Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

[Asmodean]

I must say that I don't like the look´of hexes. They look plain ugly to me.

For me, squares is the lesser of two evils. My main objection against them is the fact that diagonal moves look to give far greater distance than vertical/horizontal moves. But I would still much rather pla on a square map, than on a hex map.

Oh...and the notion of moving diagonally on a hex map is one that I've never heard before. Could make for a fun game. One could easily make a mistake, in thinking that two units are not adjacent, when they actually are. The practicality of it is, I fear low, though.

Asmodean

[Vince278]

Hexes make perfectly good sense if you were raised on board wargames like me. The only board wargame I can recall that actually uses squares is Tactics II (Avalon Hill). It is one of their oldest games and it is very ugly.

[sabrewolf]

i always liked hexagons most.

- distances are the same in all directions (with squares, left/right/up/down are "nearer" than diagonals... a factor SQR(2))

- it looks nicer

- reminds me of "history line: 1914-1918", my favorite turn based strategy WARgame (of course nothing beats the civilization suite )


unfortunatly, all graphics would have to be done new. ok, the 3D meshes probably exist, so they'd just need to render the units in 4 new angles (and remove 6 other), but still.

btw, terrain graphics would get easier, because you don't have to have to have 256 (2^8) combinations just for two different terrain types... it would only be 64 (2^6)

[Brent]

It would have only seemed fitting if Civ3 had been hexagons. this part of the game changed fron Civ1 to Civ2, so why not from Civ2 to Civ3?!

Another idea would be irregular shapes, like Risk but much smaller. Just make sure each adjacent space is easily discerned as one of the eight compass directions, but there could be fewer than eight adjacent spaces. Would this confuse the AI?

[sabrewolf]

small irregular tiles? that would be the horror for any programmer. and the graphics wouldn't be easy either (making irregular pieces fit, that is)

[Ecthy]

Squares are quite good, just not very realistic.

Hexagens are better at that, but you can only move in straight lines into 6 directions, so there's no chance to go straight north if you can go straight east.

octagens are better at this, but harder to arrange. they can be supreme with proer extra squares in between

[Fosse]

I had to vote other, but I'll respect Uber Krux's to not go on about certain... other map philosophies!

Of the above aesthetic choices... hexes are the most appealing to me.

[Vince278]

I'd still like to see a hex-based Civ...

[sabrewolf]

hex-tiles!
yep... more natural form. and you can make nicer maps

[Urban Ranger]

You can't use octagonal tiles anyway.

Of course, there is always the triangle.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Vince278
Hexes make perfectly good sense if you were raised on board wargames like me. The only board wargame I can recall that actually uses squares is Tactics II (Avalon Hill). It is one of their oldest games and it is very ugly.

Right on. Tank units with an attack 2 and infantry with an attack 1. And what about that map????? Wow, that's a flashback.

I voted hexagon, with two hesitations.

1. I don't want the designers to spend money on this over other items. Perhaps they can use a slightly different projection of the map to minimize the diagonal distance issue.

2. Using the numeric keypad on my keyboard is finished if hexes are introduced. I make enough mistakes moving units with squares!

[MxM]

I would try something new, like continues movement (or as someone said circles).

But here is another idea:
Each square can be divided by 3 sub squares in single dimension (9 total). Thus unit can be either in the center of the square, or close to the border. The movements of the units can be still measured in original squares. But now unit with movement 1 will have to choose to which sub-tile it moves, thus making it more like a circle. In below figure the thick lines are the original CIV tile borders, the thin lines are borders of sub-tiles, the dot is the unit with movement 1, and the green tiles is where it can move. The rules of engagement, probably needs to be modified too.

Of cause number 3 is chosen arbitrary. It could be 2 or 4 or whatever.

[Capt Dizle]

I would like a much larger map made of hexes and roading not allowed in every hex so that it will actually look like it is supposed to.

[Fake Boris]

None of them has a definite gameplay advantage, but it's true I like the look of hexes.

[lajzar]

I vote for squares as in the current model. Why?

Octogons don't work, unless you add in filler squares. Squares with diagonal movement have the same effect anyway.

Hexes provide constant distance, but squares provide intrinsically meaningful compass directions. The extra distance for diagonals be be handled by giving an extra movement cost (x1.5 was used in Lords of Midnight).

Squares have two big advantages. Everyone who has ever played civ is already familiar with how they work, so no new learning curve. The other great advantage is that the programmers are also intrinsically familiar with how they work, so there is little danger of bugs appearing as a result of doing this change. Using squares also means you can keep using the number pad for movement.

Basically, hexes are kinda nice, but the benefits are small, there are definite disadvantages, and there is other stuff that is genuinely broken that could be worked on instead.