And I'm honest to god amazed/impressed. I expected nerd rage at the hex thing since the one thing online nerds can't stand is change, and hex maps are a pretty god damned big change for this game.
This seems like a non issue but I still think the fat cross is at the advantage in it aside from, perhaps, theoretical aesthetics.
I made an overstated claim (the biggest?) about a tiny aspect of the game, and you're taking it like it was a serious point. I was just saying that it would be possible to tessellate the map with cities. I made no claim about practicality of doing so.
Oh I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm mostly trying to figure out whether the move to hexes is a good idea or not; city layout is just one of the aspects (although another one that, from an optimization side at least, seems to go with squares still). Also when I had the wrong radius of hexes I was completely confused ;P
On a different hex point, I will miss being able to use the numpad for unit movement since Civilization has been my single player travel game of choice. I guess they could use something weird like "wedxza".
A hex grid is just a square grid with two fewer directions of movement. You can still use your numpad, just not to move north or south.
On a different hex point, I will miss being able to use the numpad for unit movement since Civilization has been my single player travel game of choice. I guess they could use something weird like "wedxza".
I've gotten so used to just right clicking to move to appointed squares that I use it now, even if I'm just moving one space.
I had forgotten about those advisers. Those guys were pretty cool.
Watching those clips, I had forgotten that capturing cities (at least in 2, maybe in 3 as well?) allowed you to take a tech from the opposing civ. I can remember keeping a tech farm civ so that when it'd get a new tech I wanted I'd just take a city from them.
I hope they tweak tech trading as well. Seems silly to me that, especially early to mid game, if you're looking to trade a tech, you might as well trade it with everyone (no matter what you get from some) just because most civs will just turn around and trade it themselves.
chrono_traveller on
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
This seems like a non issue but I still think the fat cross is at the advantage in it aside from, perhaps, theoretical aesthetics.
I made an overstated claim (the biggest?) about a tiny aspect of the game, and you're taking it like it was a serious point. I was just saying that it would be possible to tessellate the map with cities. I made no claim about practicality of doing so.
Oh I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm mostly trying to figure out whether the move to hexes is a good idea or not; city layout is just one of the aspects (although another one that, from an optimization side at least, seems to go with squares still). Also when I had the wrong radius of hexes I was completely confused ;P
On a different hex point, I will miss being able to use the numpad for unit movement since Civilization has been my single player travel game of choice. I guess they could use something weird like "wedxza".
A hex grid is just a square grid with two fewer directions of movement. You can still use your numpad, just not to move north or south.
You mena 741 abd 963? I suppose, but its not nearly as natural and no longer has a direct correlation to the unit's movement.
I mean honestly, hexes are fine and work, I just don't see them as being an improvement. The only reason to really notice the change at all though is because it's just about the only solid bit of info we have ;P
Tag on
Overwatch: TomFoolery#1388 Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
Hexes are definitely an improvement, because now movement is more uniform, and it allows for the directional facing bonuses as they were discussing earlier.
This seems like a non issue but I still think the fat cross is at the advantage in it aside from, perhaps, theoretical aesthetics.
I made an overstated claim (the biggest?) about a tiny aspect of the game, and you're taking it like it was a serious point. I was just saying that it would be possible to tessellate the map with cities. I made no claim about practicality of doing so.
Oh I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm mostly trying to figure out whether the move to hexes is a good idea or not; city layout is just one of the aspects (although another one that, from an optimization side at least, seems to go with squares still). Also when I had the wrong radius of hexes I was completely confused ;P
On a different hex point, I will miss being able to use the numpad for unit movement since Civilization has been my single player travel game of choice. I guess they could use something weird like "wedxza".
A hex grid is just a square grid with two fewer directions of movement. You can still use your numpad, just not to move north or south.
You mena 741 abd 963? I suppose, but its not nearly as natural and no longer has a direct correlation to the unit's movement.
I mean honestly, hexes are fine and work, I just don't see them as being an improvement. The only reason to really notice the change at all though is because it's just about the only solid bit of info we have ;P
How is it less natural? The directions are still exactly the same: 7 moves northwest, 6 moves east, etc.
I guess it doesn't correlate in that the POSITIONS of the keys relative to the initial location (5) are different, but they still match up to the DIRECTIONS of movement perfectly.
Also, I'm tempted to see if civ4 could be modded to have a hex grid. It's just a matter of changing the graphics and the rules for movement. I doubt it, though.
