Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

[Addled Platypus]

I think they are on there way using LOS

Because when you are on top of a hill, you see farther, and you dont see units until they are your ZOC, depending on terrain

[Vince278]

I suppose the Civ3 approach to LOS is adequete.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Actually i think point-to-point vector based movement would be way to go.

Failing that triagles are better than any of the 3 listed, but are a poor substiute to p2p based movement.

[conmcb25]

Squares

[Leland]

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
Actually i think point-to-point vector based movement would be way to go.

The problem with p2p movement would be that this system wouldn't have any fixed lower resolution. Let's say that the distance between two units is 13 kilometers, and one of them is moving in a 34 degree angle at 50 kilometers per turn and the other one in 74 degree angle at 100 kilometers per turn... figuring out when and how these units will meet exactly would be a nasty math problem instead of a fairly straightforward tactical decision. It's much easier to grasp simple tile based movement, be it squares or hexes or irregular regions.

[StormSeed]

I vote for other:

The tiles of the map can be hexagonal, but the actual movement should be on a half-sized triangular grid, with all movement speeds doubled to make up for half size.

If the interface is handled correctly, twelve directions can be emulated, by making them up from combinations of two triangular movements.

                 o
            o        o
        o        .       o
            .        . 
        o        X       o
            .        .  
        o        .       o
            o        o
                 o

X is where you start. o is max where you can move to with 1x2=2 movement points.

Okay, it's very much like a hex grid now that I actually look at it. But you asked my opinion, and here it is.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by Leland

The problem with p2p movement would be that this system wouldn't have any fixed lower resolution. Let's say that the distance between two units is 13 kilometers, and one of them is moving in a 34 degree angle at 50 kilometers per turn and the other one in 74 degree angle at 100 kilometers per turn... figuring out when and how these units will meet exactly would be a nasty math problem instead of a fairly straightforward tactical decision. It's much easier to grasp simple tile based movement, be it squares or hexes or irregular regions.

Howso would you be forced into 1 resolution if its vector-based? And if you give all units an area of conflict they don't haveto be so exact on where they cross either.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
Howso would you be forced into 1 resolution if its vector-based? And if you give all units an area of conflict they don't haveto be so exact on where they cross either.

Areas of conflict don't change the situation; it's still confusing to the player to figure out when the radii of two units collide than where the actual trajectories of the units collide. Besides not all units are hostile to each other so sometimes the radii are going to be ignored anyway.

As for the resolution, I'm not sure whether you understood my point: I meant that the problem is that there isn't a single resolution if the movement is completely vector based. On the other hand, if you do impose a single resolution (for example by making all moves begin and end on a grid; a reasonable choice because the terrain has to consist of some sort of polygonal mesh anyway), I don't see the real advantage of vector based movement in the first place.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Leland

The problem with p2p movement would be that this system wouldn't have any fixed lower resolution. Let's say that the distance between two units is 13 kilometers, and one of them is moving in a 34 degree angle at 50 kilometers per turn and the other one in 74 degree angle at 100 kilometers per turn... figuring out when and how these units will meet exactly would be a nasty math problem instead of a fairly straightforward tactical decision. It's much easier to grasp simple tile based movement, be it squares or hexes or irregular regions.

You could always set an intercept course as a vector. (ie. select the unit as a destination (even if it is moving) instead of selecting a map coordinate or waypoint.)

[Fatwreck]

I´m liking the idea of hexes in civ

[Quezacotl06]

if it was hex ud have to go zig-zag when u were going left and right, it'd be wierd.

But maybe you could make it appear to be gridless, but let it be octagonal under it. Like u could click on a unit and point anywhere on the map, and it would tell u the amount of turns to get there. But when its moving, it follows the octagonal pattern.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Quezacotl06
if it was hex ud have to go zig-zag when u were going left and right, it'd be wierd.

No more weird than a square grid where moving diagonally uses up no more movement points even though the distance is 1.4 times as far.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by star mouse

No more weird than a square grid where moving diagonally uses up no more movement points even though the distance is 1.4 times as far.

[Xorbon]

Whay are people still bringing up octagons? They won't work! You can't tile with octagons without using small diamonds or squares as fillers. And we already have octagonal (8-directional) movement with squares!

Sorry if I sound condescending. I'm not trying to be. But we only really have two choices: squares or hexes. (Though I suppose triangles could be a 3rd choice.)

That being said, hexes would be the best choice!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Xorbon
But we only really have two choices: squares or hexes. (Though I suppose triangles could be a 3rd choice.)

That being said, hexes would be the best choice!

Actually, vector movement would be the best choice but probably the most difficult to implement. If we must have some kind of grid movement then yes, hexes are the best.