Here we are in our third version of Galactic Civilizations. I figured maybe we could ditch grids completely. But they do have some use.
Hexes, on the other hand, though having some use, create really silly situations that look down right stupid. For instance, my colony ship is moving to the southern end of the map. On a grid, in the previous games, the ship made a clean arc to the proper rank and then moved in a straight path to the destination.
On the hex-grid, however, the colony ship snakes back and forth every hex, completely destroying any immersion, unless you just happen to be on the perfect rank.
Perhaps it's a back-end thing? Couldn't you use an UI overlay each time you click on a ship to show it's possible range in an arc (with the option to turn it off)?
Couldn't we just measure, like in sandbox style, tabletop gaming, from point to point?
I really cannot stress just how bad Gal Civ III look on a hex-grid.
Captain Tolan T. Grimm
Would you prefer a 1 que system for building structures and ships, or move to two que system of building ships and structures. I find that the starport is designed for later game mechanics. It gives you a distance star port in which to build your armada and collect supplies from several planets vs. just planet. It gives the ability to build a lot of ships and have multiple planets support one building location within their solar system.
Say we colonize mars successfully and earth. Which planet should we build ships on? Which would provide the better ship support? If we are building ships around earth, then we would ship supplies from mars to get to earth to build ships. Wouldn't it be better to move the starport in a more central location so as to build ships in the middle of space and collect goods from both planets. As we colonize more moons / planets, the ability to move the starport to a more empire central location seems like a more logical option. It allows one to build a large fleet of ships (at least I find it so in my games).
I think strategically the starports are a great addition to the game, especially when late game comes around and you wish you could build ships 50 hexes closer to the enemy than you have the ability to. Or that newly colonized planet would produce decent ships nearby. With the starport it is possible to do such an idea. I'm hoping that it helps with the late game, I win by conquest, now make the computer believe that I did end game. Invading all the remaining planets does get rather tedious especially when you know they cannot recover.
So, far I've found that I produce quite a few ships in my empire by using that starport. I for one like the new addition to the game. So far I've not found too much flaw with them yet. But then the AI has not been implemented.
While using real distance as OP suggests would be awesome, it is much more complicated. As long as we have a grid I much prefer hex to square for all the reasons others have already mentioned. Also, especially in a space strategy game I think the hexes just look so much better.
I agree, Hexes in space are absolutely horrible , immersion breaking and make it feel flat and scripted map .
^Your funny.
While I do love the Hexicon grids and it is great for combat as well as other things in TBS an Octagon grid would be fantastic. Count me in
Now square grinds are good for general mapping such as mapping a building or dungeon in Dungeons and Dragons or other RPG however combat should be on a hex map.. That is how we do it in D&D. We use a Hex battlemat when whe do battles and use squres to map out the dungeons..
I always perfer my hex grid on in any game I play. Because it has more of a game feeling which I like. I know most my friends perfer to turn the grinds off in games we play like AOW3, CIV5 Warlock etc.
Well for one with a TBS game they just look better and you don't have to have special rules for moving diagonally. Hexes are also better if you use facing rules in combat.
No one is suggesting switching our coordinate system which really has nothing to do with this game disgustion.
A lot of the facing rules for squares can be taken care of by the use of octagons. There are 8 faces and gives more gradation. The usage here is that squares provide a nice tessellation, in combat, it could easily switch to placing an octagon around the individual to indicate the different faces, we do not need to be trapped using a single polygon for our immersion. The hexagon grid just looks like a skewed brick pattern to me. It doesn't provide any better immersion or look for myself. I don't think that the graphical map behind the map should necessarily adhere to the hexagonal grid pattern.
There will be no changes to the hexagonal map in this game anyway and I'm not for one system over another for the purposes of game play. There are limitations to both that can be exploited or can become an annoyance. When I look at dungeons and such I prefer squares, when it comes to overland maps and open areas, hexagons tend to be a nice flavor. If it comes down to space combat, I'd prefer 3 dimensions. But I think the 3 dimensions would have to come with a technology change for computers.
I do find it interesting that although space is 3 dimensional galaxies tend to be more 2 dimensional in look and shape. Thus, a good model for a galaxy space game is 2d.
We have no plans to implement a 3D map in GalCiv, sorry. If that is a critical feature for you, you may want to try other games instead."
posted by Kyro in a similar thread.
I'm wishing the dev's could confirm that Stardock is sticking with Hexes no matter what; then I would seriously think about asking for my money back and just play *Twilight*.
Lol, George, there is no refunds!
See a couple of post up. I'm all for Octagons. Just not for squares. Yes a square can have 8 sides but in a TBS game it just looks bad and killes the immersion for me. But yes Octagons are the perfect solution but if it is not going to be Octagons then I'll take a Hex.
In my opinion, hexes are always better than squares for any wargame. The greater amount of options available for movement, combat, and placement of stuff in general can't be beat. Now, octagons would be interesting.
Hexes are superior in games of tactical combat, doing battle with individual units where distance and facing direction matter, like Battletech. But GC and other TBS grand strategy games are not games of tactical combat. It's completely irrelevant what the shapes of the tiles are. It's really just cosmetic.
Are The Devs that bored with this topic "The_Gear" ?
i don't care as long as movement and combat is represented in an eye pleasing form.
Movement isn't right now, but somewhere here i read it is being considered WIP. And we are still in alpha, so i am ok with it atm.
edit: 'is'
You don't change the playing field mid-development, that's my .02 cents.
Of course you change the playing field in mid-development,when you're in alpha stage, especially if you're going in the wrong direction. I mean how much of a game have we really got at the moment ? A little bit of AI, stuck in War-Mode, and I'm sure there must be something else but I can't remember what !
At least now I know you're trolling.
Hmmm...yes let's remake the entire system to a format most likely unfamiliar with SD best AI programmer frogboy. Or maybe we can add a entire FPS into ground combat!
Really, do you have the beta? Because every program would have to be reworked to accommodate the 3D and some things like the AI would not work to well. Mainly because I don't think they teach 3D TBS programming in college, and to do it in a few months would be near impossible for even the most creative...like solving a rubics cube. (lost many hours on those.)
Its not that cost is my concern but believing or imaging this is difficult given how nearly impossible this is. IMHO.
DARCA.
Come on! This is fun to read!
I agree the snakey thing looks weird but honestly if it's one "bug" that never gets fixed I'm not going to be particularly concerned. And who knows? Maybe in the 2200s (if we're that developed) spaceships will move like that. Maybe they could add something like how your battleship crew have developed spaceshipsickness from zigzagging across to the Drengin planets and can someone else protect the transports please while we barf?...
It is not for you to decide what is the wrong or right direction for the game. Considering the unbelievable success that was GalCiv2 i would guess they are very well on the right track.
Are you just trolling because you wasted $100 on a game without doing any research about it?
I was just trying to point out to everyone that the game is very much in early Alpha stage therefore it should be easier to make changes now rather than when it gets to beta stage. The thing that I forgot the game has, at the moment, is the game engine and the starship-workshop, also perhaps a quarter of the Tech-tree. I can't see that pointing out such stuff is trolling and I am not criticizing the devs and their leaders for only rolling out one feature at a time. It's just that I was expecting more from a 3-rd generation game rather than what now appears to be emerging as more of an expansion pack as regards new features. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as anyone else and will continue to highlight when someone makes a generalisation and declares it a cast-iron law.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
