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.
It's because by not being tied down to real-world civilizations, you can get a lot more creative with tech/units/buildings/factions. For example, I liked how each faction was actually unique because you don't need to essentially clone civilizations to appease every real-world civilization out there.
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.
It's because by not being tied down to real-world civilizations, you can get a lot more creative with tech/units/buildings/factions. For example, I liked how each faction was actually unique because you don't need to essentially clone civilizations to appease every real-world civilization out there.
Then there was the fact you could custom build your units based on the tech you've researched, MoO style.
Foefaller on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
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.
Yeah, Alpha Centauri wasn't just Civ in space. It shared a few features with Master of Orion, which was one of the other great 4X games of old.
The unit building thing was one of the best parts about it. The solar power elevation thing was also great. So many great ideas, a little exploitable, but it was awesome.
mrt144 on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Man I love me some Civ 2 and 4, but it's really shameful how terrible I am at both.
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?
Uh, no.
"Retarded" is no longer an acceptable insult. Please report to Tube for reconditioning.
I'm comparing, in this instance, hex-based movement to square-based movement in two cardinal directions - whether it's N-S or E-W doesn't matter. In half of the cardinal directions, hex-based movement has a movement penalty compared to square-based movement.
Even Square grids are inefficient according to this example.
Certainly. I never said squares were perfect. I was, however, contesting your incorrect point that hexes had no movement penalties, and that squares are completely efficient in all 4 cardinal directions (which, to me at least, seem to be the most important ones). Then again, I also remember the "Fallout Waggle," so ...
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.
That's certainly a benefit of hexes, yes. On the squares' side, though, they tend to work better for things like building interiors which, for some reason, we humans like to build in squares. Thus, a properly chosen square grid will beat a hex grid because it'll have fewer half-tiles.
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.
Actually, this comment does not make a lot of sense to me. Either you can stand in a square and face NW, NE, SE, or SW, or you can't. Ergo, either the diagonals are facings, or they are not.
Are you somehow trying to argue that they aren't edges? Because, if so, I'll certainly grant you that. However, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are national borders marked out along the 4 edges of a square somehow impossible? Civs III and IV would seem to argue otherwise.
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.
Er, yeah. They really are. For this purpose, anyway.
Hexes have 6 corners and 6 edges, allowing movement into adjacent hexes in 6 directions (666 - ah!). Squares have 4 corners and 4 edges, allowing movement into adjacent squares in 8 directions. Thus, in this respect, squares work like tessellated octagons (which, if they existed, would have 8 corners and 8 sides and allow movement into adjacent octagons in 8 directions).
Unless you can come up with something better than "No, they aren't," I think we can call this one done.
Seriously, I'm not saying that squares are the absolute best thing, evar, and that Civ moving away from them is an abomination unto Nuggan. I'm merely pointing out that my first statement applies equally to hexes. The choice to use one over the other should be determined by the aesthetics and rules you want to use. You can write a coherent system which uses either.
Jesus stfu about hex vs squares already. Civ5 will have hexes, don't like it, don't buy the fucking game. You all are seriously dragging this thread from otherwise happiness about a new game into the realm of the unbelievably fucking retarded.
Jesus stfu about hex vs squares already. Civ5 will have hexes, don't like it, don't buy the fucking game. You all are seriously dragging this thread from otherwise happiness about a new game into the realm of the unbelievably fucking retarded.
Here's a hint - why don't you just skip the posts you don't like, silly goose? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read them? No? Then ignore them.
Earlier, someone mentioned the hexes doing a better job of handling the polar regions compared to the old Civ square tiles. Any elaboration on why that is?
Jesus stfu about hex vs squares already. Civ5 will have hexes, don't like it, don't buy the fucking game. You all are seriously dragging this thread from otherwise happiness about a new game into the realm of the unbelievably fucking retarded.
Here's a hint - why don't you just skip the posts you don't like, silly goose? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read them? No? Then ignore them.
Here's a hint, stop dumbing down this thread. You're shitting all over it with a stupid and fucking pointless argument and have been doing for 2 pages. Enough already. You think you're actually changing anyone's minds about the whole debate? People either like hexes or they, who the fuck cares. Try discussing the actual game instead of having a pedantic debate about something that in the long run means exactly jack and shit.
