# Why doesn't Civ use hexes?

#### Hugiboo

##### Chieftain
I don't understand, wouldn't it make civ a lot better?

#### Black Waltz

##### Prince
No. Because squares are more versitile.

#### JustBen

##### Prince
Black Waltz's comment makes no sense -- at least not without some supporting argument. We all know that the tesselation of hexes is somehow "nicer" than that of squares, but I'm sure Sid thought of that when he was designing Civ I. He seems like the kind of fellow familiar with games.

The most important difference is in your city radius. Realize that if you had a hexmap, a city would pretty much have to have either 6 hexes or 18 hexes in its city radius. This would obviously have some very deep ramifications for basic city management.

To me, there's no clear way to scale the mechanics of the game by a factor of 18/12 and leave it playing the way it does right now -- growth rate, value of having 1 city versus 2, city density, city production, effects of population limits, etc. And because hexes tesselate so "nicely" it wouldn't make sense to just clip off the coreners of a city's radius -- which corners get clipped? What _is_ a corner in that sense? The problem is compounded with the new cultural system, where your low-culture cities now start with 6 workable tiles instead of 8.

Or maybe it was just easier to program squares than hexes back for Civ1, and he decided to just not change it. Either way.

#### Pounder

##### Phaethon was here
You can travel in more directions with a square, 4 sides and 4 corners equals 8 directions from a square.

You can only travel 6 directions from a hexagon, only the sides. If you try to travel out the corners you are pointing to the joint of a pair of adjacent hexagons.

#### The Last Conformist

##### Irresistibly Attractive
This subject pops up with a certain regularity; should the search happen to work ATM I'm sure you can find a few threads in General Discussions.

No idea why they chose squares back in CivI, but I'm happy they kept it in II and III; it's become part of the Civ "feel".

I don't believe a city radius of 18 hexes would play very much differently than the current on of 20, and we'd get some obvious improvements like the "holes" in culture radii at the major directions. The chief advantages of tiles, I guess, are that they allow movement in more directions, and make the northern/southern boundaries of the map simpler. Hm, possibly it helps pathing too, but I'm not enough of a programmer to judge on that.

#### warpstorm

##### Yumbo? Yumbo!
The simple answer is "because they wanted to do it with squares". Seriously, hexes are fine, but when it comes down to it a grid is a grid. Sure, there are minor advantages to each grid style, but they are minor.

The reason old paper wargames went with the hex grid is probably besause the designers were tired of really picky players pointing out that the diagonal movement should cost ~1.4142135623730950488016887242097 instead of 1.

#### TrailblazingScot

##### I was kittenOFchaos
Originally posted by warpstorm
diagonal movement should cost

Well, a difference of over 2/5ths is not a minor point.

Personnally I am hoping Civ4 will bring the elevatation in terrain that we saw in SMAC more than any other change, though a hexagonal grid would seem like progress as it would be new

#### dozenlong

##### Warlord
Hex would be pretty neat, but it's not a game killer for me. To be honest, I'd prefer more parameterized controls over AI logic, corruption logic, and that sort of thing -- don't make it too easy to get to, but it would allow us "testers" a much more rapid ability to tweak the game for optimum playability.

I don't like hard coding when it's possible to do otherwise...

#### warpstorm

##### Yumbo? Yumbo!
I think they should get rid of tiles totally and make a large 3d spherical world. (Okay, I realize that there would be a grid underlying that, but it wouldn't be obvious).

Kitten, I meant to type 1.5 instead of 1.

#### Vancouver 2010

##### Getting Paid to Code
Originally posted by warpstorm
I think they should get rid of tiles totally and make a large 3d spherical world. (Okay, I realize that there would be a grid underlying that, but it wouldn't be obvious).

Hey, that would be cool. However, that would bring Civ closer to a real-time strategy, and that would mean redesigning the entire thing.

Personally, I don't care whether the tiles should be squares or hexes.

#### Ribannah

##### Fighter Druid
Why? The choice between hexes, squares or no grid has nothing to do with RTS or TB (turn-based).

...

Btw, it is not true that squares offer more directions. You are comparing a group of 9 squares with a group of 7 hexes. A correct comparions can only be made if the tile numbers are the same.

In practice, squares have in fact less directions, because most of the time you will not consider moving non-diagonal.

#### Falcon02

##### General
I'm not a big fan of Hexes personally, they just don't seem to "feel" right. However, in practicality, I find neither one really better, the Hexes just seem rather foreign to me.

#### Grey Fox

##### Master of Points
"3D" Hexes look strange, while "3D" squares are diamond shaped, á la Civ3.

What I mean is when they are placed in a non-90 degree perspectiv, and 45 degree angle.

#### Grey Fox

##### Master of Points
Well, it's not the hexes that makes it look like terrain

it could have worked with diamond-squares in that game too.

#### Civrules

##### We the People
I would be ok with hexes. I think some of the terrain would look cooler like that.

But for now, squares are perfectly fine. Simple, and affective.

#### warpstorm

##### Yumbo? Yumbo!
You are quite correct, Grey Fox. Either would work fine. It has to do more with the skill of the artist rather than if your tiles are hexes or diamonds.

#### CaptainCivFreak

##### Arsenal Gunner
Hexes would completely change the game. Although they would make it easier to make the world 3d spherical.

#### Mongoloid Cow

##### Great Khan
I wouldn't mind hexagons.

#### Duantalus

##### Chieftain
What they need is a system where the units have a radial movement distance based three factors. First, a base movement distance based on the units ability to cover a flat distance rapidly. Next, there needs to be a modifier for to the flat movement based on the type of terrain being entered, may that be forest or mountains. Last is, of course, a special modifier applied individual to different units that affect the ability of a unit to traverse a particular type of terrain.

That failing an overlay of circles where the intersections affect costs of movement based on a diminishing return based on the number of all circles present in the intersection.

But for simplicity the squares work just fine. Of course, since Civ is meant to be a game that lets you be in control of everything, and a master of none, Id say its fine.

Replies
74
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
960
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
622
Replies
8
Views
10K