EC3 New Idea #5 - HEX BASED MAP

[raingoon]

"Use a hex based map." - Grier

[Chrisp]

I agree. A hex map would be the greatest improvement of Civ since, well, ahem, how can I end this without being rude? :-) Since the first original Sid Meier's Civ. At least the greatest topological improvment.

Another map related issue is this: I would like to have an option to play in 2D-mode, i.e. without the semi-3D view. Just like in Sid's original Civ. This will be especially handy when you play on a hex map. /Chrisp

[Jeje2]

A simple and very good idea.
You got my vote
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited February 19, 2000).]</font>

[Ekmek]

Hexes would be better than the squares used now but someone earlier suggested pixels. If anyone remembers the old game COMMAND HQ I think they used pixes. I'd prefer something smaller and better able to measure distances. Something smaller would add to movement flexibility. Instead of an infantry move of 1 and cav being 2 (twice the distance of infantry, not realistic and that's a lot of space) maybe it would be a 5 and 7. Just a thought, but yes i think hexes are way better than squares.

[korn469]

Grier

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

what problems does adding a hex based map solve? are the problems significant enough for firaxis to do a major game engine redesign?

[Grier]

At a fundamental level civ is a wargame. most wargames seem to use a hex based map, qed civ should use hexes. On a game design note changing to hexes will cause very little difficulty and it reduces the number of directions you can travel by two. It makes a citys zone of control more circular and fixes movement and sight advantages of moving diagonaly on a square map.

One advantage of hexes that I have noticed is that the AI can make better decisions due to the reduced number of locations a unit can move too.

Other benefits of hexes:

Borderlines will be smoother and more circular than with squares.

Rivers will be able to flow more naturally.

The map will look less clunky, with more natural looking coastlines.

A siege of a city will take fewer units to accomplish.

Plus others i'm sure.

Grier.

[XZealot]

I think a hex based map is a bad idea.
1) it reduces your movement options and makes combat less fluid( reducing options like hit and run by making the zones of control bigger
2) it is unintuitive by reducing the number of movement keys to six

[Glostakarov]

An annoying thing about squares is the ability to clear out lots of map by walking in diagonals. It's also easier to cover lots of ground this way. A unit can cover 3 squares north, or 3 squares northwest. With squares, the move northwest actually represents a lot more mileage. A hex based system is far more realistic. Admittedly you can't put an intuitive set of keys on the number pad for hexagonal directions, but if you really want to use keys for movement, shift it over to the normal part of the keyboard. The staggering of letters makes a hex pattern pretty simple, though you'd have to shuffle some other things around. Personally, I prefer using the mouse to move units, especially when you can give them a point several turns away and ignore them until they get there.

[Grier]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by XZealot on 02-28-2000 11:14 AM</font>
I think a hex based map is a bad idea.
1) it reduces your movement options and makes combat less fluid( reducing options like hit and run by making the zones of control bigger
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>


Actually Zones of control are smaller, making hit and run more viable.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by XZealot on 02-28-2000 11:14 AM</font>
2) it is unintuitive by reducing the number of movement keys to six
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

This is a good point. It could be solved by using the same technique as civ2 on the playstation (having an arrow point in the direction the unit is moving, with left and right used to rotate). Although in Civ:ctp I didnt use the keyboard for movement because the mouse with path finding was better.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Grier (edited February 29, 2000).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Grier (edited February 29, 2000).]</font>

[Grier]

On the question of why of 5 things should this idea be included.

Firstly because it is a fundamental change and has no shades of grey. For example an idea to do with units may be good but firaxis have a million and one choices about what to do with units. With map shapes however its a choice between squares or hexes (triangles are also possible but no-one in their right mind would.......).

Secondly its a change which will not affect gameplay to much. In a sequal its always good to make changes that dont affect gameplay, so that you get the feel of playing a new game but with the rather familiar play style of the origional. Civ to civ2 did a similar thing by changing the perspective, this would be a similar and significant advancement.

Thirdly its an idea that a lot of people dont know they want untill they are asked their opinion on it.

[Steve Clark]

I'm a veteran of those hex-based Battleground Series games from Talonsoft, therefore I'd admit I have a bias towards hexes.

One of the criticism is that the squares are unrealistic when moving N-S-E-W, as oppose to the diagonal directions. Hexes would solve this problem in that it is the same distance in all directions from any one hex.

Secondly, the criticism the ZOC would get bigger or that units would get trapped more - just double the CivII movement points (ie, 1 square moves = 2 hex moves). Each hex would comprise of a smaller area than squares, therefore you would need to increase the number of movement points anyway.

Thirdly, I'm unclear as to why hexes limited the range of movements? You have the same 8 compass directions - only with hexes, the movements are all equal.

I am in strong favor of CivIII being hexed based.

[Grier]

[quote]<font size=1>Originally posted by Steve Clark on 03-01-2000 12:22 PM</font>
Thirdly, I'm unclear as to why hexes limited the range of movements? You have the same 8 compass directions - only with hexes, the movements are all equal.
[quote]

Actually with a hex you can only move North, South, North-West, North-East, South-East, and South-West. However, I presume you meant over the course of the movement, which will allow all 8 major compass directions.

But thanks for the support of my idea. But can we please have more people disagreing so that I can fine tune my case and argument.

[supremus]

I think that's a great idea. Hex are and were from the very beguine, the election land tile used in most of table war games. It is cool and much more accurate. It will make much easier to use relief (is it the right word for this ?) variations because the geodesical possibilities it opens for designers. But there's really these point over to cut from 8 to 6 the attack possible positions to a city (Is it good or bad ?). very interesting discussion !

[Zanzibar]

I'm not against the "hex based map" idea, but I don't think it should be in a "10 most wanted ideas" list. Why? Because I think it shouldn't be our concern. I mean, we are telling to Firaxis: we want beautiful graphics, a better trade system, stacked combat, whatever. But what do I care about the hexes? Isn't that their job? I think the designer team is supposed to answer questions like this, not us, and I'm sure they know much more about this than we know. This idea is limiting their game-design choices too much.
Hexes are tools, not goals. We must give them goals, not tools. Tools are their job.

[ChrisShaffer]

Tools are as important as the things you categorize as ideas. Good tools make good games. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that an improvement in the tools would improve the game.

And, please, "the designer team is supposed to answer questions like this, not us, and I'm sure they know much more about this than we know" ??? By this reasoning, we shouldn't be making any suggestions at all. "Just sit back and let those smart designers work, sonny, they don't need your input...."