WEDXZA is a hexigon, if slightly smooshed on most keyboards, and centered over the traditional wasd (the reason I picked it). 7 and 1 are directly north and south of 4 which makes it perfect in a square grid only roughly analogous in a hex one.
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily. Additionally, even without penalties, a square grid may give a natural bonus to diagonal movement, but a hex grid gives a natural penalty 50% of the straight line movement, so its not as if either system is perfect in that regard.
Hex cities are 10% smaller than fat crosses.
Confused about the directional facing point from above since a square grid gives more angles of attack (front, right front, left front, right flank, left flank, right rear, left rear, rear vs. front, front right, front left, rear right, rear left, rear). No reason you can't have your unit face a corner of its square.
These are all very minor issues, but one would think that to break tradition and the model of the first 4 games there would be some very compelling advantage. Other than trading one flawed movement scheme for another, I just don't really see one.
Tag on
Overwatch: TomFoolery#1388 Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily.
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Just scale down the grid sufficiently that believable movement is produced no matter where a player clicks, and don't ever bother the player with the question of which route is most efficient. Computer is gonna be thousands of times better at optimization than me, I prefer to let it do what it's good at.
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily.
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Just scale down the grid sufficiently that believable movement is produced no matter where a player clicks, and don't ever bother the player with the question of which route is most efficient. Computer is gonna be thousands of times better at optimization than me, I prefer to let it do what it's good at.
Dijkstra's algorithm ftw
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily. Additionally, even without penalties, a square grid may give a natural bonus to diagonal movement, but a hex grid gives a natural penalty 50% of the straight line movement, so its not as if either system is perfect in that regard.
Hex cities are 10% smaller than fat crosses.
Confused about the directional facing point from above since a square grid gives more angles of attack (front, right front, left front, right flank, left flank, right rear, left rear, rear vs. front, front right, front left, rear right, rear left, rear). No reason you can't have your unit face a corner of its square.
These are all very minor issues, but one would think that to break tradition and the model of the first 4 games there would be some very compelling advantage. Other than trading one flawed movement scheme for another, I just don't really see one.
None of these 'problems' with hexes are problems. Hexes don't have a 'straight line' penalty, unless you're not grasping how hex movement works, and are actually thinking of squares instead. Hex cities being smaller is a non-issue because those cities will only be compared to other hex cities. You can't have a facing on a corner, because there's no 'side' there. If you have facing on the north and west, why don't you already have facing on northwest? There's no open area inbetween them - unless you're talking octagons, which we are NOT. Just having diagonal movement between squares is a hack solution in and of itself. Hexes just work without having to worry about it.
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily.
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Just scale down the grid sufficiently that believable movement is produced no matter where a player clicks, and don't ever bother the player with the question of which route is most efficient. Computer is gonna be thousands of times better at optimization than me, I prefer to let it do what it's good at.
Unless the user has a choice between multiple destinations, and the choice is predicated on which one is reachable quicker (or at all, that turn).
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily.
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Just scale down the grid sufficiently that believable movement is produced no matter where a player clicks, and don't ever bother the player with the question of which route is most efficient. Computer is gonna be thousands of times better at optimization than me, I prefer to let it do what it's good at.
Dijkstra's algorithm ftw
These days all the cool kids call it A*, but yes.
I guess I can see that many civ players love the grid and being able to obsess over unit placement, but as for me, I just want to click and go.
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily. Additionally, even without penalties, a square grid may give a natural bonus to diagonal movement, but a hex grid gives a natural penalty 50% of the straight line movement, so its not as if either system is perfect in that regard.
Hex cities are 10% smaller than fat crosses.
Confused about the directional facing point from above since a square grid gives more angles of attack (front, right front, left front, right flank, left flank, right rear, left rear, rear vs. front, front right, front left, rear right, rear left, rear). No reason you can't have your unit face a corner of its square.
These are all very minor issues, but one would think that to break tradition and the model of the first 4 games there would be some very compelling advantage. Other than trading one flawed movement scheme for another, I just don't really see one.
None of these 'problems' with hexes are problems. Hexes don't have a 'straight line' penalty, unless you're not grasping how hex movement works, and are actually thinking of squares instead. Hex cities being smaller is a non-issue because those cities will only be compared to other hex cities. You can't have a facing on a corner, because there's no 'side' there. If you have facing on the north and west, why don't you already have facing on northwest? There's no open area inbetween them - unless you're talking octagons, which we are NOT. Just having diagonal movement between squares is a hack solution in and of itself. Hexes just work without having to worry about it.
