What the fuck is the point of hexes?

What the fuck is the point of hexes?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map#Advantages_and_disadvantages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnetz
youtube.com/watch?v=2s4TqVAbfz4
store.steampowered.com/app/280720
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why are Civ 4 fags so insufferable?

I hate board games that are made in hexagons.

Homm3

they look cool.

There's a reason why uncool people are called "squares", you square.

But it's hip to be square.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map#Advantages_and_disadvantages

More freedom of movement.

They allow you to move diagonally without distorting the move distance. If you move diagonally on a square grid, the diagonal distance is longer than horizontal or vertical

>8 directions to go
>6 directions to go
The fuck are you onto senpai

hex grids are awesome for music theory

What, never played hexxagon?

Makes movement and spacing more meaningful as your options are more limited.

what the fuck am I looking at

diagonals aren't allowed

...

This

Wouldn't an octagon work better?

Ehm wut

Diagonal is a longer distance on the left

I think it maybe has something to do with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnetz

...

You can't connect octagons in a grid

Try making a grid with only octagons.

more accurate distances when moving at angles when compared to a square grid.

With computer gaming hexes are pretty much obsolete outside turn-based games.

But more sides = more good

So it solves a non-problem (slight difference in traveled distance) by introducing much less natural grid where your character zogzag around like retarded bees? Great

This is a very false equivalence

I wanted to so triangle utilize like so. Unsung Story was gonna finally allow me to do that.

Then unsung straight up belly up.

I didn't kickstart it, but it a damn same all the same

Have a grid with TINY little circles and see how that works

Here are the choices:
1. Use a square grid with diagonal travel, and be forced to deal with annoying inconsistencies (e.g., "every other space costs 2 movement points") between diagonal and left-right-up-down movement
2. Use a square grid without diagonal movement, and be forced to travel a lot of extra distance when you want to go in a diagonal direction
3. Use a hexagonal grid, and be forced to travel a LITTLE extra distance when you want to go in a "diagonal direction"

Hexagons are better.

But you can't grid them up so for games hexagons are pretty much your max upper limit.

I suppose you could do it with multiple shapes or like Penrose tiles or something but that would be fucking retarded and play incredibly shittily and basically ruin the point of having more sides

*damn shame all the same

make a circle grid then

>slight difference in traveled distance
The difference isn't slight you shitposter

Circles only have one side

youtube.com/watch?v=2s4TqVAbfz4

>distance to 6 surrounding is the same in hex
> desirable for games in which the measurement of movement is a factor

Not a factor in CIV because its not counted by distance, but number of "boxes"

>The other advantage is the fact that neighbouring cells always share edges; there are no two cells with contact at only one point

Hardly a factor in CIV because the left and right are connected to each other. So it only matters in that you cant attack from the north if a troop is on the top left or top right corner. Matters fucking never.

Can you really argue with something as awesomely organic-looking as pic related?

>its not counted by distance, but number of "boxes"
Dumbest thing I've read ever since this

They have two actually

Inside and outside makes two you fucking moron

Explain how that would have any negative effect on a game. Also, you're fundamentally wrong when it comes to turn-based games. In TB games the concept of 'distance between squares' in meaningless, since 1 square is the smallest possible distance to begin with, so "travelling time difference" doesn't exist.
In real time games its more noticable, but there's are ways out. For example in Dorf Fort things move vertically/horizontally faster than diagonally
Distance might

Dorf Fort is not turn-based

I think technically circles have no sides or infinite sides.

What do you mean "inside and outside"? Do square have 8 sides as well?

>muh stacks

Do you see any cops around?

>Not a factor in CIV

all I can see is tons of diangles

Whats your point here?

Then you're shit.

I see each space conjoined by half a space and sectioned by a quarter space.
2 layers.

They had to cut out the corners to balance the distances, you don't see that in Civ 5

Retarded I have to explain to you why it's not an issue, you missed a few pink boxes there son. Each of them is 1 or 2 steps.

Having diagonal movement cost the same as horizontal or vertical movement invalidates hor/vert movement entirely because diagonal is the optimal way to move to get anywhere, not counting 1 tile thin stretches of land.

