Basic idea:
Replace the current square based map with a hexagon based map. This would mean that a unit could now move in 6 compass directions as oppose to 8 before.

Benefits:
More accurate modelling of movement and sight. More realistic portrayal of land layout.

Feasibility:
Implementation of the idea before the prototyping stage would perfectly feasible without any known disadvantages (on the assumption that code is being written from scratch).

==================

So, can someone PLEASE explain to me how on earth this gives more accurate modelling of movement, sight and more realistic portrayal of land layout??

With a hex grid, every hex is surrounded by six others, and it's the same distance to all of them. Typically with hexes, vertical and diagonal movement are no problem, although horizontal requires moving along a slight zig-zag path. But this doesn't involve any extra movement, just a little tacking.

Why have anything at all?

Why not have a huge open ground, like in the real world? Then you would REALLY have to think strategicaly.

Obviously, if you want to move diagonaly past a enemy, you would be basicaly sending them to their deaths. BUT you could do it if you wanted to. Because there isn't some hand of god sticking out of the sky saying "No you can't do that."

We should be allowed free movement.

quote: Originally posted by L o k i on 03-14-2000 09:50 PM Why have anything at all? ... Thats what you get with RTS's.

Because it's too hard to do without changing a lot of game concepts that would invariably
make the game not Civ anymore.

Hex is a good solution - a change that won't impact too much on other game concepts - and it got my vote.

btw, when does EC3 close up? I've been looking for a date, but can't find one. I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere...

I've been programming a game as a hobby, it uses terrain in hexes with no perspective, and it looks pretty flat.

I'm not saying make the game RTS. I'm saying make it TBS but with no limits as to where to move your units REALISTICALY.

quote: Originally posted by L o k i on 03-15-2000 03:20 AM Knight, I think you've misundestood me

No I didn't misunderstand you. Actually, you just misunderstood me

I was speaking in reference to shelving the idea of tiles, not RTS vs TBS.

1. The argument that you "uncover more land" by moving diagonaly, well that is true, you uncover 2 tiles more. But so what, your enemy does also.

2. The argument that you "cross bigger distance" by moving diagonaly, precisely "square root of two opposed to one" is pointless. How many of you players remember how many square miles is there in civ2 tile? And is that important? Does it affect gameplay? Not.

3. Why hexes and not octagons then? Octagons are even more "circle like" and they have all eight directions (opposed to 6).

4. Perspective. If someone can give me URL where I can see a unit on a hexagon put in perspective I woud be grateful, since I have trouble imagining that.

My wote goes either to civ2 tiles or a 3d terrain based on a square tiles four or more times smaller then unit/city square. Maybe that would allow for some sort of 3d. Not sure though. Check out the demo of the game Conquest of New World to see what I think.

we have to use... triangulars!

just kidding.

And no, it's not life or death whether we use hexagons or regular tiles, but we're trying to make the game better, and things like ZOC get screwed around when you've got diagonals that are longer.

As for the keys you would use - don't worry about it! You could use the normal letters on a keyboard if you wanted to, but I'm guessing it'll be mouse based anyway, so there's no reason not to improve the game by having hexes!

X X X
X S M
X X X

My army is S, and the enemy is M.

If I want to move to the X above the M, REALISTICALY I should be able to.
Obviously that would be a bad idea because I'd have to cross some of the M's territory.

It needs to have more realism in the game. TBS and RTS need to be emerged here. In a way where you don't have to rush around everywhere making sure no ones dying and in a way where its so realistic that the enemy would attack me if I crossed a part of its territory while moving.

That would make me think twice about what I'm doing.

Do the Mongols care about ZOC? Nah. The only thing that should be stopping me from moving my unit above the M, is my military advisor. But even he can't stop me.

Besides, if you have simultaneous turns, some of the problems you perceive with ZOC will be eliminated.

Obviously, instead of using what we use today, we improve what we use today to make things better.

Hexagons make movement regular. I guess it would be harder to use the keyboard for movement but most people tend to use the mouse anyway.

use the keys like this

7 8 9
4 5 6

7 is up to the left
8 is up
9 is up to the right
4 is back to the left
5 is back
6 is back to the right

is there something complicated by that?

Loki - When you say that it doesn't have enough realism, I'm assuming that you think the current tile system is just as unrealistic...? If you couldn't have the system that you're hoping for, would you prefer square or hex tiles? Do you see one of them as being less realistic than the other?

Of course, my two cents says that hex is more realistic than squares, and no-tiles are (for all intents and purposes) unworkable. But I'm sure that was apparent already.

If so, I haven't had a chance to get around to it, too much work. I'll put some more work into it later next week.

Fact, I can't get enough time to keep my Civ3 site updated, I can't be bothered either really. There just isn't any hardcore infomation. If there was I'd be straight on to it.

I have too much work though.