Going directly North (or directly in the direction of any point on a hex) causes a wobble in your line which acts as a penalty. In other words, you cover more distance going in a straight line off from one of the hex's edges than going in a straight line off one of the hex's points. It is perhaps not as severe as the diagnal bonus on a square grid, but its not as if diagonal movement has traditionally been overpowering in the Civ games and simply having the computer calculating the extra penalties to keep it even should be a non-issue. (And since this works the same for all players and the computer will auto find the most efficient path for you, every side benefits roughly equally from these imperfections so the benefits have nearly no effect on balance.)
Sure every hex city will be smaller but you are universally reducing the ratio of worked land to cities. This means that resources must be compressed or finding "ideal" sites will be slightly harder on a hex grid (since you only get 90% of the options). Additionally any "unavoidable" overlaps are ultimately harsher on the hex system because they reduce the workable land by a larger percentage. Since all civilizations will have to deal with this, just as all civs have to deal with fat crosses, this is at best a wash and at worst a slight limitation to freedom of choice by the player.
789
4U6
123
On a square grid, unit U can face any of those numbers and be attacked by any of those numbers. Facing 7 just makes 7 the front, 8 and 4 side-fronts, 1 and 9 flanks, 2 and 6 side rears and 3 rear. On a hex grid, assuming you can't face the points since you can't be attacked from the points, you lose the flank positions.
Tag on
Overwatch: TomFoolery#1388 Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
Yay! I read this on the shuttle to work this morning and it was all I could do to not cry out in joy. I've purchased Civ 4, Warlords and Beyond the Sword Twice (Retail and Steam), so this is a must buy for me.
None of these 'problems' with hexes are problems. Hexes don't have a 'straight line' penalty, unless you're not grasping how hex movement works, and are actually thinking of squares instead.
Yeah, they do. Let's say I want to move N-S (the direction in which the hexes meet at a corner, rather than a face).
Moving directly north requires moving 1 movement unit to the NW, and then one movement unit to the NE. Since these are hexes, the hex to the NW is 30 degrees off of your desired course. Therefore, moving 1 hex NW actually moves me COS(30 degrees) north. Moving NE from that hex (to the first hex directly N of my starting position) also moves me COS(30 degress) north. In total, by spending 2 hexes of movement, I've only moved 2COS(30*) in my desired direction, or ~1.7 movement units due north.
Accordingly, hex-based movement is only 85% efficient when moving directly N or directly S.
You can't have a facing on a corner, because there's no 'side' there.
Yes, you can, because right opposite that corner is a legal square. This is not the case in hexes.
Seriously, I play all kinds of games wherein corner facing on a square grid is legal (like, for instance, X-Com).
There's no open area inbetween them - unless you're talking octagons, which we are NOT.
Square grids are effectively tesselated octagons, however.
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Until you get to the "each unit of population can work 1 grid square" rule, in which case you have an issue of a grid square not equaling a grid square.
Release of Fall of this year? So by Spring of next year it'll be patched to actually work?
I loved both Civ3 and Civ4 but they were buggy as fuck when released, and especially Civ4 was missing a shitload of basic UI features that were present in Civ3. Hell, I just may wait for whenever the second expansion is released for this and then buy the platinum pack, since they presumably have everything already planned out and will just release half the game as the base game and toss everything else into expansions.
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Until you get to the "each unit of population can work 1 grid square" rule, in which case you have an issue of a grid square not equaling a grid square.
If it were my game, I'd just calculate the workable area around a city as a circle that expands in radius as the city grows. Each unit of population requires a certain amount of area to work, which makes it trivial for the computer to decide how many units the current circle can fit. It means you can't tell which specific spot for people to work, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If an enemy unit moves into this sphere, that much area is subtracted from the available space and an appropriate number of population units are subtracted from the circle.
It's not that I think Civilization is a flawed game, the tile system has worked fine for 20 years now, I just find it entertaining to consider other options.
Going directly North (or directly in the direction of any point on a hex) causes a wobble in your line which acts as a penalty.
And guess what? This is exactly the same in squares. Except for hexes have 6 directions you can go 'straight' in, as opposed to 4 for squares, with the extra 4 hacked in. So no, there's no 'penalty'. That's just grid based movement.
