Strategic View

[Modo44]

You're talking about workarounds for a problem that does not exist when using hexes. And the main idea is to introduce even more distortion (the diagonal of a 1x1 square is not 1.5)? Yeah, I'm sure repeating that will be convincing.

[Elok]

It isn't a problem anyway. Within the context of the game world, there aren't any distances except squares, and I can't fathom why you'd be so hung up as to care that you can cover more "distance" as measured in millimeters of your monitor. That's much less of a problem than the movement restrictions imposed by hexagons.

[wodan11]

I don't understand what you mean by "there aren't any distances except squares"... can you clarify? And, what are "the movement restrictions imposed by hexagons"?

[Brael]

Can't make a planar graph out of regular octagons.

That doesn't matter, I still want them. Hexes are 2 sides better than squares, so octagons should be 2 sides better than hexes.

[ColdPhoenix]

Can't make a planar graph out of regular octagons.

That doesn't matter, I still want them. Hexes are 2 sides better than squares, so octagons should be 2 sides better than hexes.

Let's have circles! They're infinitely better!!!!

[Boracks]

Let's have circles! They're infinitely better!!!!

And it comes round to this. (round - get it? )

Squares were often used as they are easy to draw. Bunch of lines one way, bunch of lines at right angle to the first set and, if measurements are good, squares!

Hexes are hard to draw, but a no brainer with computer power. Hexes became popular because they got rid of any issues with diagonal movement.

Its a game, with lots of artificial constraints. I could care less if its squares or hexes as long as it meets the important criteria.

Is it fun to play.

[Elok]

I don't understand what you mean by "there aren't any distances except squares"... can you clarify? And, what are "the movement restrictions imposed by hexagons"?

The movement restrictions are that you can only go six directions instead of eight, with the extremely silly result that, in Civ5, it will be impossible to tell a soldier to march directly north. Nothing like an army that weaves back and forth like a drunk...by "there aren't any distances but squares," I mean just that. The loss of "movement" in perceived millimeters of screen space doesn't matter because you're not moving them millimeters, you're moving them squares, and a square is a square is a square. You're not moving them any greater distance when you go diagonally--you're moving one square, and for gameplay purposes that's all that matters.

I can see only one real "problem" with a square grid. Your soldier is standing at point A. Point B is five squares directly east, while point C is two spaces north of the midpoint between A and B. Assuming they're all the same terrain, it's as easy to go ACB as AB; the straight line is not a faster route between two points. However, I honestly never noticed this while playing Civ, because it's a theoretical problem--the terrain is never even close to regular.

Frankly, I'd rather have freedom of movement.

[ColdPhoenix]

I can see only one real "problem" with a square grid. Your soldier is standing at point A. Point B is five squares directly east, while point C is two spaces north of the midpoint between A and B. Assuming they're all the same terrain, it's as easy to go ACB as AB; the straight line is not a faster route between two points. However, I honestly never noticed this while playing Civ, because it's a theoretical problem--the terrain is never even close to regular.

I always explore diagonally as it reveals more terrain that way.

[Brael]

Same, I also build my early roads diagonally as in most cases it lets me connect cities with fewer worker turns used.

[Jaybe]

Same, I also build my early roads diagonally as in most cases it lets me connect cities with fewer worker turns used.

RIGHT!! Diagonals are CHEATING where limited movement is involved!
(It's alright if the piece has unlimited movement, like a bishop or queen in chess).

[Elok]

I always explore diagonally as it reveals more terrain that way.

...whereas I always explore where there aren't as many mountains or forests, which are the meaningful movement restrictions.

[MxM]

I can see only one real "problem" with a square grid. Your soldier is standing at point A. Point B is five squares directly east, while point C is two spaces north of the midpoint between A and B. Assuming they're all the same terrain, it's as easy to go ACB as AB; the straight line is not a faster route between two points. However, I honestly never noticed this while playing Civ, because it's a theoretical problem--the terrain is never even close to regular.

This problem would disappear if you count diagonal move as SQRT(2) distance. Even if you count as 1.5 distance, it will be very accurate, more accurate in fact than with hexagons when you move in direction which is not one of those 6 directions.

[MxM]

You're talking about workarounds for a problem that does not exist when using hexes. And the main idea is to introduce even more distortion (the diagonal of a 1x1 square is not 1.5)? Yeah, I'm sure repeating that will be convincing.

Sure the problem does exist with hexes. In hexes only 6 directions are accurate, so, if two points on the map is not directly connected by the line in one of those 6 directions, then the distance will not be measured accurately.
For example for hexagon grid as shown here:
\_/ .\_/
/1\_/2\
\_/ .\_/

the actual distance between numbers 1 and 2 separated horizontally is 15% shorter than calculated by hexagon rule.

[Hauldren Collider]

...whereas I always explore where there aren't as many mountains or forests, which are the meaningful movement restrictions.

Er, all else being equal, the diagonal is SIGNIFICANTLY better. 1.5x advantage over equal terrain, whereas difficult is a 1/2x disadvantage. Do the math--stack those bonuses, and the diagonals create a huge problem.

[Jaybe]

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.