>you missed a few pink boxes there son
I didn't miss anything, that's actually how the city working radius works in Civ 4

C'man nobody is this retarded, stop it.

>diagonal
>one step>

Yes, you successfully identified the problem that diagonal movement covers √2 times more distance. You're starting to get it.

CIV5 SUCKS DICK

If you restrict movement like that by only allowing N NE E SE S SW W NW, then you can count it as one step and it is still faired

Then they fucked it up, Thanks sid

>you missed a few pink boxes there
>mfw Civ 4 fags don't even know their own game

That's the fucking point they dont count in distance its all in amount of cells, have you even played the game before they went hex?

suddenly you realize why hexes are used

>have you even played the game
I don't know, have you?

thats where they fucked up, it needs the 4 extra corner squares and then allow movement in number of cells, not distance, thats the fix
wouldve fixed this shit after first semester in CS college unlike those dumbass developers they have workign there apparantly

nigga u retarded

...

>But more sides = more good

There's a good reason everything in computer geometry is tessellated, user.

Look at , the fact they are using hexagons is because they are formed by... regular triangles.

Triangles, man. The harsh rulers of the polygonal world.

>6 moves

versus

>4 moves

That's not a slight difference.

Because they count movement in cells, moving diagonally is inherently superior to moving horizontally and vertically, there is no reason to ever move your units on the horizontal or vertical plane unless you are forced to by terrain.

Squares are made from triangles too

So are circles

you stupid nigger
if its allowed to move diagonally at the same cost as vertically or horizontally it would break the games movement balance in a sense that moving diagonally will always be better than horizontally or vertically. That means you DOUBLE the distance you can go if you move diagonally compared to vertically or horizontally. Its retarded and you are retarded.

Meanwhile in Civ 5, NO corners are cut because every hex that is three tiles away from the city is the same distance away from the city anyway

Hexes are superior

Only if it's a low poly circle like an octagon

...

>That means you DOUBLE the distance you can go if you move diagonally compared to vertically or horizontall
Someone flanked these geometry classes

Equilateral triangle only applies

Cost wise it does you faggot.
read that shit again.

One song doesn't make it hip

Why not something like this?

>That means you DOUBLE the distance you can go
But you don't you fucking moron, because the distance in a game counts in squares, not miles.
kys

...

I think tilings where every tile is the same are easier to program.

Aesthetically, I like square grids better, because games that use hexagons for terrain (especially islands) end up making terrain features look like a blobby mess.

The "diagonal distance is larger" is a non-issue. It's a (likely) turn-based game in the first place, so there's already some notion of space and time being abstracted away.

More connectivity is also good; probably the biggest bonus of square grid over hexes.

Not regular ones.

That's the sole reason they don't work. Heck, you can even make a map out of regular triangles only (can't remember any game that does this ATM, though).

>natural grid
explain natural grid, what is natural grind

This is (in terms of graphs and topology) equivalent to a square grid, though (except at the black boundaries).

that's functionally a square tiling mate

Actually...
store.steampowered.com/app/280720

But what if you can move on both the squares and the octogons instead of one or the other?

That makes sense, but the added complexity might be worth it if it feels better to play?

What about decagons?

This. The game is already being discretized in space (and likely time as well, as most grid-based games are also turn-based), so why the fuck does it matter if distances are the usual Euclidean distance?

Please stop, I can only get so erect

>But what if you can move on both the squares and the octogons instead of one or the other?
You mean the other way around? Yes, if your movement is limited to only octagons, then it's not equivalent to a square grid, but rather a square grid where diagonals aren't allowed.

But if you let the player move on both octagons and squares, then it is equivalent to a square grid with diagonal movement allowed.

Hexes are the way things are done in Civ now.

Deal with it

The small squares in the octagon grid are adjacent to four other locations, the octagons are adjacent to eight locations.

Are you assuming that the small squares are non-functional? I hope no one is that retarded.

We encounter rectangular grids more often in our lives than hexes. Its also much easier to associate square grid with compass sides.

As I said, it makes perfect sense from a logical standpoint.

Square tiles' only real saving grace is that most people working with computers easily map them onto the memory while the other representations aren't as intuitive on the first look.