>hexagon>can move unit vertically and diagonaly, but not horizontally>octagon>Can move unit vertically, diagonally and horizontallyWhy did hexagon fields become so popular in strategy games, instead of octagon ones?
You can't fit octagons together like the hexes. What you get is this 'kitchen floor tiling with squares in the free spaces. Otherwise they fit together like a square grid, so what's the point?
>>2141806because an octagon field has a bunch of holes in itold style squares also supported eight directions, making them superior to bothhex does look sexier though
>square>can move unit in all 8 directions
>>2141846Square grids in vidya don't always have actual 8-directional movement like hexes. It typically it counts as two moves, occasionally as 1.5.
>>2141806Square = 4 directionsHexagon = 6 directionsOctagon = 4 cardinals + 4 diagonalsSquares with diagonal movement are octagons portrayed without the spaces.>>2141857>It typically it counts as two moves, occasionally as 1.5.inB4 1.4MasterFags
>>2141876>1.4MasterFagsYou mean 1.41421356237.
>>2141806Because hexagons fit together perfectly, where as octagons don't.
>>2141813>>2141817That might be the reason, tho why is heaxgon still so popular compared to squares with diagonal movement?
>>2141912Brainlets (99% of the population) are too lazy to divide their movement by sqrt(2) every time they want to move diagonally.And if it's a video game you might as well just do free movement at that point, or just use a ruler measure distances on a tabletop game.
>>2141932>Brainlets (99% of the population) are too lazy to divide their movement by sqrt(2) I might be one of them, 'cause I don't know what you mean
>>2141955Pythagoras.If moving a square horizontally is 1 move and moving a square vertically is also one move, then logically moving diagonally is √(12+12) moves. Or, since 1 squared is just 1, √2 moves.
>>2141957>√(12+12)Herp derp, should be √(1^2+1^2) of course.
>>2141955The distance of a diagonal movement on a square grid is sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) = sqrt(2) = ~1.4. Let's say you have a unit of Calvary with a max movement of 5 spaces per turn. If you want them to move diagonally on a square grid, you can move 5/sqrt(2) diagonals per turn, which is ... around 3.5. So, you decide to move 3 spaces diagonally... which means you spent ~4.2 of your max movement distance of 5.If the game rounds sqrt(2) to 1.4, it means for movements with long max movement per turn, it is optimal to move diagonally instead of vertically or horizontally to move the furthest.If the game rounds sqrt(2) to 1.5, movement diagonally is nerfed and autistic people will screech to you about math.Imagine having to do math instead of just moving your dudes around.
>>2141960>Imagine having to do math instead of just moving your dudes around.The thing about computer games, as opposed to board games, is that the computer can do the math for you.
>>2141965I need to calculate my plans 1000 turns in advance, the part of the grid that lights up when I click a unit only shows how much I can move this turn, please understand.
>>2141957>>2141958>>2141960Can't you just simplify it and make moving disgonally 1 move too?
>>2142003Some people take the moved distance too literally and not as an abstration so they get their panties in a twist. They kinda project the grid over real world terrain and get tripped over when the movement gets all wonky in the clunky construct of their own. The truth is only the grid matters, and there is no reason not to make diagonal movement cost just the same.
>>2142003This makes it optimal to move diagonally if you have units that can move long distances.
>>2142003It's just a random talking point by the schizo. You can always tell it's him because he insists on calling them octagons. The resulting replies calling him a retard is a feature, not a problem.
>>2142009Even on a purely abstract grid, zig-zagging allows you to cover way more terrain than moving in a straight line if you set diagonaly to be 1. This problem gets even worse when you consider ranged effects like ranged weapons or even things LoS and FoW.
>>2142010>>2142017I see. This seems to really make hexagons quite elagent.
>>2142009>there is no reason not to make diagonal movement cost just the same.Because it's too efficient
What's up
>>2142032chess treats orthogonal and diagonal movement very differently
>>2142039Explain.
>>2141960>If the game rounds sqrt(2) to 1.5so that we're not dealing with fractions, make an orthogonal move cost 2 points and a diagonal move, 3.
Diagonal moves should cost 2Regular moves 1Simple
>>2141806in my humble opinion hexagon is wholly inferior to both squares and octagon when it comes to any self contained strategy game and it's only popular because of autists trying to fix what isn't broken.>but what if I want diagonals and not octagons?Use squares, It's 1 unit of distance away>but it's 1.4 the distanceuse 1.4 times the movement points if your game allows, if not it's 1 unit>but if I use a ruler it says-it's 1 unit.And there's no real reason why you'd want diagonals at the expense of the orthogonal axes anyway
What's the point of a grid system in a video game anyways? Just have free movement, the computer can measure the distance.