Try discussing the actual game instead of having a pedantic debate about something that in the long run means exactly jack and shit.
So, given that we know:
1. It's Civ.
2. It's made the change to hexes from squares.
... what would you like to discuss?
And, as far as dumbing down goes, you might want to, I dunno, actually read my posts instead of just ranting? Hmmm? There's actual game design theory there, stretching all the way back to where I answered a question on what the difference between hexes and squares actually works out to. So, yeah.
A little off track here, but how much is CIV 4 and all of it's expansions on Steam? It's unavailable in my region so I may like some help for someone to gift it to me and I can transfer the amount to him/her.
"Retarded" is no longer an acceptable insult. Please report to Tube for reconditioning.
I'm comparing, in this instance, hex-based movement to square-based movement in two cardinal directions - whether it's N-S or E-W doesn't matter. In half of the cardinal directions, hex-based movement has a movement penalty compared to square-based movement.
1. I didn't say you were retarded, I said your statement was retarded.
2. That's not what you did.
3. Square grids have a movement BONUS to diagonal directions. If you allowed hexes to move along non-facing paths, then guess what - then hexes are WAY faster.
Even Square grids are inefficient according to this example.
Certainly. I never said squares were perfect. I was, however, contesting your incorrect point that hexes had no movement penalties, and that squares are completely efficient in all 4 cardinal directions (which, to me at least, seem to be the most important ones). Then again, I also remember the "Fallout Waggle," so ...
Hexes DON'T have movement penalties. Movement between hexes is completely equal for all hex movement, which is the point. And saying that the four cardinal directions are the most important ones is true - FOR SQUARE GRIDS. You could easily also say that hexes are completely efficient in SIX directions, and so are demonstrably better there as well. The fact that there are four cardinal directions is predicated on a square grid layout - so of course square grids work better for it.
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.
Actually, this comment does not make a lot of sense to me. Either you can stand in a square and face NW, NE, SE, or SW, or you can't. Ergo, either the diagonals are facings, or they are not.
Are you somehow trying to argue that they aren't edges? Because, if so, I'll certainly grant you that. However, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are national borders marked out along the 4 edges of a square somehow impossible? Civs III and IV would seem to argue otherwise.
You didn't even read my response here, apparently, because it answers your objection. I cover your first paragraph specifically. Yes, here an edge is a facing, because we're talking about the grid itself, not a body inside the grid. And the reason why it's important for national borders is because it makes very little sense to say that (for example), an army in Arizona could march into Colorado without at all passing into Utah or New Mexico. Or that two armies can march for the same amount of time, and travel different distances (as you can do with diagonal movement). I'm not saying you can't make a game that does this (as the civ games obviously do), I'm saying that hexes do it better, and make more sense.
Square grids are effectively tesselated octagons, however.
They are not.
Er, yeah. They really are. For this purpose, anyway.
Unless you can come up with something better than "No, they aren't," I think we can call this one done.
If you refuse to accept reality, then yeah, there's not much more to say. Octagons aren't tesselated. Geometry teachers the world over are on my side. The way games handle it is a compromise sort of hack, which leads to certain inconsistencies like diagonal movement being faster than horizontal/vertical movment, and points of connection being the same as a long shared border.
Seriously, I'm not saying that squares are the absolute best thing, evar, and that Civ moving away from them is an abomination unto Nuggan. I'm merely pointing out that my first statement applies equally to hexes. The choice to use one over the other should be determined by the aesthetics and rules you want to use. You can write a coherent system which uses either.
And I'm saying none of the problems people have with hexes really exist. And I certainly think that square grid based games can be made, and can be good - but I see no reason to use them over hexes apart from the aesthetics of people who hate 'fallout waggle'.
Jesus stfu about hex vs squares already. Civ5 will have hexes, don't like it, don't buy the fucking game. You all are seriously dragging this thread from otherwise happiness about a new game into the realm of the unbelievably fucking retarded.
Here's a hint - why don't you just skip the posts you don't like, silly goose? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read them? No? Then ignore them.
Here's a hint, stop dumbing down this thread. You're shitting all over it with a stupid and fucking pointless argument and have been doing for 2 pages. Enough already. You think you're actually changing anyone's minds about the whole debate? People either like hexes or they, who the fuck cares. Try discussing the actual game instead of having a pedantic debate about something that in the long run means exactly jack and shit.
