This is really a question for Brad I suspect as it's tied most closely to the AI. Why does Elemental (and GalCiv for that matter) uses a square grid rather than a hex grid?
Hexes seem to make a lot more sense as they approximate distance more consistently. Square grids lead to unequal movement speed as you effectively move faster along a diagonal than you do vertically or horizontally. In addition to inequities of movement, there is also the visual component. Range is harder to visually estimate as it appears much greater towards the corners as it does towards the sides of the square. For this reason, I leave the grid visible in GalCiv2 even though I'd prefer to play with it off.
While any grid of course is a rounded-off approximation of the space it is representing, hexes are arguably a better representation of 2D space and therefore I'd assume a better system to use.
Anyway, I'm sure my point is clear and any strategy gamer (is there any other type of person reading these forums? knows the difference between them.
So why stick with squares? Too much code invested in the AI based on a square grid? Or, some other reason that hasn't occured to me? Do tell...
Best of luck with Elemental! I'm as excited and eager as the rest to see this game come to fruition. Cheers, -J.
well, I'm not about to answer for him, but I still want to comment based on my own experiance. Hexes are so much harder to create than squares I think. Also, hexes are only 50% bettar than squares, you run into the exact same inaccacies when you try to go any direction that isn't one of the faces. You gain the power to make 30 degree turns at the loss of the ability to make 90 degree right turns. So I wouldn't say its that much more accurate of representation, it only has 2 more direction choices.
I personally like squares more, just because its easier to line things up, and I'm a little OCD about that kind of thing.
Yeah man, who doens't like right angles?!.. if it isn't a RIGHT angle it's a WRONG angle!!!
Only as long as diagonal movement has the same path cost as movement in the 4 base directions (up, down, left, right - sorry, I don't know the word for it, I'm not a native english speaker). If you assign different cost to diagonal movement, it can be quite ok I think.
Consider a square with a side a=1. The diagonal would be a * sqrt(2). Or just sqrt(2) in this case. So the side/diagonal ratio is 1.41(...). Many games don't bother with that much accuracy and just make horizontal/vertical movement cost 1, the same as diagonal.
Floating point arithmetic has disadvantages compared to integer arithmetic, not to mention it's inconvenient for player to add 1.41 in his head. But there's a really close approximation with small integers: diagonal costs 7 points, horizontal/vertical costs 5 points. 7/5 = 1.4. So with my approximation it takes 100 diagonal moves to produce 1 square of difference from reality.
Hexes are better at games with a much larger scale like fantasy general where units travel large distances over land before fighting. In more "tactical" battle spaces squares are superior.
I believe the octagon shape would be the best of both worlds.
This is one of those decisions which must be done by developers during the extreme early stages... even now whatever has been decided most likely cannot be changed.
But octagons don't tesselate
That was my immediate thought... and I'm too lazy to check so I'm gonna just trust Tamren
They wouldn't need to for maps which wrap around.
For maps which don't wrap... it seems better having more of a rounded corner as compared with a definite corner.
What about my favorite? The dodecahedron?
They mean that if you take a lot of octagons and place them in a nice pattern you will have gaps in your map And this is a fantasy game, Black Holes are for GalCiv2
- - / \ / \| O | O | \ / \ / - G - / \ / \| O | O | \ / \ / - -
Here, the Os are the Octagons, and the G is the gap in between. So that's a no-go
yeah, I'm totally confused how we are expected to wrapping solve the lack of tesselation in octagons for the above stated reason. That being said, we could have a complex over-lapping system (where octagons overlap each other, i.e. put another octagon over every 'G' as seen in piderman's diagram so that the diagnols of each octogon passes through the centers of the adjascent octogons.) to create the best system! again though, programming would be a pain in the butt.
Hexagons just look cooler.
The octagon shapes allow logical movement in any main direction. Otherwise you'd have to move 1 square forward and 1 square sideways for moving diagonal when using squares.
In any case this is one of the earliest decisions made for game creation so any discussion is extremely unlikely to make a difference.
Interesting replies.
I assumed that the octagon comment was made in jest as they obviously don't tesselate. In 2D they are really just squares with the corners cut off but function identically.
B0rsuk's comment about keeping a square grid but calculating movement based on real distance (e.g. moving on a diagonal costs sqrt(2) per square) is interesting but I agree with him that in a grid-based game this is too confusing for players. In a grid game we all assume 1 grid cell = 1 unit of distance in all cases and this is something that should stay as it is.
Landisarus noted that hexes are "only 50% better than squares". In my OP, I acknowledged that *any* grid system (hex or square) is of course only an approximation (which is in fact why they are useful in the first place) of the space it represents. But why not approximate it as closely as possible? Hexes tesselate and are more accurate than squares. Yes, you have to zig-zag to move in certain directions. But you have to do that with *any* grid - square as well. And even with zig-zagging you get less distortion of disance in general. Overall, they are just able to represent the underlying 2D space more accurately.
Now, what I do acknowledge is that often it is just easier *by convention* to think in terms of left/right forward/back and in that way squares can be better suited in some cases *where there is a clear forward direction*. This usually occurs when you are lined up against an singular objective as reference (say assaulting a city wall or crossing a river). But when this is not the case (which is generally true of strategy games where cities, units, etc. are all over the place) and you need to consider movment in an omni-directional manner. I still argue that hexes make more sense.