>>2142031>Because it's too efficientdistance traveled in centimeters instead of grid units doesn't matter in most games with a grid anyway>>2142063Easier to code, code is more lightweight and it's more friendly for turn based games
>>2142063>What's the point of a grid system in a video game anyways?Things get fucky without a grid
>>2142062>It's 1 unit of distance awayOverpowered movement
>>2142041there are exactly 2 units that can move both diagonally and orthogonally, and they're the 2 most important pieces you have
>>2142252Pawn
>>2142252Completely irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up.
1 cost diagonal movement is a bit unintuitive, as at a glance units will be capable of moving much further than you may anticipate. Its easy to get used to that though.Explosions, AOE effects and such being square instead of round is a bit ugly. But that can be overlooked, especially if the look of the game is abstract.People need to be less afraid of fractional movement.
>>2142285Fractional movement is disgusting
>>2141806It all boils down to mathlets not realising they are implementing shorthand that is pointless on a computer.>w-wut?Hexes were used in wargaming to avoid problems with diagonal shortcut of square grid, along with simplifying the measurements needed. The lack of one of the cardinal axis was considered a fair trade-off due to how simple and easy to use and make it was.However, when making computer-based games, this solution is completely redundant. My standard, go-to example is HoMM series as the only game series (until NWC went down, that is) that was made by people who realised what's up: so first HoMM3 introduced diagonal tax on overland map (essentially it costs 1.41 times more of a regular move, value equal to square root of 2 and thus equaling movement "price") and then did the same with combat map in HoMM4Every other game sticks to hexes, because idiots in charge either are too dumb to figure out it's the computer doing the measurements anyway, or cite "muh tradition" (which is cubical value of their baseline idiocy). And the few games that use squares don't apply diagonal tax.
>>2142324Yes the computer can calculate √2 for every diagonal, but a hex map communicates distance and threat ranges at a glance whether it's digital or analogue. Hexes can also be an intentional design choice to have equal cost movement in six directions. The HoMM3 example, it does demonstrate a workable alternate design path, but if it's such a groundbreaking improvement then why didn't it set the standard? Is it more likely that every strategy game designer is an idiot, or that there are more factors you haven't considered?
>>2142340>but a hex map communicates distance and threat ranges at a glance whether it's digital or analogue.Translation: "muh tradition!">he HoMM3 example, it does demonstrate a workable alternate design path, but if it's such a groundbreaking improvement then why didn't it set the standard?Because the company making that game went out of business, when their publisher decided to take their financial assets and burn them to stay afloat a month longer in the face of inevitable bankruptcy.Are you a zoomer that this has to be explained or something?
>>2142340>Is it more likely that every strategy game designer is an idiot, or that there are more factors you haven't considered?probably both if you ask me
>>2142340>hex map communicates distance and threat ranges at a glance whether it's digital or analogue.So does any other fucking grid, you absolute moron. The shape of a single tile is meaningless, it's the fact there are tiles that allows to gauge the distance more effectively than on a gridless map.And even then an argument for gridless could be made, because a machine can always calculate your position to the finer point than entire grid. It would, however, require far more computing power to keep track of that, so large grid cuts some slack to the machine rather than the tiny grid that's gridless in practice (since there is always the smallest unit of division for movement, it's that it's not easily perceived at a smaller scale)
>>2142340Let me introduce to Jon.Jon was a young chap who played Panzer General. Jon, being American and dumb, came to conclusion that what makes Panzer General such great strategy game is the fact it's on a hex grid.Jon couldn't exactly state what was so "strategical" in that specific shape, but he decided to copy it over to that new game he was working on, Civ 5. Since previous four games used square grid without a diagonal tax (the only Civ-like game that had diagonal tax was SMAC, and only partially so), Jon correctly spotted the issue of diagonal shortcut and decided to fix it with "more strategic" hexes. Without doing anything else to the game, simply changing the shape of the basic grid and thus possibility of movement.As a result, Jon made a game which its own AI can't play, as it is still trying to move over cardinal directions, except it misses one of the axis for that. Jon, being a fan of Panzer General, also decided that hard-core one-unit-per tile (from a strictly combat game) is a perfect idea to implement into a 4X environment, because we all know 4X games are played for the tactical depth of battles.Jon of course didn't bother to ponder how to make it work, because one-tunit-hex-tiles worked in Panzer General, his beloved game, so all he had to do was copy over the shape of the hex and implement one unit limit. It's gonna be so in depth now!This is story of Jon.Don't be like Jon.
>>2142350>So does any other fucking grid, you absolute moron.This simply isn't true, you would be less angry if you thought about it Any user can see distance at a glance in a hex based system. Performing the equivalent judgement with squares using a diagonal move system is not intuitive.