Calm down, geez. We're discussing the merits of certain game design decisions. You've shit on this thread more than anyone else so far. I'm sure once we hear more details, we'll argue about those too.
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.
I'm suprised that you use this argument to justify square tiles; if anything it actually justifies using a hex pattern, as using a cross makes this even worse. By spending 1 units of measurement diagonally in the old system, you're actually moving sqrt(2) distance units. Thus, in the old system, in 10 turns you could move 10 units east or west, or 10 x sqrt(2) = 14.1! units diagonally - thus, by moving N/S/E/W, you're actually only moving 71% of the total distance you could have moved.
With hexagons it looks less pretty to move in two of the cardinal directions, but it makes much much much more sense mathematically
"Retarded" is no longer an acceptable insult. Please report to Tube for reconditioning.
I'm comparing, in this instance, hex-based movement to square-based movement in two cardinal directions - whether it's N-S or E-W doesn't matter. In half of the cardinal directions, hex-based movement has a movement penalty compared to square-based movement.
1. I didn't say you were retarded, I said your statement was retarded.
Nevertheless ...
2. That's not what you did.
Er, yeah, I did. I did the math myself, so you can trust me on this one. Square grids cost 1 movement unit to move 1 square N-S-E-W, thus moving 2 squares N costs you 2 movement units and moves you 2 squares in your intended direction. Perfect efficiency.
3. Square grids have a movement BONUS to diagonal directions. If you allowed hexes to move along non-facing paths, then guess what - then hexes are WAY faster.
Only if you cost all squares equally. Many rules systems - D&D 3E, for example - do not. Diagonals cost 1-2-1-2, which, you'll notice, I mentioned earlier, as well. Others - Star Wars Miniatures - cost diagonals as worth 2 movement units, and therefore there's a movement PENALTY to diagonal directions. Still others - Descent - disallow diagonal movement entirely (which, most times, works out like them costing 2).
Hexes DON'T have movement penalties.
Yeah, they do - compared to an ideal, gridless system, hexes impose a penalty on 2 out of 4 cardinal directions. Squares impose no movement penalty on any cardinal direction.
Per earlier discussion, grid systems exist to make interfaces and rulesets simpler than free movement (e.g., it is easier to design an interface / ruleset which assigns 1 population point to a specific tile than it is to assign the same population point to an abritrarily-shaped amount of area).
Movement between hexes is completely equal for all hex movement, which is the point.
Again, a benefit of hexes. I'm not denying this.
And saying that the four cardinal directions are the most important ones is true - FOR SQUARE GRIDS.
Uh, no - it's also true for non-gridded movement; centuries of mapmaking cause us to think in those cardinal directions. People think in cardinal, then ordinal, then other - there's a reason that compas roses have 2, 4, or 8 spines, usually - and those which don't usually have 16.
You could easily also say that hexes are completely efficient in SIX directions, and so are demonstrably better there as well.
Certainly - the only issue, of course, being that 4 of those directions are NNW, NNE, SSW, and SSE (or, at least, are close enough for rough justice).
Again, pay attention: neither squares nor hexes are inherently superior methods of designing rulesets or interfaces. Both work tolerably well as abstractions of real-world, free-direction movement - the trick is designing your ruleset such that it works with your map abstraction.
The fact that there are four cardinal directions is predicated on a square grid layout - so of course square grids work better for it.
You didn't even read my response here, apparently, because it answers your objection. I cover your first paragraph specifically. Yes, here an edge is a facing, because we're talking about the grid itself, not a body inside the grid. And the reason why it's important for national borders is because it makes very little sense to say that (for example), an army in Arizona could march into Colorado without at all passing into Utah or New Mexico. Or that two armies can march for the same amount of time, and travel different distances (as you can do with diagonal movement). I'm not saying you can't make a game that does this (as the civ games obviously do), I'm saying that hexes do it better, and make more sense.
Okay - facing is, generally, a term used to describe the facing of an object on a grid. If you mean "edge," say "edge."
