Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
- depending on how you lay the tiles either N-S or E-W are "faster" to move (no zigzag)

And I say that what you say would become:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
my favourite arguments:

pro:
+ less graphics needed (6 boundaries have to be considered
+ smoother landforms possible
+ city radius's are equal (not the current "fat plus" shape)
+ same for distance corruption
+ radial stuff generally (plane ranges, artillery, movement) better
+ some of the best stragegy games in the late 80s were based on 6-sided-polygon tiles.

contra:
- civ1, civ2, civ3 based on squares (so probably the killer-argument)

if you place the units in in either the N/S (or E/W) part of a tile only while moving it so that you could use left and right (or up and down) keys.

[sabrewolf]

yeah, but then it's again subtile movement as was discussed above...

following form for tiles seems most "natural".

 __
/  \
\__/

N-S-movement would be faster and easier than E-W in this case... but that actually makes sence. our world is approx. 20'000km from N-pole to S-pole, but 40'000km around the equator (logical: one is full, the other is a half circumference)

[DarkCloud]

DarkCloud, with octagons, you unfortunatly can't create regular tiles... you'd need small squares between. the only things that work are squares (and diamonds), hexagons and.... triangles

Couldn't you tilt and bend the octagons and sort of distort them a little (especially if the game models hills and mountains like in Alpha Centauri with height) ?

[sabrewolf]

i can't picture how you mean that. can you draw a sketch or use the code-tag (see my post above) to use ascii art?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Couldn't you tilt and bend the octagons and sort of distort them a little (especially if the game models hills and mountains like in Alpha Centauri with height) ?

No. It's physically impossible to use octagons as a regular tile.

[Krum]

I don't see any advantages for squares over hexes.

Hey, look what I found:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HexGridDisk

also check out the links at the bottom for more on a sphere for a civ-type game.

[Leland]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Couldn't you tilt and bend the octagons and sort of distort them a little (especially if the game models hills and mountains like in Alpha Centauri with height) ?

You'd have to distort the entire map geometry and then project that to 2D. This is theoretically possible but the distortions would be ludicruously big. Imagine a globe where one tile occupies as much space as all the other tiles combined and you get the idea.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Leland
a globe where one tile occupies as much space as all the other tiles combined and you get the idea.

Nice

Originally posted by sabrewolf
yeah, but then it's again subtile movement as was discussed above...

Depending on what you consider as a subtile movement... here is another picture where the hex tiles are subdivided in trapezoïds, which does not constitute -IMO- sub movement but rather sub movement management.

From 1 to 10 use keys 8 9 6 6 6 2 2 4 7
instead of . . . . . . . . 8 9 3 9 3 2 2 7 7

[sabrewolf]

ah ok, i think i now get what you mean.
imho, that would be using subtiles, although your steps would be just on main tiles... so i understand what you were thinking.

the problem herein could lie in the 3rd (from 3 to 4) step. how should the computer know that right (key '6') should go to tile 4 and not the one above. in your picture it's clear, as the unit is standing on the bottom half of tile 3. but if using full tiles, the unit will likely be positionned in the centre of each tile...

maybe i havn't given this concept enough thought.

thanks for your illustrations and welcome to apolyton

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem


Nice



Depending on what you consider as a subtile movement... here is another picture where the hex tiles are subdivided in trapezoïds, which does not constitute -IMO- sub movement but rather sub movement management.

From 1 to 10 use keys 8 9 6 6 6 2 2 4 7
instead of . . . . . . . . 8 9 3 9 3 2 2 7 7

erm... dude... those are squares. the edges may be tilted, but the movement is exactly the same as square tiles.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
the problem herein could lie in the 3rd (from 3 to 4) step. how should the computer know that right (key '6') should go to tile 4 and not the one above. in your picture it's clear, as the unit is standing on the bottom half of tile 3. but if using full tiles, the unit will likely be positionned in the centre of each tile...

Ok i forgot some precisions for this model. The unit would re-center on an hex tile only at the end of its move, I mean just when the movement points would reach 0. So of course if it stops or fortifies on the 3rd hex, it would not be anymore in a square, therefore the key for 3rd would "change" as it would not be 6 anymore but 3. A unit could also stay for ever in a square, but it would confuse the player IMO, plus it would really put a mess in all units relative positions and their appreciation on the map.

Well... now to answer to wrylachlan in the same time, basically it would not be squares, that I setted for the example and the comprehension. It would be visual way points as in the first picture above.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
thanks for your illustrations and welcome to apolyton

Thx for the welcoming.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem


Ok i forgot some precisions for this model. The unit would re-center on an hex tile only at the end of its move, I mean just when the movement points would reach 0. So of course if it stops or fortifies on the 3rd hex, it would not be anymore in a square, therefore the key for 3rd would "change" as it would not be 6 anymore but 3. A unit could also stay for ever in a square, but it would confuse the player IMO, plus it would really put a mess in all units relative positions and their appreciation on the map.

Well... now to answer to wrylachlan in the same time, basically it would not be squares, that I setted for the example and the comprehension. It would be visual way points as in the first picture above.

In the above example, what would you press if you wanted to move from tile 2 to tile 3 and then to the tile above 3? Or to the tiles diagonally up and right or up and left?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
In the above example, what would you press if you wanted to move from tile 2 to tile 3 and then to the tile above 3? Or to the tiles diagonally up and right or up and left?

you could still get from 2 to the tile above 3 by going north-east (key 9)... basicly, his proposal works the same as it would with just NE, N, NW, SE, S, SW ... but additionally E and W would be added, depending from where you come. so if you came from a southern tile, your movement to the right would take you to the lower of the to rightish tiles...
basicly, using countermomentum.

naokaukodem, is that right what i'm saying?

[Naokaukodem]

Thank you sabrewolf for your explanation, which is right.

A move from 3 to above it would be like hex 6 to 7 or 7 to 8, and a move from 3 to NE or NW of it like a move from hex 9 to 10. Below is a picture of the 3 different key "maps", depending on the inner position of the unit. (inner position which would influence key map ONLY by the way)

[Madine]

Why wouldn't there just be 6 keys to move? This whole sub-movement thing seems much too complicated.