>>2142354Didn't read a word of this thesis
>>2142346What kind of tradition makes calculating diagonal movement on squares intuitive to the average person?What does the company going out of business have to do with their design becoming irrelevant? If something is great then people will copy it regardless
>>2142355>>2142357>mathlet is also semi-illiterateIs it already daytime in States?
>>2142360>What kind of tradition makes calculating diagonal movement on squares intuitive to the average person?Which part of "the computer does that for you, so it's redundant in video games" you didn't get the first time?>What does the company going out of business have to do with their design becoming irrelevant?How about their game with fully automated calculation arriving half-finished to the market, bombing, so morons like you can claim irrelevance? > If something is great then people will copy it regardlessI wish things worked like that in the real world
Autists confusing what a computer can calculate with what a human player needs to understand.
>>2142364>the computer does that for you, so it's redundant in video gamesWhen people play wargames they want to read the map, and this has nothing to do with whether or not the computer can calculate the movement distance. Visual clarity matters in games.
>>2142365If you can't eye-ball the distance, either go see an optometrist or a neurologist. Stereoblindness, the inability to see depth and thus properly measure distances, is like 2nd most common eyeball problem, right after hyperopia. And if you can do that with only a specific shape as measuring help, that falls under cognitive issues.Either way - unironically get your eyes checked.
>>2142367>When people play wargames they want to read the mapOf course>and this has nothing to do with whether or not the computer can calculate the movement distanceCorrect>Visual clarity matters in games.SureWhich brings up the obvious question: which part of your post relates to the specific type and shape of the grid tiles or the possibility of movement in games?You know, the subject of the discussion.
>>2142371A square based system with both diagonal and orthogonal movement is less intuitive to read than hex-based systems treating movement in all directions as equal
>>2142369How would stereoblindess affect gauging distance on a 2D grid you moron lmao
you can move horizontally though
We've all been lied to.Square tiles like our forefathers used to use are perfectly fine.Diagonal movement can cost 1 just like horizontal and vertical.There's no actual difference between a circle and a square.Pythagoras was a fraud.WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.
>want to move three squares vertically>just move diagonally to the top left and then diagonally again to the top right>3 moves for the price of 2diagonal moves on a square grid being 1 move unit is untenable.
4x games shouldnt have grids at all and civ design copypasting has gone on for far too long.
>>2142459>start turn>move top left (1st move)>move top right (2nd move)>end turn 2 squares higher>costs 2 movementLiterally what is wrong with this?
Innovation
>>2142324Maybe I'm retarded, but, if distance is measured by squares anyway, why does it matter if the diagonals give you more distance in centimeters?
>Maybe
>>2142355You can't be serious. It's obviously much easier to tell distances at a glance with a square grid that allows diagonal movement.
>>2142459Quit scamming us
>>2142527Woke game-design
>>2141806Because hexes are superior.>but muh 90 degree anglesMaybe try not being retarded.
Comprise between squares and hexagons
>>2141857>8-directional movement like hexes
why isnt triangle grid ever done
>>2142602Triangles are just hexes in denial.
>>2142459>diagonal moves on a square grid being 1 move unit is untenableThis.Diagonal moves costing 1 is broken on a square grid and leads to "free" range.Diagonals costing 2 is fine for small scales but doesn't work on large scales (blue diamond).Hexes work at all scales.Costing 1.5 (or 1.4) is fine for large scales of movement.So the first question you should ask is what scale are we operating on.
>>2142602my game uses triangles
>>2142605The scale doesn't matter.A game engine should always calculate distances correctly which means direct diagonal move is sqrt(2).The only acceptable exception is when your player-facing game systems are too simplistic to support such nuanced movement costs. And if you are already chasing simplicity with such a numerically simplistic system, it would be good to also disallow diagonal movement for simplicity's sake. But perhaps introduce a limited number of special abilities/weapons/spells/classes/something that allow diagonal moves or attacks later in the game.
>>2142834But I want my video game to larp as a board game.
Blocks you're path.
>>2142865This is just hexes without the corners shaved off.
>>2142865This is just hexes
>>2142834>A game engine should always calculate distances {{correctly}} which means direct diagonal move is sqrt(2).unfounded assertion
>...and that is why we should never use hexes for gamesOK great, and how will this make future games more fun?>Fun?
Squares are better for wargames because you don't have right angles with hexes. Take a look through any city. The majority of houses have 4 walls. Any urban combat scenario with hexagonal houses looks ridiculus.