Anyway, I'd like to stress again this is just my $0.02 and I bring it up just as a point of interest for future consideration. I'm happy enough with squares and confident Elemental will play just fine with them. But I can still wish that they'll consider hexes for future projects - right?
Thanks for the input everybody. Cheers, -J.
I think you've misrepresented my stance. I was trying to say that it would be confusing if player was forced to add numbers like 1.41 and 1. 7 and 5 are still quite accurate and easy to add for anyone knowing the multiplication table. I think 7 and 5 are the best compromise. For computers 7 and 5 is likely to be a good choice because float arithmetic is slower than integer arithmetic, not to mention lack of rounding errors.
The whole point of grid-based system is that it should be reasonably easy to calculate for humans. It's easy to see at a glance how much distance it is. That's why many strategy and logic games use grid. RTS games don't use grid, but I don't think anyone considers RTS games proper strategy games (half-serious).
I prefer hex for movement, but in formation combat it's a real pain in the ass. It's also terrible for designing empires, straight roads squiggle back and forth as if they were natural features instead of efficiency systems.
I reserve hex preference for tactical combat games, the more complex ones just create other annoyances that far outweigh the minor improvement that comes from the square conversion.
My apologies b0rsuk if I did not paraphrase you well. I was just trying to quickly sum up the general issue where movement costs would be different depending whether you are moving orthogonally or diagonally, without getting into the specifics.
I do realize that you were suggesting representing these different costs as best fit integers (7 and 5) rather than as floating points values (sqrt(2) and 1) to ease certain calculations. But, regardless of the numerical representation, the very fact that the movement cost on a square grid would not be consistent for all directions is confusing. It also causes problems with unit speed. For a unit that would have had a movement speed of 1, what would it's movement speed be with the integer system? 5 or 7? You'd end up with unit speeds based loosely around multiples of 5 or 7 which would also get confusing. Even though the distances are expressed as integers rather than floats the concept is the same and it leads to unnecessary complication.
Where I was suggesting that you and I agree is that the point of using a grid system is to make things easier, both for humans and AI. Where we also agree is that you should be able to estimate distance at a glance. In my OP this is why I suggested hexes over squares as there is less distortion of distance.
Simply put: If you were to turn off the grid and just look at two units and estimate the distance between them, you'd be more accurate more often with hexes than squares. That really is my only point.
Cheers.
P.S. I'm also with ya on TBS vs RTS. My vote is for smart thinking over quick thinking anyday
What if we did use octagons but scrapped the grid. Think of it this way, you stand in the middle of the octagon. 1 point of movement will take you to the edge of any face on the octagon. You have 8 directions to move in and one movement point will make you travel the exact same distance no matter which direction you pick. Once you have moved you place down another octagon at which point you can pick another face to move towards or simply keep going in the same direction.
This allows for 8 directional grid-like movement and homogenizes the distance you can travel per effort spent. This dodges of the problem of people moving farther if they pick a diagonal vector.
The only sticky point is when two entities meet. The edges of thier "tiles" would probably never mesh together exactly. But we never pretended that this was an actual grid system. So when two octagons overlap the two entities are then in contact and can act against each other.
The difference between having a grid and using pure positional logic is a massive increase in resources. Faking an octagonal grid just for the hell of it would be nutty.
What's funny about this thread is that there may not even be a grid in tactical combat.
With all the reference to Total War Brad did, it wouldn't surprise me if combat was simply done a gridless mesh, with no restriction whatsoever. (Note : The screenshot with the dragon getting hit by lightning, which show the combat being done on a grid, shouldn't have been released according to Brad, so it's not much of an argument in favor of the grid.)
I see the confusion here...
I was referencing the movement grid = octagon
Another was mentioning the map appearance grid = squares
These do not have to be identical.
This is just a discussion of grids in general, not just on the tactical level.
But, that said, personally I hope a grid is used for the tactical portion too. I realize there are arguments for both sides but I prefer them in TBS. Total War has lovely visuals but I don't like the tactical combat myself. It feels like I'm herding cats and often get frustrated that my units aren't behaving as I want them to.
With TBS I really prefer grids on both the strategic and tactical levels. RTS (which admittedly I'm not a big fan of) I think is better suited without grids. I'm a little concerned about Brads Total War comments as I hope they don't compromise TBS control for RTS animation/visuals. Call me old fashioned but I hope the tactical is more similar to HoMM/AoW than TW.
Pausing RTS is *not* the same as TBS but I'm pulling my own thread off topic and will save that for another discussion
I'm confused, I think most of the discussion was about the tactical map. Its pretty clear they at least started with squares
Even for the battlefield map... The battlefields movement grid = octagonThe battlefields appearance grid = squares These do not have to be identical... thus allowing more strategic movements.
Do you mean you can move diagonally off a square? If not, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean
This sounds interesting but has a little problem. Say you stand in the middle of an octagon and move a distance of d to one side. Now if you go diagonally you will also move a distance of d. However, broken down in distance along the x and y axis that is d/sqrt(2) each, which is not a rational number. Meaning, unless you come back to the place you started you will never be able to reach a particular other spot by two different routes. So two units, standing in different places will not have a coinciding movement 'grid'. So that would need some extra work in the form of 'collision' detection because units will never be on the exact same spot
One could of course fix this by using hexes erm I mean of course Equilateral trianges Because these have inner angles of 60 degrees, if you move diagonally and then over the opposing diagonal you will be on the same spot as had you moved in a straight direction.
Such difficulties! Let's go traditional and use squares
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
