Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

[Inverse Icarus]

forget about the spherical map discussion for right now, and the rammifications it has upon your decision, i'd like a purely aesthetic answer here also, don't stand on your soapbox about a tileless system. now is not the time.

which do you find more visually pleasing for tiles? squares? hexagons? octagons? other?

you can assume they'll be isometric (ie, a square in civ2/3) to enable a fake 3d effect.

[Frozzy]

Octagons don't work.

[geeslaka]

Not only do octagons not tile, but they don't look good if you try to make them isometric.
If the tiles are isometric, then hexagons look more natural than squares.

[hexagonian]

IMO, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves the clear superiority of hexes over square tiles. Squares actually provide a more accurate reflection of directional movement (8 tile choices, as opposed to 6 for hexes) - although hexes provide a more accurate indication of distance movement. But since maps are generally large in civ games, this reflection of distance movement is very minor - and since the AI is tied into the same rules of movement, there is no strategic gain.

It still amazes me how worked up people get on this issue because it does not affect gameplay all that much. It ultimately boils down to aesthetics.

I like squares because the world is divided by latitude/longitude, and I'd rather have the more accurate directional movement element.

[geeslaka]

What you see as squares are actually octagons. If hexagons were treated the way squares are, they would allow 12 directions of movement.

[hexagonian]

No you cannot treat hexagons as squares because there are no corners touching on a hex-grid map

[geeslaka]

What I meant is that when you use octagons and display them as squares, some paths take one move when they could also take two moves. If you use dodecagons and display them as hexagons, you can move along the edges, thus allowing 12 directions.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by geeslaka
What I meant is that when you use octagons and display them as squares, some paths take one move when they could also take two moves. If you use dodecagons and display them as hexagons, you can move along the edges, thus allowing 12 directions.

i can see the mathematical backing for that, but wouldn't that just appear to be teleporting when looking at the game board itself?

[Leland]

You could have an octagonal tiling in non-euclidean space!

[geeslaka]

i can see the mathematical backing for that, but wouldn't that just appear to be teleporting when looking at the game board itself?

If the movement from one space to the next is spread across three or four frames it doesn't look like teleporting.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Leland
You could have an octagonal tiling in non-euclidean space!

Its good to see another non-euclidean fan.

With the choices above, I'm still a hex believer.

[Inverse Icarus]

i still don't see how hexes would work, athestically anyway. in hex's image above:



if you moved up, you would follow the straight line going up until you hit the tile?

i mean, i can see how that would work, but it really doesnt give the impression that two units are next to eachother.

[Vince278]

Hex movement is more accurate. When you go diagonal with squares you are moving at a speed of 1.414 relative to going up, down, or across.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Vince278
Hex movement is more accurate. When you go diagonal with squares you are moving at a speed of 1.414 relative to going up, down, or across.

Well, this can be partially fixed by just assigning a larger movement cost to diagonals, like c-evo does. If there are enough movement points so that the remaining fractions are relatively small, squares+diagonals are actually more accurate than hexes. That is to say, "circles" in that space tend to be approximately octagons, whereas in a hex-map they'd be hexagons.

[LDiCesare]

I prefer hexes because I find hex maps prettier than square maps.
Definitely, square maps need a 1.414 diagonal factor. Once you put it in, it's quite the same from a gameplay perspective.
I don't like the pseudo 2D isometric projection much, too, because I always found that the directions are hard to fing out. Hexes don't require an arbitrary 45° turn to give an idea of perspective.