>>2142943I can't tell whether this is a joke or just stupidity
>>2142873It is founded in basic math.The direct distance between any two tiles is sqrt(abs(x)^2 + abs(y)^2) tiles.A simple cardinal move is exactly 1 tile.A simple diagonal move is 1.41 tiles.A more complex move of 2 tiles on x and -3 on y would be 3.61 tiles.And so on. When pathfinding is involved, you simply sum the straight segments of the path with the same formula to get the cost of that move.Without circular distances, any tile-based game is geometrically broken at a fundamental level. (But that might be desired game design in some cases.)
>>2142983>It is founded in basic math.Basic math says that you can use many different metrics to define distances. With the L^1 metric a diagonal is 2 tiles and with the L^infinity metric it would be only 1 tile. You can also use some that scale the x and y axis very differently. There is no math reason to prefer the euclidean garbage that forces you to use roots.
>>2143002>no reason to prefer the euclidean garbagelol i guess notBut games rarely do anything cool with mind-bendingly unnatural non-euclidean geometry.And in this case it's obviously just an excuse for Doing It Wrong.
The grid should be made of triangles and pieces should take up multiple cells.
HyperRogue's map uses both hexes and heptagons. Would this work in a strategy game?
>>2143037Oh so there are non-euclidean games like that. Cool concept.That projection is really smart too, almost makes it seem like normal geometry instead of the hyperbolic mindfuckery you'd get with proportional tiles.
>>2142595I'm pretty sure pentagons can be done without them having Down's, anon.
>>2143037Not strategy either, but reminds me of sokyokuban, which has five squares in each corner, instead of four like in euclidean geometry.https://sokyokuban.com/
I'm racist against hexes for strategy games. It bothers me to no end. Can't quite articulate why but I'll skip an indie game if it uses hexes.
The actual distance covered is completely irrelevant in game logic, so using higher cost for diagonal movement makes no sense.If you move from place A to place B, the shortest path usually always requires both, diagonal and horizontal/vertical movement. The distance between two points is the amount of moves through shortest path. Same can be applied to range.Yes, you can move longer distance faster diagonally, but it just doesn't matter as it only allows you to move straight lines, you'll have to move horizontally/vertically as well, and amount of movement required between each point on a map is always the same anyway.It's not that complicated.
>>2143193>amount of movement required between each point on a map is always the same anyway.
>>2143289Meant to ask: explain
>>2143005There's nothing mind bending about non-euclidian geometry. We live a non-Euclidean world for example. And people have no problem playing with square tiles. The first 4 Civ games didn't have people shitting themselves in fear at diagonal movement.
>>2143372>The first 4 Civ games didn't have people shitting themselves in fear at diagonal movement.20 years ago people weren't shitting themselves in fear of being misgendered.Times change. Not necessarily for the better.
>>2143372They still don't shit themselves over it, it was all a marketing gig to sell the radical changes done in 5.Just like 5 used Shafer to be face of the changes, even if all he did was some side-coding and blog-posting.In reality, that game was all on Firaxis' board decisions and to consciously simplify and dumb down the whole game, so there is lower entry level and more games sold. Result? Best selling Civ game to date, and entire generation of players that is mentally incapable of going to older titles, because they don't follow the simplified (but not simple, as opposed to, say, Civ 2 simple functionality) design desing of 5.Shafer is a moron, but people who insist he's some sort of diabolical mastermind are idiots themselves. All he did was lending his surname to be a scrape goat
>>2142834>The only acceptable exception is when your player-facing game systems are too simplistic to support such nuanced movement costsThe irony is that right from the start, they had the right tools for this. Starting from Civ 1, the unit movement isn't actually 1 and miltiplication, it's multiplication of 3.This meant that when you build roads/used rivers pre-Civ 3, you were using "1" movement point, so the game had easier time operating on this abstraction of road movement being more efficient and longer, without having to deal with fractionsSMAC had an addition mechanic: even if your unit didn't have the needed points to make their move, they could still do that basic move anyway, then instantly finish their turn, being inactive (so for example a rover getting into rocky terrain had to use 4/3 movement point AND instantly finished the move)All this design needs is being multiplication of 6, instead of 3. Diagonal takes 8 moves (so 1.3 - still not 1.41. but close), and if your unit has 1 or 2 "movement point", it risks that after doing a diagonal, it will instantly finish the turn.This design, with multiplication of 6, also allows to account for terrain penalties (and implement 4's terrain tags, down the line), so for example a forested tile costs extra 1 movement (making it 7/6) and similar stuff; this way your scouting units have more organic movement, always adjusted via terrain tile, with potential variations down the line (say, camel riders don't get desert tile penalty or special unit of x has no penalty over y, even if the regular version of the same unit has them). All done without a nedlessly complex and convoluted system or actual new mechanics, just using what they've been using for past 20 fucking years.It's such a basic, simple thing, build on the solutions they already had...... so they went for hexes, shitting their bed and pants in the process>>2142873>>2143002Here is the (You)
>>2144131Oh, I forgot to add:The SMAC mechanic also meant that next turn, you had less points to move, so you now COULDN'T repeat your move.For example,Rover has 2 move, so that's 6 movement points.After the rover gets into a rocky tile, it cost 4/3 movement.Now next turn, the rover starts with 5/6 of its movement, so 1.(6) points is displayed. If it moves into a rocky terrain again, it will lock itself after a single tile. If it moves to unpenalised tile, it only has 5/6 points, so it can't really make moves.In such configuration, dagonal movement is fully accessible, but the penalties applied down the line means it is not more cost-effective.They knew that in 1999, but somehow failed to implement in 2001, 2005 and especially in 2010.