While it may not make sense for an army to be able to march into Colorado from Arizona without touching Utah or New Mexico, it similarly makes no sense for an army to be unable to march on Montreal from New York without visiting Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Both squares and hexes are abstractions, and neither is inherently superior.
Moreover, you seem to be stuck on a requirement that 1 square diagonally must always cost 1 movement unit. There are lots, and lots, and lots of square-gridded rulesets in which this is not the case. Ergo, it is not a productive line of argument.
If you refuse to accept reality, then yeah, there's not much more to say. Octagons aren't tesselated. Geometry teachers the world over are on my side. The way games handle it is a compromise sort of hack, which leads to certain inconsistencies like diagonal movement being faster than horizontal/vertical movment, and points of connection being the same as a long shared border.
*sigh* Take a step back. Consider what a set of tesellated octagons would allow if - and I said this before - it existed. Squares accomplish this - at least, close enough for abstraction's sake (and especially so when you drop your stubborn insistance on 1 square diagonal = 1 movement point cost).
And I'm saying none of the problems people have with hexes really exist.
Well, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. "I can't run in a straight line both north-and-south and east-and-west" is certainly a criticism of hexes, and it is certainly true. Similarly, "It takes me either one or two people to block a 1hex-wide corridor running N-S depending on where in the corridor I'm standing."
The most accurate system possible - non-abstracted movement, with 1 foot in any arbitrary direction = 1 foot's worth of movement point; free facing - is at one end of the spectrum. Abstracted movement systems will never be that efficient. Claiming, therefore, that hexes are perfect is silly goosery of the highest order.
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.
I'm suprised that you use this argument to justify square tiles; if anything it actually justifies using a hex pattern, as using a cross makes this even worse. By spending 1 units of measurement diagonally in the old system, you're actually moving sqrt(2) distance units. Thus, in the old system, in 10 turns you could move 10 units east or west, or 10 x sqrt(2) = 14.1! units diagonally - thus, by moving N/S/E/W, you're actually only moving 71% of the total distance you could have moved.
With hexagons it looks less pretty to move in two of the cardinal directions, but it makes much much much more sense mathematically
Ah - that's assuming that squares end up costing 1 regardless of direction. If, instead, diagonal squares we measured 1-2-1-2, like D&D 3E does, they'd be closer to ideal than 1-1-1-1.
Sure, previous Civs have had them all cost equal, but since they've changing the cost isn't a much, if any, bigger change than moving to hexes.
It's so awesome how they really waited until the time was just right for this announcement. They've got that shit under control, now swallow. I'll bet you $texas that it won't get delayed either.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Posts
It's because by not being tied down to real-world civilizations, you can get a lot more creative with tech/units/buildings/factions. For example, I liked how each faction was actually unique because you don't need to essentially clone civilizations to appease every real-world civilization out there.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Then there was the fact you could custom build your units based on the tech you've researched, MoO style.
It's been more than 10 years, right?
Know what's really fucked?
There's no god damned lean.
The unit building thing was one of the best parts about it. The solar power elevation thing was also great. So many great ideas, a little exploitable, but it was awesome.
Uh, no.
Certainly. I never said squares were perfect. I was, however, contesting your incorrect point that hexes had no movement penalties, and that squares are completely efficient in all 4 cardinal directions (which, to me at least, seem to be the most important ones). Then again, I also remember the "Fallout Waggle," so ...
That's certainly a benefit of hexes, yes. On the squares' side, though, they tend to work better for things like building interiors which, for some reason, we humans like to build in squares. Thus, a properly chosen square grid will beat a hex grid because it'll have fewer half-tiles.
Actually, this comment does not make a lot of sense to me. Either you can stand in a square and face NW, NE, SE, or SW, or you can't. Ergo, either the diagonals are facings, or they are not.
Are you somehow trying to argue that they aren't edges? Because, if so, I'll certainly grant you that. However, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are national borders marked out along the 4 edges of a square somehow impossible? Civs III and IV would seem to argue otherwise.
Er, yeah. They really are. For this purpose, anyway.
Hexes have 6 corners and 6 edges, allowing movement into adjacent hexes in 6 directions (666 - ah!). Squares have 4 corners and 4 edges, allowing movement into adjacent squares in 8 directions. Thus, in this respect, squares work like tessellated octagons (which, if they existed, would have 8 corners and 8 sides and allow movement into adjacent octagons in 8 directions).
