I'm kind'a bummed Elemental looks as if it will be using Squares other than Hexes. I know its following after Civ and MOM. Cid finaly got it right:
As you can see Hexes rounds everything out and create a smother and less block like world. Of corse this is a IMO thing.
Don't really care between square & hexes in the implementations I've seen, but...
....if the movement-point system is fancy enough, you could go with squares but have diagonals cost 1.4x more that horizontal or vertical. Or maybe 1.5 if you want the numbers to come out closer to even.
Hexes are great and provide much saner movement, but I think its too late at this point.
just my humble opinion:
it does NOT matter at all, if the game works with the system - so it is an very early design decision and now much to late to complain.
loved panzer general et all; still in love with civ IV
both used their system well and it feeled just right for the game
with Elemental being a new IP without an old legacy look and feel, I say choose whatever the devs want.
for civ V I am curious, because there players anticipate a certain look and feel, which might be missing in the game
Every time I see those screen shots it really makes me think about going and getting that game. I stopped after Civ 3, just only so much same old same old one can take. Though I have to admit that is beutiful.
OH OH OH OH OH HEXES RULE!
LIVE THEIR LIVES FROM INSIDE OF YOUR MIND
HIDE THEIR AWESOME WHEN YOU'RE GOOFIN AROUND
OH OH HEXES, ROCKIN THAT TOWN
UNLIKE THOSE SQUARES WITH THEIR LAMEO STYLE
YOU GIVE AN INCH BUT THEY MOVE A MILE
THEY NEVER SEEM TO GIVE QUITE ENOUGH
TO MAKE UP FOR ALL THEIR AWFUL SUCK
OH OH OH FROGGY BOY
WHAT'S A GAME MAN IF YOU NEVER LOSE
ASK A WINNER AND YOU'LL PROBABLY FIND
OH SQUARES, THEY'VE DROPPED EM SOME TIME
We're not arguing about Hex vs. Square. We're arguing about Hex vs. this:
Where the grey squares do not allow a change of direction and cost 0 to move through.
Because of diagonal movement, 'squares' are nonsensical and less tactical for it. Consider this: To completely surround a single tile in a squares-with-diagonals grid, it takes 8 more squares. In a hex honeycomb, it takes 6.
I'd like to underscore the previous post. This is the reason that every argument I've seen on this page in favor of squares over hexes (with the sole exception of "I like using right angles") is completely bogus, and that includes Frogboy's own. If we were actually talking about squares, they'd all be valid, but we're not. If diagonals are treated the same as orthagonals, every argument against hexes can be made more strongly against squares.
Square-root-of-two math on movement costs would fix some of the distance issues, but it still doesn't change the fact that I can make lines in two orientations on a square map which fully blockade passing units and expose only one face of each member of the blockade; whereas on a hex map I can do the same in three orientations. Furthermore, try drawing a circle (defined by boundary squares being equidistant in terms of movement points) on a free-diagonal square map, and then try it on a hex and tell me again which one simulates distances better. It's not what we're used to aesthetically, and yeah, it's a little harder to code; but it's the better method for this genre... unless some additional mechanics are brought into play.
Now, I know the investment in squares is pretty heavy now. Most of it could be retooled without as much effort as it seems, but the world generation code would be tough. So maybe something else can be done? Again, proper movement calculation for diagonals would be huge, and since movement points are already floating-point it's probably feasible. (That whole thing where 0.1 remaining movement can get you into a tile that costs 2 is probably counter-productive, though.) The other necessity would be diagonal interception, essentially removing the free diagonals if they are adjacent to a blocking unit or tile:
If you could do this, along with diagonal distance correction, I don't think I'd be so damn frustrated with squares.
wow this just got serious, and here i thought it was only cosmetic changes. Nerd POWER!
Heh. I'll use a city argument. Currently a single game tile can hold 4 buildings. How can you make that happen with Hexagons?
answer-> a more organic and less controlled interface.