>>2144131>>2144135I guess I agree to disagree on many of those points, but your suggestion resembles my own system for tabletop RPG and running hexcrawls.By default, I put a limit of 10 moves per day, with the "baseline" cost of 2. Then I apply modifiers to it as people plot their path. Examples>Road -1>Farmland -1>Dense shrubs +1>Rough terrain +1>Woods +2>Hills +2>Mountains +3>Dense forest +3EtcThis allows to organically change the costs and in the end, when they can't continue moving, the rest is simply lost that day, but in turn, they gain a bonus equal to time left to whatever activity they plan to pull. Examples of daily travel>10 tiles of road through plains>4 tiles through plains and 2 tiles through farmland, camp>3 tiles of dense shrubland, +1 to a d6 camping roll outcome>2 tile of roaded woods, one tile of woods, camp>2 tiles of hills, can't move anywhere else, so +2 to a d6 camping rollPlayers can also push for it, making it either d4, 2d4 and even 3d4 roll for additional movement that day, but this shifts correspondingly the event table by +1, +2 and +3 (the table is a d100, organised by groups of tens, the higher the roll and the higher final numeral, the harsher the event): Examples>Used 10 movement, want to advance further, rolled 2d4, so they had extra 4 movement, but encounter table will get +2>Used 9 movement, need 1 more point, so pushing it for d4, but the encounter table will get +1All of this is always making me confused when I see video games with hexcrawl or just any kind of crawl. All the shit that forces me to have a literal abacus on the table and keep track of different tables and teach players those to ease my work can be fully automated... and yet those games have close to zero automation and just do the most basic math resolutions, which makes things very awkward
>>2142865>shittoYep.
>>2144226>t. filtered by imperialism superior designMany such cases
>>2144135Maybe it's just me, but movement debt on a turn based game feels like a shitty mechanic where it it harder to have a easy means of telling how much a unit can move on any given turn.Maybe it's better than scouts diagonaling all over the map to clear FoW. But not having consistent range of movement per turn is kinda junk in a lot of contexts
Hexes are better than squares, as evidenced by HoMM3 vs. HoMM5
Id like a 4x game with no tiles at all and units arent constrained by any grid.
>>2144552I think it would work well for units.Just a radius, they have a distance they can move, it's not that complicated and you see it in games every now and then.The exploitation and expanding over land might get weird though.Not impossible, but could be a headache to get right. Like is a city this radius here, and then you draw with a lasso tool where you want your farm
>>2144552well that sounds dumb as hell
hexes for a globe/world mapsquares for an area map
>>2144623>hexes for the campaign map>squares for battle mapsIt feels wrong.
>>2144623>>2144699Natural region-/country borders for the campaign map.Hexes or free movement for battle maps.
>>2142053Diagonal moves should cost 3Regular moves 2Also simple, and a better approximation of true distance.
>>2142602Because either you have 3 directions of movement which makes them worse squares, or you have 6 in which case they're just less obvious hexagons.
Both hexes and squares have their place in board games, but unless you're making a video game adaptation of a board game there's literally no reason to use either vs a true distance system where any direction is valid. Grid-based movement is literally just a crutch for lazy developers making glorified digital board games. Even tabletop wargames don't follow the lazy grid-based design, it's literally just boardgames that do this shit and yet almost every turn-based video game just mindlessly copies the shitty idea because it's easier.
>>2145729Why is using grids lazy, and why is true distance superior?
>>2145729disagree, I played enough grid-based and gridless games to know that making something gridless doesn't always make it better.It's like saying "why isn't every game open world?"
