I wish I could put this in a more relevant place but its important

[L o k i]

===================
Hex Based Map
Current Problem:
The ability to move diagonally on a square based map results in uneven movement and sight.

Basic idea:
Replace the current square based map with a hexagon based map. This would mean that a unit could now move in 6 compass directions as oppose to 8 before.

Benefits:
More accurate modelling of movement and sight. More realistic portrayal of land layout.

Feasibility:
Implementation of the idea before the prototyping stage would perfectly feasible without any known disadvantages (on the assumption that code is being written from scratch).

==================

So, can someone PLEASE explain to me how on earth this gives more accurate modelling of movement, sight and more realistic portrayal of land layout??

What is this actualy proposing!?

[lago]

As for movement, think of a grid of squares. If you move one square vertically or horizontally, the distance you moved is equal to the length of one side of the square. If you move diagonally, you've moved about 1.4 (root of 2) times the length of a side. So you've moved farther in the same length of time. You could prohibit direct diagonal movement, but then that would require taking 2 turns to move 1.4, which would still be off.

With a hex grid, every hex is surrounded by six others, and it's the same distance to all of them. Typically with hexes, vertical and diagonal movement are no problem, although horizontal requires moving along a slight zig-zag path. But this doesn't involve any extra movement, just a little tacking.

As for land layout, I don't know if hex is any more realistic. There are problems with squares if you're modeling a spherical planet, but I couldn't say if hexes would be any better.

[This message has been edited by lago (edited March 14, 2000).]

[L o k i]

Thats what I thought

Why have anything at all?

Why not have a huge open ground, like in the real world? Then you would REALLY have to think strategicaly.

Obviously, if you want to move diagonaly past a enemy, you would be basicaly sending them to their deaths. BUT you could do it if you wanted to. Because there isn't some hand of god sticking out of the sky saying "No you can't do that."

We should be allowed free movement.

Thats what you get with RTS's.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by L o k i on 03-14-2000 09:50 PM Why have anything at all? ... Thats what you get with RTS's.

Because it's too hard to do without changing a lot of game concepts that would invariably
make the game not Civ anymore.

Hex is a good solution - a change that won't impact too much on other game concepts - and it got my vote.

btw, when does EC3 close up? I've been looking for a date, but can't find one. I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere...

- MKL

[Slax]

Will your hexes be on an angle? Civ uses diamonds because they look like a grid system given perspective. That way terrain and units have perspective. I think hexes have not been used because when tilted away from the viewer to get perspective, movement, if using the keyboard, looks complicated.

I've been programming a game as a hobby, it uses terrain in hexes with no perspective, and it looks pretty flat.

------------------
Light the fuse!

[L o k i]

Knight, I think you've misundestood me

I'm not saying make the game RTS. I'm saying make it TBS but with no limits as to where to move your units REALISTICALY.

[korn469]

most RTS games use a grid system...ever used the starcraft scenario editor? that is also why you cant place pylons ect exactly where you want them...having realspace in a game leads to one big question though...how exactly do you work the land? using a form of realspace you will get uneven patches of forrest and hill and tundra and whatever landscapes you have in the game and then the citizens will have some kind of radius of what they work...so shifting a worker over might increase your production it might decrase it but it would incrase system requirements and micromanagement using realspace

------------------
The OpenCiv3 website
korn469

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by L o k i on 03-15-2000 03:20 AM Knight, I think you've misundestood me

No I didn't misunderstand you. Actually, you just misunderstood me

I was speaking in reference to shelving the idea of tiles, not RTS vs TBS.


[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 15, 2000).]

[VetLegion]

I also have a problem with hexes.

1. The argument that you "uncover more land" by moving diagonaly, well that is true, you uncover 2 tiles more. But so what, your enemy does also.

2. The argument that you "cross bigger distance" by moving diagonaly, precisely "square root of two opposed to one" is pointless. How many of you players remember how many square miles is there in civ2 tile? And is that important? Does it affect gameplay? Not.

3. Why hexes and not octagons then? Octagons are even more "circle like" and they have all eight directions (opposed to 6).

4. Perspective. If someone can give me URL where I can see a unit on a hexagon put in perspective I woud be grateful, since I have trouble imagining that.

My wote goes either to civ2 tiles or a 3d terrain based on a square tiles four or more times smaller then unit/city square. Maybe that would allow for some sort of 3d. Not sure though. Check out the demo of the game Conquest of New World to see what I think.

[Sirotnikov]

why not use 8 directions?
use the octagons!
yeah right, it wont fit on a flat surface. or any surface. but maybe we can invent something?
come on, 6 directions suck!!!
and if we have haxagons with 8 directions the same problem of distance would arise.


we have to use... triangulars!


just kidding.

please, some one, have a good idea...

[MidKnight Lament]

You can't tesselate octagons without having squares as well. That's why octagon's are no good. Hexagons fit neatly together like honeycomb.

And no, it's not life or death whether we use hexagons or regular tiles, but we're trying to make the game better, and things like ZOC get screwed around when you've got diagonals that are longer.

As for the keys you would use - don't worry about it! You could use the normal letters on a keyboard if you wanted to, but I'm guessing it'll be mouse based anyway, so there's no reason not to improve the game by having hexes!

- MKL

[L o k i]

What I'm trying to say is, that its not realistic to not be able to move past a unit because of ZOC.

X X X
X S M
X X X

My army is S, and the enemy is M.

If I want to move to the X above the M, REALISTICALY I should be able to.
Obviously that would be a bad idea because I'd have to cross some of the M's territory.

It needs to have more realism in the game. TBS and RTS need to be emerged here. In a way where you don't have to rush around everywhere making sure no ones dying and in a way where its so realistic that the enemy would attack me if I crossed a part of its territory while moving.

That would make me think twice about what I'm doing.

Do the Mongols care about ZOC? Nah. The only thing that should be stopping me from moving my unit above the M, is my military advisor. But even he can't stop me.

What I would like to see is no tiles whatsover. It should be completely open. This allows feeling of freedom of choice, instead of being stuck in boxes. It's just far too limited.

[MidKnight Lament]

What I'm saying is that getting rid of tiles throws to many other things out the window. How are you going to determine how much of a resource is in a certain place? (RTSs still use tiles in the background to do this.) There's plenty of other things like this that would appear once you tried to model a game without tiles.

Besides, if you have simultaneous turns, some of the problems you perceive with ZOC will be eliminated.

- MKL

[L o k i]

Typical Australian, limited imaginations you guys have. (:

Obviously, instead of using what we use today, we improve what we use today to make things better.

So what I'm saying is, change it, make it better.

[MidKnight Lament]

Hey, man, I'm open to suggestions. You tell me how we might be able to implement a no-tile system, and I'll read it and give it fair consideration. But for the moment I'm unconvinced.

- MKL