Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

[Tassadar500]

What is the advantage(s) of hexagons?

[Master Zen]

Hexagons do not distort distance in the same way as tiles do. Using a regular square grid, movement along the diagonals actually represents a larger distance on the map, and in an isometric grid, the same occurs along the cardinal directions (that's the reason distance is counted as 1 along the diagonals and 1.5 along the cardinal directions in Civ3).

Hexes have equal distance in all 6 directions. That is one of the main reasons why pracitcally every wargame uses Hexes.

[Apocalypse]

I forget, which is better for path finding?

I'm pretty sure it's hexes, but I could be wrong. Though I do lean toward squares, better pathfinding in hexes (IIRC) would make me learn the other way.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Could there be a option/patch to choose between
squares or hexes?

A programming nightmare.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Vince278


A programming nightmare.

Harder on the graphic artists than the programmers, I think. I don't think it would be too hard to adapt the AI and pathfinding to hexes and squares, if you knew you needed that from the get-go.

But making 3D art for both hexes and squares? That's a lot of work. Of couse, depending on how the engine is, it might be hard on the programmers too. If it is just something you can zoom in on and twirl around, then that wouldn't be too hard to switch around from a programming standpoint.

Not worth the effort though.

Hexes seem the best, as long as there is no movement along edges (and there shouldn't be, you should have to do it manually by going through two squares).

-Drachasor

[Jon Shafer]

4 sides does mess with things a bit, but Civ is simply square-tile based. No way it'll change and it's not that big of a deal anyways. Civ ain't a wargame, nor should it be. It's simply a empire-building game which puts an over-emphasis on warfare, a flaw IMO.

[Urban Ranger]

If it's not that big a deal, why not change it?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If it's not that big a deal, why not change it?

Because if you like change for the sake of change you're a communist!

[Rasputin]

commuists never chage , capitalists always changing

[Max Sinister]

It's true, folks: Programming a game where you could coose between Hexes and squares is a nightmare. Not only for pathfinding, but everywhere when you need to know which tile is next to which other tile, you'd need two different algorithms. Generating the world, city radius, and let's not even talk about the fact that you'd need two different AIs. Trust me, I've done a bit of AI programming myself (it's my hobby).

[Leland]

Originally posted by Max Sinister
It's true, folks: Programming a game where you could coose between Hexes and squares is a nightmare. Not only for pathfinding, but everywhere when you need to know which tile is next to which other tile, you'd need two different algorithms. Generating the world, city radius, and let's not even talk about the fact that you'd need two different AIs. Trust me, I've done a bit of AI programming myself (it's my hobby).

I disagree. If you do everything from scratch knowing that you have to support both hexes and square, then all you need is an abstraction that covers these two topologies (for example, abstracting the map as a graph with arbitrary nodes and edges) and none of the algorithms written on top of this abstraction need to know anything about the type of the map. Graphics probably need some dedicated code and content for each system though.

However, I think this is a moot point because having an option for two kinds of tiles is a game design nightmare. In a civ-like game, the map topology is a rather fundamental feature of the gameplay and balancing the game for both wouldn't be worth it because you might as well make two different games. It's a little bit like having an fps with an option to turn it into a 2d platformer.

[Drachasor]

As I said, it is an unavoidable nightmare for the Graphics Department in ANY case. You can have abstractions for the code, but you can't do that with most of the graphics, especially if you want the game to look good and the game is in 3D. Two sets of 3D tile sets, cities, terrain improvements, and perhaps even units. That is almost doubling the work they need to do.

-Drachasor

[sabrewolf]

units would stay the same. optionally, they could be redered in 4 more angles.
0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315° for tetragons (squares/diamonds) and
0°, 60°, 120°, 180°, 240°, 300° for hexagonal tiles.

as you see, one may just replace 45°/60° (and other couples) with something inbetween to save space.

OR use a 3D engine.... hey wait... they may even do that

[Drachasor]

Well, there is the issue of how well the units look on the tiles. I suppose this could be handled with scaleable (size) units, perhaps, though you might need something more than that. It isn't clear that a unit that looks good on a square tile would take up his space as well on a hexagonal one.

-Drachasor

[Vince278]

If they are going 3D it would be interesting to see if Line-of-Sight becomes an issue.