>>2144503>can't represent a 90 degrees bend in a roadhexsisters... it's over
>>2145734>Why is using grids lazyIt makes a lot of things easier and more straight-forward without actually improving the gameplay, so it's just a developer shortcut. You have total control over where the player can and cannot go, you don't have to think about the game environment as much because everything is built out of squares, etc. It inherently constrains every aspect of the game, limiting the design space and the amount of work the devs have to do while offering no benefits to the player. There's nothing you can't do in a gridless system that you can do in a grid-based system, but there's a LOT you can't do in a grid-based system that you can do in a gridless system, so choosiung a grid-based system either means the devs didn't think things through and just followed the herd, or they deliberately took the easy way out..>why is true distance superiorBecause it avoids half-solutions like squares and hexes which both have their downsides, both in terms of movement/range calculation and in terms of level design. If your design doesn't have to conform to a specific shape there's a lot more you can do with it. It's inherently intuitive because it's how the real world works, doesn't require any math to plan movement, and doesn't need gameplay contrivances to explain things like movement speed and attack range. On top of that it gives way more freedom and granularity. For example if you want to spend half your moves on a unit that can move 5 squares, it's literally impossible. You're either in a square or you're not, so you can't walk 2.5 squares. But if you've got a movement range of 50 feet, you can just move 25 feet.>>2145751What an utterly meaningless comparison. You should feel bad about yourself.
>>2144503
>>2145755>What an utterly meaningless comparisonLet me justify it then:>Because it avoids half-solutions like squares and hexes which both have their downsides, squares or hexes work and are not half solutions>both in terms of movement/range calculation and in terms of level design.movement, range and level design are all easy in grid based game>If your design doesn't have to conform to a specific shape there's a lot more you can do with it.A lot more doesn't mean that it's better for gameplay reasons>It's inherently intuitive because it's how the real world works,less intuitive than grids>doesn't require any math to plan movement, Counting to 5 is not math>and doesn't need gameplay contrivances to explain things like movement speed and attack range. Range in meters or units is the same>On top of that it gives way more freedom and granularity. freedom and granularity don't have place in every game. AW or chess wouldn't benefit from freedom or granularity>For example if you want to spend half your moves on a unit that can move 5 squares, it's literally impossible. But you can move 2 or 3 squares, you go to whatever square you want. Spending exactly half your movement point regardless of where you end up is not something anyone does in any game>You're either in a square or you're not, so you can't walk 2.5 squares. redundant>But if you've got a movement range of 50 feet, you can just move 25 feet.Spending exactly half your movement point regardless of where you end up is not something anyone does in any gameSee none of your point have any merit."why isn't every game open world?" and "why isn't every game gridless" are both nonsense phrases that only people without critical thinking skills would say.
>>2145763>squares or hexes work and are not half solutionsFalse, they both impose artificial restrictions.>movement, range and level design are all easy in grid based gameGood, you understand at least part of my post.>A lot more doesn't mean that it's better for gameplay reasonsNot necessarily, but it does allow for a far broader range of design instead of just copying the same 2 or 3 design patterns that all grid-based games use.>less intuitive than gridsNonsense. You don't live on a grid, for starters.>Counting to 5 is not mathTell that to half the thread not understanding sqrt(2).>Range in meters or units is the sameJust because you state it doesn't mean it's not retarded. You can walk half a meter. Name a grid-based game where you can walk half a square.>freedom and granularity don't have place in every game. AW or chess wouldn't benefit from freedom or granularityChess is a literal board game and AW is a puzzle game for toddlers, thanks for proving my point.>But you can move 2 or 3 squares, you go to whatever square you want. Spending exactly half your movement point regardless of where you end up is not something anyone does in any gameI can't tell if you're genuinely this stupid, or just pretending to be in order to try and dodge the argument. It's not about whether you want to move exactly 25 feet in some specific situation, it's about whether you have the option to do so as an obvious example.>redundantGee it's almost as if it's part of the same argument, you absolute clown.>Spending exactly half your movement point regardless of where you end up is not something anyone does in any gameTrying to make the same argument again doesn't make it less irrelevant.>"why isn't every game open world?" and "why isn't every game gridless" are both nonsense phrases that only people without critical thinking skills would say.And trying to make the same moronic comparison again doesn't make you less retarded.
Not reading or engaging with that you've already demonstrated yourself to be incapable of rational thought
>>2145780If you didn't read it, how do you know I'm incapable of rational thought?
>>2145729>>2145755Limiting the player is literally what game design is. Go no-clip through a fps and tell me how fun it was.
>>2145763>squares or hexes work and are not half solutionsYeah they are.They force movement and positions into fewer options than possible in an open system.They're almost literally half solutions, almost as in they might be less than half.
>>2145755>There's nothing you can't do in a gridless system that you can do in a grid-based system>>2145816>They force movement and positions into fewer options than possible in an open system.Can you really not see how that can be valuable from a game design standpoint?
>>2145925I'd prefer if the goalpost stayed where you found it.
