Squares, Hexes, Octagons...

[Flinx]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Naokaukodem has so clearly demonstrated how utterly confusing and illogical movement on a flat hex map would be Pretty yes, practical no.

A flat map must be made of squares.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Flinx
ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Naokaukodem has so clearly demonstrated how utterly confusing and illogical movement on a flat hex map would be Pretty yes, practical no.

A flat map must be made of squares.

Their explanations aren't really all that good but hex mapping in a game really is better. You must not have played much on hex maps. Let go of your paradigms.

[Flinx]

In the games with hex tiles that you have played, how many directions of movement are there?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Flinx
In the games with hex tiles that you have played, how many directions of movement are there?

Hexes have 6 sides, squares have 4 sides. More equal choices are better. Going diagonal on squares is not equal because your movement is increased by the squareroot of 2.
The optimal solution may be a map without any squares, hexes, or anything else. It would be like a tabletop miniatures wargame. Just measure and plot your movement, ranges, and line of sight.

[Flinx]

So after the little math lesson I now know that the distance between the two diagonal corners of a square is 1.41 times the distance between two adjacent corners, and that optimally movement would be expressed as a vector.

I still do not have an answer to my question…

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Flinx
So after the little math lesson I now know that the distance between the two diagonal corners of a square is 1.41 times the distance between two adjacent corners, and that optimally movement would be expressed as a vector.

I still do not have an answer to my question…

Sigh. I suppose for you I'll have to keep it simple and direct. Since a hex has six equal sides you have six equally valid directions of movement. Distances are more accurate as well. And yes, the only way to top hex movement is by vector on a gridless map.

[Flinx]

A square grid is bad because movement in any of the 8 directions costs 1 movement point but movement in ‘+’ directions (as drawn in Civ3 maps) covers 1.41 times the distance as movement in ‘x’ directions.

A hexagonal grid is good because movement in any of the 6 directions costs 1 movement point and covers an equal distance.

Consider movement from A to C and A to D as shown in the grid below. Both cost 2 movement points, but the centers of C and D are at different distances from the center of A. If you assume D is a distance of 2 from A then C is actually only 1.73 from A.

So a hex grid does have the same ‘problem’ as a square grid. It has an additional ‘problem’ in that either left/right or up/down (forward/backward) do not exist.

Perhaps we should reconsider how movement points work, not the shape of the map grid. (Not necessarily an optimal solution either!)

[Vince278]

I agree hexes have the same problem as squares but it is not as bad (your 1.73 is closer to two than 1.41). Both problems are due to imposing a grid onto a map. Isometric grids appear to be a compromise between hexes and squares. I think I'm becoming more and more a fan of vector movement but I can see that as being difficult to implement in a Civ-style game.

[Firebird]

I have played some games (computergames and boardgames) based on hexes and to me it always feels strange that N/S or E/W directions don't exist.

The difference between the two systems (hexes and squares) isn't diagonal movement, since both have that problem. The difference is only in look and feel. Squares is to me much more natural. Looking at a map in real life, noone says go NW and then NE to get to a point where you could just say go N.

And by the way I wish they would dump the isometric view. In some games it might be good for f.ex. picturing a dungeon og the inside of a house (to be able to show more than the north wall), but in a mapbasedgame I don't see the real advantage. It only distorts the strategic view in a gameworld otherwise build for strategic play.

So please give me squares (and preferable non-isometric (and I know someone will try and lynch me for that )).

Best regards

Firebird

Edit: Spelling

[Firebird]

Oh, and yes the diagonal-movement problem might be limited by letting diagonal movement cost more (1.4 movementpoints for square-based maps). In hexes it might be tougher, because you then have to keep track of where you came from.

Not a bad Idea, perhaps. That would cost a limited amount of memory per unit, and it might minimize distanceproblems to an absolute minimum no matter what tilesystem is used. The code should be carefully crafted though. It's not good if you end up using zero MP if you go back to where you started . I think that square-based maps with 1.4-movementcost on diagonals are the best solution.

Best regards

Firebird

[InterCiv]

hexagons seems great, but the challenge will decrease because now you only will have 6 posible movements instead of 8.. so with the squares you have more liberty of movement.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by InterCiv
hexagons seems great, but the challenge will decrease because now you only will have 6 posible movements instead of 8.. so with the squares you have more liberty of movement.

Read back a bit. Hexes have six equal choices, squares only four. A square's diagonal is not equal to its sides (by a factor of 1.414).

[grap1705]

I vote for Hexes because:
- nicer look
- more realistic distances
- easy numpad moving (just discarding either 4 and 6 or 8 and 2 depending on the hexes orientation)
But I also would very much like a spheric world. There would just be need to invent filler tiles of different shape (pentagons may be, I leave that to geometry experts) where no one ever goes: you don't go and fight on the Everest, and you can easily accept that neither your war boats nor your land units can go on a coral reef. For programming and tile connection purposes, these would be black squares, but with just a relevant decoy for display purposes.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by grap1705
I vote for Hexes because:
- nicer look
- more realistic distances
- easy numpad moving (just discarding either 4 and 6 or 8 and 2 depending on the hexes orientation)
But I also would very much like a spheric world. There would just be need to invent filler tiles of different shape (pentagons may be, I leave that to geometry experts) where no one ever goes: you don't go and fight on the Everest, and you can easily accept that neither your war boats nor your land units can go on a coral reef. For programming and tile connection purposes, these would be black squares, but with just a relevant decoy for display purposes.

I would agree with trying a hex-based sphere world. I think I mentioned how the hex/pentagon design would resemble a football (FIFA, not US of course) much earlier in this thread. On a global scale it may be possible to go all hex. For one thing, going from a spherical map to something like a mercatur projection (and vice versa) already introduces distortion. Also, there is no such thing as a perfectly spherical world (our earth has been described as slightly pear shaped). So a little editorial license to make an all hex sphere world may be possible.
I'd like to see something like X-Com where you have the strategic level spherical map and seperate tactical maps (though the tactical maps were squares in X-Com).

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Vince278


I would agree with trying a hex-based sphere world. I think I mentioned how the hex/pentagon design would resemble a football (FIFA, not US of course) much earlier in this thread. On a global scale it may be possible to go all hex.

Hexagons, like squares, form a flat surface when you put them together edge to edge.

12 pentagons form a dodecahedron. If you add hexagons between the pentagons you get a football. You can add as many hexagons as you like to create as large a 'ball' as you like, the only requirement is that you keep the 12 pentagons otherwise the structure does not close in on itself. This is how geodesic domes are built.