a matter of preference between that and square tiles.
Personally I thought it strange in Civ 4 where, say, a "river" tile had touched the river only at its corner. And despite the comparisons made between that game and chess, in chess most units were pawns which could not move diagonally except to attack; your back-row units were your specialists. In 4, any unit could move diagonally, which reduces the uniqueness of each unit, and which the game overcomes with a somewhat unnecessary added layer of attack/defense modifiers.

IMO it should've been: 1) siege units can only move laterally never diagonally, 2) fast units can always move diagonally, 3) infantry could move diagonally if adjacent to other infantry (i.e. fire-and-manouver tactics).

 

[Naokaukodem]

Serious answer: Civ is a strategy game with tactical elements. IMO the main benefit of gridless systems is for real-time tactical games.

It's a point of view ; another one is that gridless movements could approach reality tactics like in the Napoleonic wars.

Ara: History Untold has dynamically generated tiles of different shapes and sizes

I don't like it : it resembles too much to the Humandkind regions.

Hexes simply mean the spaces between each tiles are of equal distance.

Yes but it fades away since the second row of hexes. However it's true that it's less visible than with squares.

You also get more natural looking land formations...although as mentioned, coasts will never look quite right.

I don't get that part. Despite the description of @JNR13, that I barely understood, I did not have the impression that land formations were better in 5 and 6 than in 4 and 3 for example. The map is simplistic for the better either way.

Personally I thought it strange in Civ 4 where, say, a "river" tile had touched the river only at its corner.

I think it does happen in 5 and 6 too no ?

In 4, any unit could move diagonally, which reduces the uniqueness of each unit, and which the game overcomes with a somewhat unnecessary added layer of attack/defense modifiers.

In 4 there is no attack/defense characteristics for units anymore, and if you mean terrain modifiers, they are still here in 5 and 6.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

This is what I mean. In Civ 4 any square touching a river at its corner is a "river tile" (makes no sense to me, but whatever, the game thinks it is). In Civ 5, rivers always travel at least one side of a tile.

edit: now here's another oddity I thought of, but with islands. typically something surrounded on all sides by water is an island, but since Civ 4 thinks that one corner of such a tile connects to the larger landmass, it is part of that landmass, meaning there's no embarkation cost for units to move to it. Until, that is, a ship crosses that very same space, then there is seemingly no land connection and only a water passage.

 

[Jeppetto]

Weirder, despite corner counting as river access, spring (which looks like two tiles touching a corner) do not count as river access. I find that unintuitive.

 

[Naokaukodem]

This is what I mean. In Civ 4 any square touching a river at its corner is a "river tile" (makes no sense to me, but whatever, the game thinks it is). In Civ 5, rivers always travel at least one side of a tile.

View attachment 711912

edit: now here's another oddity I thought of, but with islands. typically something surrounded on all sides by water is an island, but since Civ 4 thinks that one corner of such a tile connects to the larger landmass, it is part of that landmass, meaning there's no embarkation cost for units to move to it. Until, that is, a ship crosses that very same space, then there is seemingly no land connection and only a water passage.

View attachment 711919View attachment 711923

From a point of view of "access to fresh water", it does make sense however. That the river goes through a side or through a corner has little importance. As to the island thing, I think it happened to me only once in thousands of hours of play. I know it's weird but hey we can exploit it. At worse, the graphics could have the last word, if the land is shown linked then we can't pass through water, if the land looks detached then we can't go in it through land.

But those are particular cases that I would not qualify of overall "more natural looking land formation". Plus everything you mentioned is resolvable with squares. If you don't like it, just make it so squares with only water in corner don't have access to fresh water, like it is in 5 and 6 with rivers sources (beginnings). I asked myself if such tiles had access to fresh water in 5 and 6, and the answer is no. But I had to check it. So it's really a matter of preference than problems with squares.

Overall all that is not as much important as one could believe IMHO.

The main argument I can see is less visible movement distortion. To temper it, we could make moves work like in Nintendo Advance Wars.

 

[Disgustipated]

As someone who lives near a "corner touching a river tile" I'll say it does happen in real life. And we do get water from that river (only after we turned it into a lake I suppose). I would say Southern Nevada is a real world example of a corner touching a river.