Movement between 2 tiles should always cost the same, so hexes or squares with same cost diagonal movement are the best
>>2145944The "goal" as i saw it was to provide a thing that grids can do that gridless can't.One thing is limiting positioning and movement in specific ways that can provide interesting strategic and tactical choices.If you saw the goalposts being somewhere else then please clarify
Bro if you think about it, technically everything is on a grid. There's no such thing as "gridless"
I like hexes because it filters both retards and autists.
>>2146290 I like hexes because they look cool
>>2146290>>2146296>liking hexesfucking spellcasters
>>2146300You'll come around.
>>2146303im sold
>>2146303>You'll come around.I came alright
>>2146382I just wanna say that this thread has really opened my eyes to how fucking pants-on-head retarded hex lovers are. Like, they are the kind of stupid faggots that think 2+2=5 type shit. I started out thinking there wasn't really a difference (Civ V is my favorite civ btw), and yet, the arguments in this thread have made things super clear. There are those who understand the necessity of grid movement and there are dumb faggots like >>2145755 who don't understand basic mathematics and geometry. LIKE BRO WHY CANT EVERY GAME JUST HAVE ALL THE MECHANICS ALL THE TIME AND BRO WHY DONT WE JUST THROW OUT ALL COMPUTERS AND START OVER BECAUSE BINARY IS SO INEFFICIENT AND UNREALISTIC I MEAN BRO THE REAL WORLD DOESN'T EVEN WORK LIKE THAT BRO LIKE WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE SHAPES OR MATH OR ANY MEASURMENTS BROS I SWEAR.Truly, this has been one of the most eye-opening, enlightening threads I have ever lurked, but for all the wrong reasons. That fucking retard makes me realize that some people don't understand basic math and thus this argument is lost on them. I have yet to hear one ACTUAL FACT BASED MATH BASED argument for why hexes are better or would ever be more preferable in a non-rts strategy game scenario than squares other than MUH AESTHETIC CHOICES BRO.Absolutely fuck that person to death. Like I said, I was on the fence and I still love Civ V, but honestly that's because I'm a babby when it comes to strategy games and started off with that one. Every time someone argues for the grid over hexes the pro-hex people fail to give substantial arguments. They always devolve into something like what this guy said where all math and programming just don't matter anymore and we should just jump to non-Euclidean game design like a bunch of Lovecraftian entities or some shit. Like fuck all conventional math and coding, right?I've been wondering whether to use squares or hexes for my own game and I think I got my answer from this thread. Thanks y'all.
Hexes are trash because you can't conveniently navigate a hex grid using a numpad. However, diagonals on a square grid also cannot have the same move cost as orthogonal moves without making orthogonal movement borderline obsolete. Even in extremely simplified movement systems, the fact that diagonals are simply, literally more distant creates all sorts of advantages for always moving diagonally.Take pic related for example, you want to move a unit up on a grid by two spaces, in as few moves as possible. Orthogonally (blue player) you have the sole option of moving up in a straight line, twice. Meanwhile diagonal movement (red player), by virtue of traveling a longer distance with each move, offers two route choices, twice as many. Diagonal movement is thus demonstrated as strictly better by virtue of giving the player more options. An obstacle on one route can be avoided by taking the other route, and you have twice as many chances for a secondary objective to appear on one of your routes because there are twice as many. Meanwhile, an obstacle in the center route means an orthogonal mover would need to make two additional moves to circumvent it, doubling the total duration to the finish where diagonal movement would have suffered no delay whatsoever. This level of divergence in player capability emerged in TWO GRID MOVES. Now imagine what happens when this advantage compounds over hundreds, if not thousands, of moves in the course of a longer game. Winning will almost certainly correlate with who moves diagonally more often before anything else, if movement in your game matters at all.
>>2150226ah yes, that's my main concern in a wargamenavigating it with a numpad
>>2149473>BRO>BROyou, too, must go back
>>2144503Well this won me over.
>>2150226Brother wrote 1,000 words to say "1-cost diagonal too efficient"
Use a grid out of 4:3 rectangles.>One move in x-direction takes 4 mov points.>One move in y-direction takes 3 mov points.>One diagonal move takes 5 mov points.
