StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think those posts are a good example of what restricts Civ; a fanbase that has no clear idea what the game is. They can't change elements without 'ruining the game forever' for some of their audience. Other games don't have that baggage.

EDIT - err, I guess 'unified' idea is a better description. Most Civ players have a VERY clear idea what the game is, but there's a lot of variation in what is seen as 'core' to the game.

Purple wrote: Don't get us wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about Panzer General. But if we wanted to play PG we would play PG and not CIV.

As far as war games go, the Panzer General series is about as "beer and pretzels" as they come. Very, very simplified. Making the Civ combat system somewhat similar to PG would not make it overly complex in any way, and I think it would be a good addition to the more traditional Civ elements. In fact you could say that the PG series included all the fun and easy parts of traditional war games and almost none of the complex, and of course ultimately more challenging, but also more rewarding aspects like proper logistics. I agree that those aspect would probably be too much in a Civ game, but I don't think they will make that error.

As for hexes: square grids are for games which have no combat like SimCity. The original Civ had only a rudimentary combat system, so the square grid was acceptable, but its flaws should have been pretty clear by the time they started to make Civ 2...

Civ1 also had ZOC which mitigates some of the problems of square grids regarding combat. Since you can use the exact same map and just put a hexgrid over it instead I don't see how there can really be a problem.

Hey Stark, what makes hex-grids better than square grids for combat games? Does this apply just to computer games? I'm curious because I honestly haven't thought about it - I bitched about rar hexes because of a fatty nerd moment, sorry ;(

Well hexes remove issues squares have with adjacency and side-length.

For instance, with squares you need 8 units to 'properly' surround something, even though it only has 4 sides, which leads to all kinds of mechanical problems, primarily angle and distance related.

Obviously a hex is the same distance across in all directions, has 6 sides and only has six adjacent spaces, so you don't have the '1.4 move diagonal' problem, distances are intuitive between squares (remember how Civ had '2 square city area' and just chopped the corners off? That's cause squares suck). It's mathematically superior.

It looks a bit funny, but just introducing 'border hexes' does away with it. Hex 0243 is part desert and part ocean, simple mathematical operation produces COMBINED BONUSES. Oh shit, the only weakness of hexes is now gone!

Fact remains, is that a square is a much simpler geometrical structure compared to a hex.

So... what? How is that important? Squares are 'simple' and bring with them a whole load of problems, from 1.4 'space' diagonals to more adjacency than sides to distance problems and on and on into the night.

Hexes have a problem going in a straight line in perpendicular directions. That's it.

As someone who has used both squares and hexes in pen & paper RPG's, I agree with Stark. Squares are simply awful, and there is no good reason to ever prefer them except for sheer inertia and the illusion of being simpler (they are actually far more complex due to the need to deal with diagonal movement and attacks, surrounding and obstacles, etc).

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Civfanatics.com is the place to go for these questions. I have seen multiple Final Frontier mods there. From what the previews suggest, Civ5 is not going to be anything like 4 aside from the basic Civ trappings. Completely different combat system, grid, AI, and diplomacy.

Where specifically? I looked under mod packs but couldn't find any for base Final Frontier.

Is it true that Hexes will make spherical as oppose to the square's cylindrical and toroidal maps possible?

A quick cooling suggests not, unless they substitute in other shapes for the occasional tile (unlikely I would think). It would certainly be cool too see a Civ game where you could zoom out fully to view the spherical planet.

The issue here is not so much whether hex appears to be more useful or not, but rather the size of the square relative to the map features. This in turn leads to the issue as to how big and complicated a map the designers want.

I personally fail to see how hex improve on terrain when the movement is 1. Not natural, and 2. Easily replicated by having smaller squares.

Wait...so, right after complaining that hexes are too complicated to be practical, you claim that the shortcomings of squares can be made up for by having even more, smaller squares? Not only does that idea make sense on no actual level, how the devil does it become less complicated?

I fail to see how smaller squares would solve anything. Either the unti/terrain still occupies one square in which case you've just added more squares, or they occupy multiple squares which just makes everything more complicated.
I dislike hexes from an aesthetic standpoint but I won't deny they seem to make unit movement more fluid.

Losonti Tokash wrote:Wait...so, right after complaining that hexes are too complicated to be practical, you claim that the shortcomings of squares can be made up for by having even more, smaller squares? Not only does that idea make sense on no actual level, how the devil does it become less complicated?

If you want to be fucking pedantic, it's the same way graphic cards work. Increase resolution with smaller pixels/squares/triangles. I remain unconvinced that hexes solve anything at all because none of the arguments remotely reflect any sense of mathematics.

What next? Someone wants to throw in an octogonal because there aren't enough sides?

Did you fail geometry?

To repeat what I've already said, squares have 4 sides and 8 adjacencies. That means you have 'diagonal' movement, which is root 2 in length; not 1, and means you can have movement (or adjacenies, or radii) that aren't following sides or are unusual lengths.