789
4U6
123
On a square grid, unit U can face any of those numbers and be attacked by any of those numbers. Facing 7 just makes 7 the front, 8 and 4 side-fronts, 1 and 9 flanks, 2 and 6 side rears and 3 rear. On a hex grid, assuming you can't face the points since you can't be attacked from the points, you lose the flank positions.
So?
SageinaRage on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
None of these 'problems' with hexes are problems. Hexes don't have a 'straight line' penalty, unless you're not grasping how hex movement works, and are actually thinking of squares instead.
Yeah, they do. Let's say I want to move N-S (the direction in which the hexes meet at a corner, rather than a face).
Moving directly north requires moving 1 movement unit to the NW, and then one movement unit to the NE. Since these are hexes, the hex to the NW is 30 degrees off of your desired course. Therefore, moving 1 hex NW actually moves me COS(30 degrees) north. Moving NE from that hex (to the first hex directly N of my starting position) also moves me COS(30 degress) north. In total, by spending 2 hexes of movement, I've only moved 2COS(30*) in my desired direction, or ~1.7 movement units due north.
Accordingly, hex-based movement is only 85% efficient when moving directly N or directly S.
This is retarded. You're comparing hex based movement to straight line movement without a grid layout? It's like comparing building with legos versus sculpting. Even Square grids are inefficient according to this example. The benefit of hexes is that each hex of movement is equal compared to each other hex movement - whereas that is not the case with diagonal square movement. Hexes are internally consistent, squares are not.
You can't have a facing on a corner, because there's no 'side' there.
Yes, you can, because right opposite that corner is a legal square. This is not the case in hexes.
It's a legal movement square. That's not a 'facing'. Squares have four 'faces'. It's ok in a game like x-com to have diagonal facing because in that case the actual grid is meaningless, it's just a holder for a person, which can theoretically turn 360 degrees, and every minute inbetween. But we're talking about borders for nations, in which case it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
There's no open area inbetween them - unless you're talking octagons, which we are NOT.
Square grids are effectively tesselated octagons, however.
They are not. Most games allow diagonal movement because true square grids are not good for most games, but that doesn't make them tesselated octagons.
If it were my game, I'd just calculate the workable area around a city as a circle that expands in radius as the city grows. Each unit of population requires a certain amount of area to work, which makes it trivial for the computer to decide how many units the current circle can fit. It means you can't tell which specific spot for people to work, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If an enemy unit moves into this sphere, that much area is subtracted from the available space and an appropriate number of population units are subtracted from the circle.
At the end of the day, though, would removing the grid make it more fun?
Seriously, i saw the picture and first thought was Hexes?! Can we be a step closer back to Alpha Centauri please oh please!? Did AC just not sell well or what?
Seriously, i saw the picture and first thought was Hexes?! Can we be a step closer back to Alpha Centauri please oh please!? Did AC just not sell well or what?
Firaxis/2K don't have the Alpha Centauri license. I believe you have to talk to EA about that.
While I adore AC, I don't really quite get the whole "they have to make Alpha Centauri 2 naaaooo" sentiment. It was essentially Civ In Space, and we're still getting Civ games like nothing. Heck, they could go out and make Sid Meier's Zeta Puppis for all I care -- the name means nothing to me.
Seriously, i saw the picture and first thought was Hexes?! Can we be a step closer back to Alpha Centauri please oh please!? Did AC just not sell well or what?
Firaxis/2K don't have the Alpha Centauri license. I believe you have to talk to EA about that.
While I adore AC, I don't really quite get the whole "they have to make Alpha Centauri 2 naaaooo" sentiment. It was essentially Civ In Space, and we're still getting Civ games like nothing. Heck, they could go out and make Sid Meier's Zeta Puppis for all I care -- the name means nothing to me.
Because it was IN SPACE!
Space armies!
Awesome little blurbs about way into the future technology.
Hostile lifeforms willing to invade every orifice.
Transcendence!
Really though its like your favorite food. Sure everyone likes chicken, but god damnit sometimes I want a choice besides KFC for my fried goodness. (Utah here, we don't have popeye's!)
Posts
And I'm honest to god amazed/impressed. I expected nerd rage at the hex thing since the one thing online nerds can't stand is change, and hex maps are a pretty god damned big change for this game.
But you can! You can move North/South-east AND west. It's like they're doubling your choices in going up and down!
CIV = Civ IV = what the icon on my desktop says.
So, instead of "Si-viv," it's just "Siv."
