Hex grid much better than square grid..

Whatever...this argument is brought out everytime a Civ-like game uses squares. I've read it a hundred times on this forum and every other TBS game forum. Most people have heard both sides of the argument. You could also use squares and have the diagonals cost 1.5 and still be able to travel on all cardinals (which you can't on hexes). The short answer once the dust settles is that it really isn't all that important.

It's unimportant, but so is cardinal travel. Squares are simply easier to code, which is why they're almost exclusively used.

Since the GalCiv2 map is not trying to recreate an actual map of somewhere, using real distances and travel time, I think it's irrelevant. As another poster pointed out, it makes coding a lot easier to use squares as well.

Tony

and since they dont spend time coding hexagons they spend more time coding in better ai which on intelligent will still kill me even when i think im about to win....

influence victory is only 3 turns away... hey wait a minute whats that on the sensor? is that a ship? and are those troop moduals... WERE UNDER ATTCK PLZ NO AHHH!!!

Actually, I've never turned the grid on, so I really don't care what shape the 'bits o' space' are. I move my ships around, things explode. I'm happy.

Actually, I've never turned the grid on, so I really don't care what shape the 'bits o' space' are. I move my ships around, things explode. I'm happy

I hope they are some else's ships exploding!



Tony

I would have much prefered a hex map for the exact reason of distance traveled. Square grids, though not the best representation of distance, are pretty much standard now though.

Won't happen. It's because of the bending of space with HyperDrive that squares are used, you know?

Reading some of the above posts I wonder how it is possible that mankind invented wheel.
Why bother with wheels, squares do the job well enough

If this were a more tactical game, I'd also push for a hex-map, 'coz I'm a big fan of those. I don't think they're really necessary here, though.

The board wargame industry (which used to love the hexes for everything) has been moving away from hex-based games for strategic level games. The point-to-point system popularized by "We The People" is now the dominant scheme in new strategic level titles.

Hexes aren't really much better as they are also a crude approximation and make for non-intuitive paths also. (Zig-zagging to go against the grain). They aren't significantly more difficult to implement.

Any tile-based system has problems that most professional game designers know intimately (I'm sure Brad knows all the pros and cons of squares vs hexes).

The one huge advantage of the current system over hexes is that the trade route paths look cool.

For a space based game (especially one like GC2 where there are no areas that cost more than others to travel through), I contend tiles for movement should be ditched. You could have them travel vector based through space and use actual math to determine straight-line paths. (This is not a new idea by any means - quite a few games have done this)

BTW, Axis and Allies uses an area based movement system, which is equivalent to a node based point-to-point system and not hex-based.

Well, I must say I am surprised by the hostility of some posts....
I've been reading forums for, oh, 10 years at least, and never seen a discussion of it, but then of course I know that such discussions have been had, and I just missed out.

For the rest of you, very informative... I stand corrected on the Axis and Allies thing.... its been a long time but I could swear remembering hexes on the map. (Which is why we should get rid of the death penalty.. witneses suck )

I guess horizontal movement would be a little less than perfect, but it would at least represent an accurate distance.

I really like the idea of not having a grid at all and using math to measure the distances, thats a great idea!

Still, I will go hid in my cave of shame for bringing up a topic discussed by milions before me, my bad.
Maybe I will go look for another GC forum where questions are not viewed as insults just because they have been asked before.
I just dont feel my interests and questions are welcome.

Well, I must say I am surprised by the hostility of some posts.... I've been reading forums for, oh, 10 years at least, and never seen a discussion of it, but then of course I know that such discussions have been had, and I just missed out. For the rest of you, very informative... I stand corrected on the Axis and Allies thing.... its been a long time but I could swear remembering hexes on the map. (Which is why we should get rid of the death penalty.. witneses suck ) I guess horizontal movement would be a little less than perfect, but it would at least represent an accurate distance. I really like the idea of not having a grid at all and using math to measure the distances, thats a great idea! Still, I will go hid in my cave of shame for bringing up a topic discussed by milions before me, my bad. Maybe I will go look for another GC forum where questions are not viewed as insults just because they have been asked before. I just dont feel my interests and questions are welcome.

? ? ? ? I didn't take anyone's reponse as hostile. You brought up an intersting point, and lots of folks gave counter points. I thought it was a good discussion. I hope you stick around here. Remember, it's always hard to gauge emotion when reading a forum, but as I said, I didn't see anyone putting you down or being hostile.

Tony

Eh, your right...almost all the posts were informative and ... at least nuetral in flavor. I guess I read it wrong.
Reading it a second time it doesnt sound so much like "your an idiot for posting this over discussed question" like it seemed the first time I read it.


Double my bad....

At the current scale the cartesian grid distorts your perception of distance. Seems to me the problems could be solved with a 1.414 multiplier on diagonal moves combined with much smaller squares and in turn higher ship movement rates. I think if the mesh were small enough the cell shape would not matter. In the current design with some ships that only move 1 or 2 squares the cell shape problems are more pronounced than if your mesh were sized such that the minimum movement rates were say 10 squares per week.