By contrast, hexes has six sides and six adjacencies. Every move to an adjacent hex is the same distance, and all moves have sides. This can't really be overstated, and it makes everything (from code to play) simpler. Like I said, the only downside is due to the shape you have a straight path one way and a zigzag pattern at 90 degrees.

Octagons don't work this way.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:What next? Someone wants to throw in an octogonal because there aren't enough sides?

You cannot form a regular tessellation with an octagon.

Laughing Mechanicus wrote:A quick cooling suggests not, unless they substitute in other shapes for the occasional tile (unlikely I would think). It would certainly be cool too see a Civ game where you could zoom out fully to view the spherical planet.

Clever map design could "hide" the required pentagons but it would require some extra programming to handle those spots. One could also use pentagons rather than hexagons (or even triangles) but playability would be weird.

I must say, though, that despite hex grids being superior, I still use square grids in my d20 games because, on one hand, I'm used to their wonky mechanics and can cope, and, on the other, and more importantly, drawing hex grids (specially when making interiors) is a pain in the ass compared to square grids (I do a lot of on-the-fly map drawing in my games).

Just use a point displacement system. Being easier to draw is rrelevant to a machine.

I think those posts are a good example of what restricts Civ; a fanbase that has no clear idea what the game is. They can't change elements without 'ruining the game forever' for some of their audience. Other games don't have that baggage.

This is exactly the problem with people suggesting things like unit limits and hex grids.
They fail to see that change for the sake of change is not good. Civ4 is not broke, so don't fix it.

Another issue is that after seeing CivColonisation a lot of us hard core civ players are afraid that they might take the game in that direction. ugh...


Another thing is the debate between base civ and moded civ. I for example have not plaid unmoded Civ4 for about two years now. And once you start moding, things like spaceships and real nuclear warfare can all be made. This in turn makes any change to things like that mostly moot. So the only thing they can change is the radical things like hexes that can't be made by regular moding. And those are exactly the things most of us don't want in the first place.

I've never played the Civ IV Colonization, what's so bad about it?

Gramzamber wrote:I've never played the Civ IV Colonization, what's so bad about it?

There is only one way to win- overthrowing the king. To do they you need to beat his military which scales up with your economy. This means the best time to fight a war is at the start of the game when you get gold from goody huts and use it to buy yourself a military.

It would really be a better game if there were two more victory options- stay loyal and become a common wealth or become economically wealthy enough so that the crown moves to your colonies when a European War displaces them. As it is you just replace on slave based theocratic monarchy for another.

They fail to see that change for the sake of change is not good. Civ4 is not broke, so don't fix it.

Yes it is. It is possible for players to routinely win on even footing against the computer and they have to have a max difficulty where the handicap is double for them. The game is designed for city specialization so it would nice if we could automate workers so they altered their build plan per city based on that fact. The way religion is handled in the game is hilariously insulting and inaccurate. Promotions have been added to make units more valuable... but there is no way to protect them so you will simply use weight of numbers.

I for example have not plaid unmoded Civ4 for about two years now. And once you start moding, things like spaceships and real nuclear warfare can all be made. This in turn makes any change to things like that mostly moot. So the only thing they can change is the radical things like hexes that can't be made by regular moding. And those are exactly the things most of us don't want in the first place.

So they shouldn't add features because they will be included in the mods? Is there a mod where religions aren't points cities accumulate but beliefs actually held by a percentage of the population? Is there one where becoming a democracy creates competing political parties struggling for office? Is there one where legal civics are on a checklist so you can use nationhood/free speech and vassalage at the same time?

Purple wrote:

I think those posts are a good example of what restricts Civ; a fanbase that has no clear idea what the game is. They can't change elements without 'ruining the game forever' for some of their audience. Other games don't have that baggage.

This is exactly the problem with people suggesting things like unit limits and hex grids.
They fail to see that change for the sake of change is not good. Civ4 is not broke, so don't fix it.

So you think that the hex grid and unit limits are change for the sake of change, rather than attempts to improve the combat and make it deeper and more nuanced, as press and interviews have repeatedly stated? And they're not fixing Civ4, they're making a new game which no one is forcing you to buy. If you think Civ4 is perfect, I have the ideal solution for you: keep playing it!

Another issue is that after seeing CivColonisation a lot of us hard core civ players are afraid that they might take the game in that direction. ugh...


Another thing is the debate between base civ and moded civ. I for example have not plaid unmoded Civ4 for about two years now. And once you start moding, things like spaceships and real nuclear warfare can all be made. This in turn makes any change to things like that mostly moot. So the only thing they can change is the radical things like hexes that can't be made by regular moding. And those are exactly the things most of us don't want in the first place.

I've seen what happens when you try to do too much with a Civ4 mod. Out of Synch error, anyone?

I hope the new civ5 combat is more time period realistic. It drove me nuts when pikemen could somehow drive off my cannons.