Unless you can come up with something better than "No, they aren't," I think we can call this one done.
Seriously, I'm not saying that squares are the absolute best thing, evar, and that Civ moving away from them is an abomination unto Nuggan. I'm merely pointing out that my first statement applies equally to hexes. The choice to use one over the other should be determined by the aesthetics and rules you want to use. You can write a coherent system which uses either.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
or for that matter, would squares be better if they were rotated 45 degrees?
No, it just changes N-S inefficiency for E-W inefficiency - though it might end up looking better.
Nope - they'd just become perfectly efficient moving NW-NE-SW-SE instead of N-S-E-W, and would probably look weirder.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I welcome our new hexagonal overlords.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Here's a hint - why don't you just skip the posts you don't like, silly goose? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read them? No? Then ignore them.
Earlier, someone mentioned the hexes doing a better job of handling the polar regions compared to the old Civ square tiles. Any elaboration on why that is?
EDIT: Ah - found it.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Here's a hint, stop dumbing down this thread. You're shitting all over it with a stupid and fucking pointless argument and have been doing for 2 pages. Enough already. You think you're actually changing anyone's minds about the whole debate? People either like hexes or they, who the fuck cares. Try discussing the actual game instead of having a pedantic debate about something that in the long run means exactly jack and shit.
I also happen to have no opinion on the tiles the game is composed of. Because, you know, opinions.
So, given that we know:
1. It's Civ.
2. It's made the change to hexes from squares.
... what would you like to discuss?
And, as far as dumbing down goes, you might want to, I dunno, actually read my posts instead of just ranting? Hmmm? There's actual game design theory there, stretching all the way back to where I answered a question on what the difference between hexes and squares actually works out to. So, yeah.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
"Hexer" is the German name for The Witcher.
And we all know that Germans know their hexagons.
Hence this will be great. Empirical evidence right here
Independent states and cities. That seems pretty nifty.
Ooh - where's that from?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
1. I didn't say you were retarded, I said your statement was retarded.
2. That's not what you did.
3. Square grids have a movement BONUS to diagonal directions. If you allowed hexes to move along non-facing paths, then guess what - then hexes are WAY faster.
Hexes DON'T have movement penalties. Movement between hexes is completely equal for all hex movement, which is the point. And saying that the four cardinal directions are the most important ones is true - FOR SQUARE GRIDS. You could easily also say that hexes are completely efficient in SIX directions, and so are demonstrably better there as well. The fact that there are four cardinal directions is predicated on a square grid layout - so of course square grids work better for it.
You didn't even read my response here, apparently, because it answers your objection. I cover your first paragraph specifically. Yes, here an edge is a facing, because we're talking about the grid itself, not a body inside the grid. And the reason why it's important for national borders is because it makes very little sense to say that (for example), an army in Arizona could march into Colorado without at all passing into Utah or New Mexico. Or that two armies can march for the same amount of time, and travel different distances (as you can do with diagonal movement). I'm not saying you can't make a game that does this (as the civ games obviously do), I'm saying that hexes do it better, and make more sense.
If you refuse to accept reality, then yeah, there's not much more to say. Octagons aren't tesselated. Geometry teachers the world over are on my side. The way games handle it is a compromise sort of hack, which leads to certain inconsistencies like diagonal movement being faster than horizontal/vertical movment, and points of connection being the same as a long shared border.
And I'm saying none of the problems people have with hexes really exist. And I certainly think that square grid based games can be made, and can be good - but I see no reason to use them over hexes apart from the aesthetics of people who hate 'fallout waggle'.
They are also coming out with Sid Meier’s Civilization Network on Facebook.
So, yeah. I can play Civ even when I'm not at home. Someone tell my friends I will miss them.
Calm down, geez. We're discussing the merits of certain game design decisions. You've shit on this thread more than anyone else so far. I'm sure once we hear more details, we'll argue about those too.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html
I'm suprised that you use this argument to justify square tiles; if anything it actually justifies using a hex pattern, as using a cross makes this even worse. By spending 1 units of measurement diagonally in the old system, you're actually moving sqrt(2) distance units. Thus, in the old system, in 10 turns you could move 10 units east or west, or 10 x sqrt(2) = 14.1! units diagonally - thus, by moving N/S/E/W, you're actually only moving 71% of the total distance you could have moved.