I also bet we start seeing CiV show up ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I need my head stuck in a jar so I'll still be around to play CIV.
The FFH2 lead guy said a while back that if they put out Civ 5 then they'd make FFH3.
So, yeah.
A hex grid is just a square grid with two fewer directions of movement. You can still use your numpad, just not to move north or south.
I've gotten so used to just right clicking to move to appointed squares that I use it now, even if I'm just moving one space.
I had forgotten about those advisers. Those guys were pretty cool.
Watching those clips, I had forgotten that capturing cities (at least in 2, maybe in 3 as well?) allowed you to take a tech from the opposing civ. I can remember keeping a tech farm civ so that when it'd get a new tech I wanted I'd just take a city from them.
I hope they tweak tech trading as well. Seems silly to me that, especially early to mid game, if you're looking to trade a tech, you might as well trade it with everyone (no matter what you get from some) just because most civs will just turn around and trade it themselves.
You mena 741 abd 963? I suppose, but its not nearly as natural and no longer has a direct correlation to the unit's movement.
I mean honestly, hexes are fine and work, I just don't see them as being an improvement. The only reason to really notice the change at all though is because it's just about the only solid bit of info we have ;P
Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
How is it less natural? The directions are still exactly the same: 7 moves northwest, 6 moves east, etc.
I guess it doesn't correlate in that the POSITIONS of the keys relative to the initial location (5) are different, but they still match up to the DIRECTIONS of movement perfectly.
Also, I'm tempted to see if civ4 could be modded to have a hex grid. It's just a matter of changing the graphics and the rules for movement. I doubt it, though.
Yeah, Civ 4 was the first thing I installed on my Win7 system, no problems whatsoever.
I'll give it another shot (I didn't spend long trying to get it working since I had other stuff to install as well at the time).
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Really the only benefit of a hex grid is simple movement scores. This makes sense when doing it manually in a board game (and why hex is used often in table top), but keeping track of movement penalties behind the scenes is something a computer game can do easily. Additionally, even without penalties, a square grid may give a natural bonus to diagonal movement, but a hex grid gives a natural penalty 50% of the straight line movement, so its not as if either system is perfect in that regard.
Hex cities are 10% smaller than fat crosses.
Confused about the directional facing point from above since a square grid gives more angles of attack (front, right front, left front, right flank, left flank, right rear, left rear, rear vs. front, front right, front left, rear right, rear left, rear). No reason you can't have your unit face a corner of its square.
These are all very minor issues, but one would think that to break tradition and the model of the first 4 games there would be some very compelling advantage. Other than trading one flawed movement scheme for another, I just don't really see one.
Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
Which is why I think even showing us there's a grid is outdated game design.
Just scale down the grid sufficiently that believable movement is produced no matter where a player clicks, and don't ever bother the player with the question of which route is most efficient. Computer is gonna be thousands of times better at optimization than me, I prefer to let it do what it's good at.
I'm sure it's just because it's early though.
Dijkstra's algorithm ftw
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
None of these 'problems' with hexes are problems. Hexes don't have a 'straight line' penalty, unless you're not grasping how hex movement works, and are actually thinking of squares instead. Hex cities being smaller is a non-issue because those cities will only be compared to other hex cities. You can't have a facing on a corner, because there's no 'side' there. If you have facing on the north and west, why don't you already have facing on northwest? There's no open area inbetween them - unless you're talking octagons, which we are NOT. Just having diagonal movement between squares is a hack solution in and of itself. Hexes just work without having to worry about it.
Unless the user has a choice between multiple destinations, and the choice is predicated on which one is reachable quicker (or at all, that turn).
These days all the cool kids call it A*, but yes.
I guess I can see that many civ players love the grid and being able to obsess over unit placement, but as for me, I just want to click and go.
Going directly North (or directly in the direction of any point on a hex) causes a wobble in your line which acts as a penalty. In other words, you cover more distance going in a straight line off from one of the hex's edges than going in a straight line off one of the hex's points. It is perhaps not as severe as the diagnal bonus on a square grid, but its not as if diagonal movement has traditionally been overpowering in the Civ games and simply having the computer calculating the extra penalties to keep it even should be a non-issue. (And since this works the same for all players and the computer will auto find the most efficient path for you, every side benefits roughly equally from these imperfections so the benefits have nearly no effect on balance.)