I am assuming that either its harder to do or harder for the AI to understand ... but I'm starting to believe that the ACTUAL reason we use square tiles is because we think right angles look cleaner
and that cleanliness leads us to THINK its better, leads to more straight lines, etc. The fact is, that depending on Camera orientation ... on Hex maps it can "Seem" like you are forced to move diagonally whereas a square map will look basically the same no matter how you orient the squares.
^-for the people who think like this, its truly an Optical preference imho. Doesn't mean its any less valid of an argument though.
Also, I have this tiny feeling that Square maps are simple easier to make a game out of. I could be wrong, but it just feels "simpler" due to the lack of Alternating rows.
AS IN ... you can't have both straight Columns and straight rows. You can't have a straight line in both the X and Y axis ... hence the lack of right angles.
Edit: I think the main reason (many) people prefer squares is because you have straight lines on both Y and X axis. This is only possible because of right angles (I think).
These are, of course, all the same argument; and the counterargument to each of them is: "Hexes give you three straight lines, squares only give you two."
Mind you, I completely agree that at some level, simple aesthetic preference is part of what makes a game feel good or bad. Ironically enough, Sid recently commented that the reason the original Civilization wasn't done on hexes was that when it was released hex-based maps were strongly associated with tabletop war-gaming, which in turn had a reputation for taking five hours to even set up, and longer to play, and he wanted to avoid that association. Of course, they used hex maps because of exactly the reasons we hex-floggers are flogging, and Sid recognized that from the get-go, and "Are we switching to hexes yet?" has apparently been a design question for each revision of Civ.
(Civ3 even went halfway there: from an implementation standpoint, those stretched diamonds could have been turned into hexes by disabling the horizontal corner movement. New tile graphics and voila.)
Why not get rid of hexes and squares all together. Make movement like warhammer 40k (the board game) or Total War's map screen.
- Othello
my argument, of course, is that the straight lines on square grids are more aethetically pleasing.
It always annoyed me in Hex maps that while I could move forwards, if I wanted to side-step it was impossible.
Or, alternatively, if I was moving to the side, if I wanted to move "directly" forward it was impossible.
Squares also have straight lines while going diagonal. AKA squares have 4 straight lines, each one having a 90 degree counterpart.
Meaning that its MUCH SIMPLER and no matter which direction you are moving forwards, you always sidestep. of course, you can only make 8 movements from a square tile (the 4 corners and the 4 sides).
Another way of saying this is that it is impossible to turn 90 degrees.
Of course, I vastly prefer NO TILES ... but I find Hexes to be an acquired taste.
Heh, well it seems like the new Civ V IS a table top wargame. 1 unit per tile, etc.
meanwhile, in Civ I-III and Elemental ... you have a single tile containing a giant army. And that giant army can't move in all 4-8 cardinal directions?
I will agree with you that any Fire Emblem/ Advanced Wars/ FF Tactics/ or like minded games should* use Hexes though.
*-(they don't, but maybe they should)
Since everybody is using the same mechanics, it's not an advantage to any player. That being said, I enjoy both grids, and am I get to play both based on what games choose. I would be as unhappy if all games changed to hex as I would be if all games changed to squares.
As for the strategy games like Fire Emblem and such, I think most that I've played have used squares, instead of hexes. However, off the top of my head I also think most of those only let you move in cardinal directions, and a diagonal was considered 2 moves.
I used to dislike hexes as I found them less aesthetically pleasing but now I'm pretty sure I prefer them to squares. Far too late to do anything in Elemental though I'm aware. Very curious to see how i find this in Civ5, along with the one-unit-per-tile. Hoping it does away with Civ's stacks-of-doom.
As a side-note, why all the love for 2n-gons? I hereby request a grid made up of pentagons! That'll baffle the noobs! Besides, it's more realistic. I don't know about you but in my country everybody uses a pentagonal grid. I find it makes things more interesting when I'm walking down a dark alley. Also in races etc, I have to keep an eye on my use of movement points.
Eh, you can move in 6 directions on a Hex, or in 8 directions on a square.
Its not that hexes aren't better for organizing space, but I like the variety of choice.
It should be necessary, however, to make diagonal moves cost 1.5 movement imho.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
