What is the benefit of hexes over squares?

[alpaca]

Will there be a global view with hexes?
I am thinking os a Soccer ball wher it has hexagons and pentagons to create a sphere.

Wouldn't all hexes mess up the Global view?
Or is it removed too?

Yes, it's replaced with the new Strategic View which isn't as eye-candy but a lot more functional.

 

[R0gue]

How are the devs working out usuable tiles for cities. (big fat cross) Hex are different. are we getting smaller cities?

 

[alpaca]

How are the devs working out usuable tiles for cities. (big fat cross) Hex are different. are we getting smaller cities?

Cities can work a radius of three tiles. The fat cross can be thought of as a representation of a circle containing all tiles that had a distance less than 2 from the city, with diagonals counting as 1.5 (or, more accurately sqrt(2))

So we are actually getting larger cities.

 

[Schuesseled]

How are the devs working out usuable tiles for cities. (big fat cross) Hex are different. are we getting smaller cities?

Well there are some differences to hexes vs square, i.e. when you settle a city in civ 4 it would have 8 squares workable, you'll only have 6 available in civ 5. However in civ 5, you'll get tiles more quickly as they are gained individually, so soon you will have 7 then 8 then 9 etc. Cities can expand up to 3 hexes away so eventually with enough culture you'll have more tiles than in civ 4 total, but overall tile accumulation will be slower than in civ 4.

Hope that makes sense,

I'll recap.

In civ 4 you start out with more tiles, and in 30 turns ish, you max out your city radius.

In civ 5 you start out with slightly less tiles, and you expand incrementally, your maximum city radius is a lot larger than in civ 4, but it takes a lot longer than 30 turns to achieve maximum city radius via culture.

This means that in civ 5, your cities workable radius is a lot less uniformed than in civ 4, makes each city you build different.

 

[Yakk]

Note that hexes can also be thought of as "offset squares".

     |--|  |--|   
  |--|4 |--|  |--|
  |1 |--|7 |--|  |
  |--|5 |--|  |--|
  |2 |--|8 |--|  |
  |--|6 |--|  |--|
  |3 |--|9 |--|  |
  |--|  |--|  |--|
      __
   __/4 \__    __
  /1 \__/7 \__/  \
  \__/5 \__/  \__/
  /2 \__/8 \__/  \
  \__/6 \__/  \__/
  /3 \__/9 \__/  \
  \__/  \__/  \__/

See how the numbered squares and numbered hexes line up?

 

[PawelS]

Note that hexes can also be thought of as "offset squares".

     |--|  |--|   
  |--|4 |--|  |--|
  |1 |--|7 |--|  |
  |--|5 |--|  |--|
  |2 |--|8 |--|  |
  |--|6 |--|  |--|
  |3 |--|9 |--|  |
  |--|  |--|  |--|
      __
   __/4 \__    __
  /1 \__/7 \__/  \
  \__/5 \__/  \__/
  /2 \__/8 \__/  \
  \__/6 \__/  \__/
  /3 \__/9 \__/  \
  \__/  \__/  \__/

See how the numbered squares and numbered hexes line up?

True, but to represent hexes in Civ5 you have to rotate this by 90 degrees.

 

[EmperorFool]

The way I'm looking at it the axeman would only need 2 moves in every example given.

To move the axeman to the opposite side of the archer requires three moves when starting on the diagonal: right, right-down, down. This takes him from the top-left diagonal to the bottom-right diagonal. For hexes it is always three tiles: half the six-tile ring that surrounds the archer.

 

[matt112986]

To move the axeman to the opposite side of the archer requires three moves when starting on the diagonal: right, right-down, down. This takes him from the top-left diagonal to the bottom-right diagonal. For hexes it is always three tiles: half the six-tile ring that surrounds the archer.

According to the illustration there is no direct right, only directly up and down then either right/up or right down. In the illustration the axeman would need three moves to get around the archer by the north route but only two by the southern route since he is on the southern side of the archer. Either way the illustration is not correct since the Civ V hexes are not set up for direct north/south movement but direct East/West movement.

 

[Schimmi]

Hexes allow for more tactical combat.

Imagine a situation where you had an archer and wanted to block an axeman. On a square grid, the axeman could simply go around. It wouldn't slow the axeman down at all.

But with a hex grid, it takes it an extra turn for the axeman to go around.

In the case the archer does not move, it is possible to move two tiles behind the archer in three turns with two movement points.
1. left-up, up
2. right-up, right up
3. right-down, right down

 

[Yakk]

So the short answer is "hexes more closely approximate circles than squares do".

Within n+1 moves on a square grid there are
(2n+1)^2 = 4n^2 + 4n + 1 squares.
Within n+1 moves on a hex grid there are
(1) + (6)+(12)+(18)+... = 1 + 6*(1 + 2 + 3 + ...) = 1+6*(n(n+1)/2)
= 1+3n^2 + 3n hexes

In a radius of n+1, a circle has a volume of pi (n+1)^2 = 3.14 * n^2 + 6.28 n + 3.14

3n^2 + 3n is closer than 4n^2 + 4n + 1 is to the real area at reasonably large n.

So when you tile a plane with hexes, the set of things n units away is a better approximation to "real distance" than if you tiled the same thing with squares.

This is in addition to the "double-diagonal crossing" strangeness with squares (you can have an area that is both a water and a land crossing...), and the difficulty of slowing units by "getting in their way".

If you have a wall of N units (or blocking terrain) arranged vertically or horizontally on the civ4 square grid, any enemy troops at least N/2 squares away can walk around the wall to reach anything at least N units total away without moving any further.

You can do the same with hex units, but the distance (between the unit and the wall, and the unit and the destination) has to be greater.

Doubling unit movement and adding zones of control each have about the same effects on a square or hex grid. Double unit movement makes it easier to move around a blocking wall -- zones of control make it harder (or, equivalently, lengthen the wall by allowing enemy units to space themselves out more).

A ZoC based wall can have a unit every 3 squares along it.

 

[EmperorFool]

To move the axeman to the opposite side of the archer requires three moves when starting on the diagonal: right, right-down, down. This takes him from the top-left diagonal to the bottom-right diagonal. For hexes it is always three tiles: half the six-tile ring that surrounds the archer.

According to the illustration there is no direct right, only directly up and down then either right/up or right down.

The first half of my post refers to the square grid which has direct left/right and up/down.

In the [hex] illustration the axeman would need three moves to get around the archer by the north route but only two by the southern route since he is on the southern side of the archer.

Not true. Moving two tiles by the low route does not place the axeman on the opposite side of the archer. To find the tile on the opposite side, draw a straight line that passes through the direct center of both units.

Either way the illustration is not correct since the Civ V hexes are not set up for direct north/south movement but direct East/West movement.

That's another great thing about hexes: rotation doesn't matter. If you rotate all the units on the board without moving the board in 60 degree increments, their relative positions do not change. This allows six rotations--one for each direction of travel. For squares this only works for 90 degree rotations--half the possible directions of travel. I'm not even sure if you can rotate the units 45 degrees, but if you can their relative positions will be changed.

Hexes FTW!