With hexagons it looks less pretty to move in two of the cardinal directions, but it makes much much much more sense mathematically
Nevertheless ...
Er, yeah, I did. I did the math myself, so you can trust me on this one. Square grids cost 1 movement unit to move 1 square N-S-E-W, thus moving 2 squares N costs you 2 movement units and moves you 2 squares in your intended direction. Perfect efficiency.
Only if you cost all squares equally. Many rules systems - D&D 3E, for example - do not. Diagonals cost 1-2-1-2, which, you'll notice, I mentioned earlier, as well. Others - Star Wars Miniatures - cost diagonals as worth 2 movement units, and therefore there's a movement PENALTY to diagonal directions. Still others - Descent - disallow diagonal movement entirely (which, most times, works out like them costing 2).
Yeah, they do - compared to an ideal, gridless system, hexes impose a penalty on 2 out of 4 cardinal directions. Squares impose no movement penalty on any cardinal direction.
Per earlier discussion, grid systems exist to make interfaces and rulesets simpler than free movement (e.g., it is easier to design an interface / ruleset which assigns 1 population point to a specific tile than it is to assign the same population point to an abritrarily-shaped amount of area).
Again, a benefit of hexes. I'm not denying this.
Uh, no - it's also true for non-gridded movement; centuries of mapmaking cause us to think in those cardinal directions. People think in cardinal, then ordinal, then other - there's a reason that compas roses have 2, 4, or 8 spines, usually - and those which don't usually have 16.
Certainly - the only issue, of course, being that 4 of those directions are NNW, NNE, SSW, and SSE (or, at least, are close enough for rough justice).
Again, pay attention: neither squares nor hexes are inherently superior methods of designing rulesets or interfaces. Both work tolerably well as abstractions of real-world, free-direction movement - the trick is designing your ruleset such that it works with your map abstraction.
The fact that there are four cardinal directions is predicated on a square grid layout - so of course square grids work better for it.
Okay - facing is, generally, a term used to describe the facing of an object on a grid. If you mean "edge," say "edge."
While it may not make sense for an army to be able to march into Colorado from Arizona without touching Utah or New Mexico, it similarly makes no sense for an army to be unable to march on Montreal from New York without visiting Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Both squares and hexes are abstractions, and neither is inherently superior.
Moreover, you seem to be stuck on a requirement that 1 square diagonally must always cost 1 movement unit. There are lots, and lots, and lots of square-gridded rulesets in which this is not the case. Ergo, it is not a productive line of argument.
*sigh* Take a step back. Consider what a set of tesellated octagons would allow if - and I said this before - it existed. Squares accomplish this - at least, close enough for abstraction's sake (and especially so when you drop your stubborn insistance on 1 square diagonal = 1 movement point cost).
Well, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. "I can't run in a straight line both north-and-south and east-and-west" is certainly a criticism of hexes, and it is certainly true. Similarly, "It takes me either one or two people to block a 1hex-wide corridor running N-S depending on where in the corridor I'm standing."
The most accurate system possible - non-abstracted movement, with 1 foot in any arbitrary direction = 1 foot's worth of movement point; free facing - is at one end of the spectrum. Abstracted movement systems will never be that efficient. Claiming, therefore, that hexes are perfect is silly goosery of the highest order.
Ah - that's assuming that squares end up costing 1 regardless of direction. If, instead, diagonal squares we measured 1-2-1-2, like D&D 3E does, they'd be closer to ideal than 1-1-1-1.
Sure, previous Civs have had them all cost equal, but since they've changing the cost isn't a much, if any, bigger change than moving to hexes.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
i hope this runs on my crappy laptop
It's so awesome how they really waited until the time was just right for this announcement. They've got that shit under control, now swallow. I'll bet you $texas that it won't get delayed either.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
IIIII don't give a shit
IIIIIIIIII don't give a shit
Cause we'realltgoingtobuyitintheend! [/jungle fever]
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Physical copy or one that follows you to your death? Dillema.
Oh hey, Erfworld started up book 2. I love when I discover a comic I like has built up enough of a backlog not to be a blueball.