Strategic View

[self biased]

selloutville: population: Jaybe.

[Jaybe]

selloutville: population: Jaybe.

Absolutely! And most of SPI's Strategy & Tactics magazines, along with their games. I forget when SPI went belly up.
Of heuristic note: The Campaign for North Africa. Since it was basically before computers, trying to keep track of everything was (for me) a "give it a try once but never again!" Definitely a simulation that required TEAMS of players.

While civ is not nearly as educational as a simulation of a particular battle or war, it is MUCH more replayable.

[Hauldren Collider]

The movement distortion, when moving against the grain, is much less with hexes than with squares at the diagonal.

Anyone have the math to figure it with hexes? I haven't got any hex grids handy ...
I tossed all my wargames out almost 3 decades ago.

There isn't ANY distortion with hexes, what are you talking about?

[MxM]

The movement distortion, when moving against the grain, is much less with hexes than with squares at the diagonal.

Anyone have the math to figure it with hexes? I haven't got any hex grids handy ...
I tossed all my wargames out almost 3 decades ago.

The error of moving diagonally considering 1 diagonal move = 1 move = 30% (approx)

The error of moving diagonally, considering 1 diagonal move = 1.5 move = 5% (approx)

The error of moving "against the grain" in hexagons = 15% (approx)

[wodan11]

For example for hexagon grid as shown here:
\_/ .\_/
/1\_/2\
\_/ .\_/

The biggest problem with a square grid is when we allow diagonal movement, which should be prohibited.

If we're going to do it in a square grid, we might as well allow "diagonal" movement with a hex grid, also. (This would allow movement from #1 directly to #2, above.)

That amounts to a 12-sided polygon, which is superior even to squares which allows diagonals (which has 8 sides), in this respect.

[MxM]

The biggest problem with a square grid is when we allow diagonal movement, which should be prohibited.

If we're going to do it in a square grid, we might as well allow "diagonal" movement with a hex grid, also. (This would allow movement from #1 directly to #2, above.)

That amounts to a 12-sided polygon, which is superior even to squares which allows diagonals (which has 8 sides), in this respect.

But that would distort distances even more, because going from 1 to 2 that example in just single step is VERY inaccurate in terms of distance (70% error or close to that)

[wodan11]

But that would distort distances even more, because going from 1 to 2 that example in just single step is VERY inaccurate in terms of distance (70% error or close to that)

But we could have the game simply calculate a cost of 1.7 against the unit's movement.

And, we would gain by having 6 cardinal directions, instead of 4, so the frequency of which the "fudge factor" is required is lessened by a factor of 6 to 4 (50% improvement).

[MxM]

But we could have the game simply calculate a cost of 1.7 against the unit's movement.

And, we would gain by having 6 cardinal directions, instead of 4, so the frequency of which the "fudge factor" is required is lessened by a factor of 6 to 4 (50% improvement).

People think that 1.5 factor is difficult for square diagonal move, 1.7 factor would be even worse. And also, there is such thing when enough is enough. 4 directions is a low. In my opinion, 6 directions is on the low side as well, but 9 is already sufficient so that 12 is really not giving anything additional.

Square system would be definitely better than the system you suggest - it is simpler and look more natural. I do understand arguments for hexagonal system the way it is going to be implemented in Civ 5 - at least on tactical level it may improve few things, but what you suggest is just clearly (for me) inferior to squares with 1.5 diagonal move.

[Hauldren Collider]

But we could have the game simply calculate a cost of 1.7 against the unit's movement.

And, we would gain by having 6 cardinal directions, instead of 4, so the frequency of which the "fudge factor" is required is lessened by a factor of 6 to 4 (50% improvement).

No, that's a stupid idea. The WHOLE POINT of hexes is to have a planar graph, and this game is also simultaneously trying to be simpler than previous games. How can you then draw the conclusion that we should have hexes and then some retarded arcane partial-move system?

[Brael]

People think that 1.5 factor is difficult for square diagonal move, 1.7 factor would be even worse. And also, there is such thing when enough is enough. 4 directions is a low. In my opinion, 6 directions is on the low side as well, but 9 is already sufficient so that 12 is really not giving anything additional.

Square system would be definitely better than the system you suggest - it is simpler and look more natural. I do understand arguments for hexagonal system the way it is going to be implemented in Civ 5 - at least on tactical level it may improve few things, but what you suggest is just clearly (for me) inferior to squares with 1.5 diagonal move.

The problem with 1.5 move to me is that it doesn't really limit movement in civ because of the number of moves a unit has. If something can move 1 space does it really matter if that move costs 1, 1.5, or 1.7? The same is true of 2 spaces. Infact it's not until you get to mounted units moving diagonal along roads (4 move, atleast in civ 4) that you would see any difference from a 1.5 move cost. Which means that for the most part, an increase to movement cost doesn't actually fix anything with squares.

[wodan11]

Clearly, either I wasn't obvious enough, or people's sarcasm meter is broken.

To wit: I threw out the 1.7 thing to point out the fallacy of the 1.5 thing. If an idea, when taken to more of an extreme, is declared a bad idea or foolish, then that says something about the less extreme version. At minimum, it calls it into serious question.

And 1.7 is hardly even that much of an extreme. It's only an increase of about 14%.

[Elok]

Clearly, either I wasn't obvious enough, or people's sarcasm meter is broken.

To wit: I threw out the 1.7 thing to point out the fallacy of the 1.5 thing. If an idea, when taken to more of an extreme, is declared a bad idea or foolish, then that says something about the less extreme version. At minimum, it calls it into serious question.

I'm staying out of this whole math fight you're having here, but no, it doesn't. "You should wear a condom 24 hours a day" is ludicrous, but that says nothing about the statement "You should wear a condom whenever you have non-monogamous sex."

And I still despise hexes for being counterintuitive and clumsy, so there.

[wodan11]

I'm staying out of this whole math fight you're having here, but no, it doesn't. "You should wear a condom 24 hours a day" is ludicrous, but that says nothing about the statement "You should wear a condom whenever you have non-monogamous sex."

That analogy doesn't make sense. In context, we would be taking about two different sexual positions, not protected sex vs unprotected sex.

And I still despise hexes for being counterintuitive and clumsy, so there.

Honestly, any tile-based system is counter-intuitive and clumsy.

[MxM]

To wit: I threw out the 1.7 thing to point out the fallacy of the 1.5 thing. If an idea, when taken to more of an extreme, is declared a bad idea or foolish, then that says something about the less extreme version. At minimum, it calls it into serious question.

And 1.7 is hardly even that much of an extreme. It's only an increase of about 14%.

Did you ever hear about golden mean or golden middle?

And 14% is irrelevant here. 1.5 is better not because it is smaller, but because 1.5 is simple number, and when it is multiplied by 2 it gives 3.

In a sense you can think that horizontal/vertical move cost 2 "points" and diagonal costs 3 "points".

[Sir Og]

Is it possible to tesselate a sphere or ellipsoid with tiles of equal shape (the actual shape does not matter) that are symmetric (meaning that for each given region each tile has the same number of neighbours located in the same distance)