Sure every hex city will be smaller but you are universally reducing the ratio of worked land to cities. This means that resources must be compressed or finding "ideal" sites will be slightly harder on a hex grid (since you only get 90% of the options). Additionally any "unavoidable" overlaps are ultimately harsher on the hex system because they reduce the workable land by a larger percentage. Since all civilizations will have to deal with this, just as all civs have to deal with fat crosses, this is at best a wash and at worst a slight limitation to freedom of choice by the player.
789
4U6
123
On a square grid, unit U can face any of those numbers and be attacked by any of those numbers. Facing 7 just makes 7 the front, 8 and 4 side-fronts, 1 and 9 flanks, 2 and 6 side rears and 3 rear. On a hex grid, assuming you can't face the points since you can't be attacked from the points, you lose the flank positions.
Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
Yeah, they do. Let's say I want to move N-S (the direction in which the hexes meet at a corner, rather than a face).
Moving directly north requires moving 1 movement unit to the NW, and then one movement unit to the NE. Since these are hexes, the hex to the NW is 30 degrees off of your desired course. Therefore, moving 1 hex NW actually moves me COS(30 degrees) north. Moving NE from that hex (to the first hex directly N of my starting position) also moves me COS(30 degress) north. In total, by spending 2 hexes of movement, I've only moved 2COS(30*) in my desired direction, or ~1.7 movement units due north.
Accordingly, hex-based movement is only 85% efficient when moving directly N or directly S.
Yes, you can, because right opposite that corner is a legal square. This is not the case in hexes.
Seriously, I play all kinds of games wherein corner facing on a square grid is legal (like, for instance, X-Com).
Square grids are effectively tesselated octagons, however.
Until you get to the "each unit of population can work 1 grid square" rule, in which case you have an issue of a grid square not equaling a grid square.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I loved both Civ3 and Civ4 but they were buggy as fuck when released, and especially Civ4 was missing a shitload of basic UI features that were present in Civ3. Hell, I just may wait for whenever the second expansion is released for this and then buy the platinum pack, since they presumably have everything already planned out and will just release half the game as the base game and toss everything else into expansions.
If it were my game, I'd just calculate the workable area around a city as a circle that expands in radius as the city grows. Each unit of population requires a certain amount of area to work, which makes it trivial for the computer to decide how many units the current circle can fit. It means you can't tell which specific spot for people to work, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If an enemy unit moves into this sphere, that much area is subtracted from the available space and an appropriate number of population units are subtracted from the circle.
It's not that I think Civilization is a flawed game, the tile system has worked fine for 20 years now, I just find it entertaining to consider other options.
And guess what? This is exactly the same in squares. Except for hexes have 6 directions you can go 'straight' in, as opposed to 4 for squares, with the extra 4 hacked in. So no, there's no 'penalty'. That's just grid based movement.
So?
Thirded.
This is retarded. You're comparing hex based movement to straight line movement without a grid layout? It's like comparing building with legos versus sculpting. Even Square grids are inefficient according to this example. The benefit of hexes is that each hex of movement is equal compared to each other hex movement - whereas that is not the case with diagonal square movement. Hexes are internally consistent, squares are not.
It's a legal movement square. That's not a 'facing'. Squares have four 'faces'. It's ok in a game like x-com to have diagonal facing because in that case the actual grid is meaningless, it's just a holder for a person, which can theoretically turn 360 degrees, and every minute inbetween. But we're talking about borders for nations, in which case it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
They are not. Most games allow diagonal movement because true square grids are not good for most games, but that doesn't make them tesselated octagons.
Made my day.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
At the end of the day, though, would removing the grid make it more fun?
I'm really looking forward to this though.
It's not like they're advocating changing the square to hex for no reason, they're discussing the pros and cons of a decision that's been made.
Also, I'm super excited. I have put hundreds of hours into Civ4.
Firaxis/2K don't have the Alpha Centauri license. I believe you have to talk to EA about that.
While I adore AC, I don't really quite get the whole "they have to make Alpha Centauri 2 naaaooo" sentiment. It was essentially Civ In Space, and we're still getting Civ games like nothing. Heck, they could go out and make Sid Meier's Zeta Puppis for all I care -- the name means nothing to me.
Because it was IN SPACE!
Space armies!
Awesome little blurbs about way into the future technology.
Hostile lifeforms willing to invade every orifice.
Transcendence!
Really though its like your favorite food. Sure everyone likes chicken, but god damnit sometimes I want a choice besides KFC for my fried goodness. (Utah here, we don't have popeye's!)