dude removed the e from "move" for efficiency
>>2150226Hexes are better, since most people use the mouse with their right hand, making the keyboard's hand resting position much more naturally fit the hex grid on weadazx
>>2150226>diagonal movement on a grid is bad because if you one player can only move diagonally and another player can only move orthogonally then diagonally moving players would winI'm struggling to even respond to this argument because it's so retarded.First of all if terrain matters you're playing around terrain. If a map as an orthogonal road then you have to travel through that road. If the game has a limited board and pieces can move more several tiles per turn, like in chess, orthogonal movement is better. Just get into a rooks vs bishops late game and see which one is easier to win with.Yes if fog of war is a thing AND it's a radius around the piece then technically you will reveal more tiles by moving diagonally but I cannot think of a single game where advancing towards the enemy while revealing as many tiles as possible matters. The "extra" tiles are to the side and the back so depending on the game it might not even make a difference and there might be a disadvantage to moving your unit to the side like blocking the LoS/movement of another unit or creating a gap in your line. And again if terrain is a thing you want to get on a height to see more tiles or scout a possibly occupied forest, it doesn't matter if you get there diagonally or orthogonally>Meanwhile, an obstacle in the center route means an orthogonal mover would need to make two additional moves to circumvent it,This means nothing because you're discussing the merits of diagonal movement in grid games, "the orthogonal player" would not exist both players should be able to move orthogonally or diagonally depending on what the situation calls for. And again consider board size: A rook can move the whole board, the bishop has to "bounce" off the edge.You're concocting an impossibly specific hypothetical game to make a blanket statement about all diagonal movement. Shame on you.
>>2149473That guy was arguing 'gridless' not hex fyi If you are making game design decisions based on who is most annoying in a given 4chan thread (and also misreading them) instead of based on what fits best with the rest of the mechanics then I would suggest rethinking your choices
>>2144503The diagonal square fans really do be like this:>>2150385>>2150226
>>2150421>>2150250*cough cough*>>2145759
>>2150385>I cannot think of a single game where advancing towards the enemy while revealing as many tiles as possible mattersReally? You cannot think of a single game...>This means nothing because you're discussing the merits of diagonal movement in grid games, "the orthogonal player" would not exist both players should be able to move orthogonality or diagonally depending on what the situation calls forIf it helps you understand his point, substitute the word "player" for "unit". There's plenty of games that have asymmetrical movement options depending on unit types that can help you visualize what he's talking about.You call him retarded but I think the issue is your lack of exposure. You need to broaden your scope.And FYI, I'm team Hex. I believe his issue with the numpad is of one of 'tisms, but his post is right on all other accounts.
>>2150452>Really? You cannot think of a single game...>You call him retarded but I think the issue is your lack of exposure. You need to broaden your scope.Cool name a single game that you think is decided by units advancing and scouting tiles regardless of terrain and I will call you a retard and explain to you why it isn't.>If it helps you understand his pointretard>substitute the word "player" for "unit"Like in chess, where rooks are better than bishops? Like I mentioned in my post? > There's plenty of games that have asymmetrical movement options depending on unit types that can help you visualize what he's talking aboutLike in chess, where rooks are better than bishops? Like I mentioned in my post? >And FYI, I'm team HexYes your lack of intelligence is evident
What if - and bear with me here for a minute because this is going to trigger a lot of autists.What if we use a square grid and made the diagonals the cardinal directions.Because movement/combat is designed around quadrants instead of faces "diagonal" movement no longer provides an inherent advantage.It also means when a unit has an attack range of "1", it can target 3 squares instead of 1 which improves tactical flexibility. With square grids when you have 6 dudes facing 6 dudes in a row, each one is limited to the single unit directly infront of them. With a diamond grid because the front lines meet on a zig/zag you form a natural frontline, push 'em together and frontlines can attack multiple enemies while rearliners are limited to single enemy frontliner or directly supporting their frontliners. Or you could be defensive and leave a gap for single target only attacks.Diamonds, they're tactically superior to Squares.
>>2150461>Cool name a single game that you think is decided by units advancing and scoutingIt's not a deciding factor, it's an advantage. I bet you're the sort of bitch who quits a game because you're a rook down.>Like in chess, where rooks are better than bishops? Like I mentioned in my post?So when you started banging on about how:>"the orthogonal player" would not exist You were just acting retarded, you understood his point but were pretending not to understand...
>>2150490>It's not a deciding factor, it's an advantage.Good to know that this hypothetical made up game in your head has scouting set up in a way where scouting diagonally regardless of terrain is an advantage and not a deciding factor. Too bad it does not exist in real life and therefore has no bearing on the notion that diagonal movement is so superior to orthogonal movement that it should not be allowed.> I bet you're the sort of bitch who quits a game because you're a rook down.unrelated to previous statement, you are so unintelligent you cannot even string together two sentences.>So when you started banging on about how:>>"the orthogonal player" would not exist>you understood his point but were pretending not to understand...To quite him directly:>>2150226>diagonals on a square grid also cannot have the same move cost as orthogonal moves without making orthogonal movement borderline obsoleteHis main argument isn't that some pieces move diagonally and other pieces move orthogonally, is that "diagonals on a square grid also cannot have the same move cost as orthogonal moves without making orthogonal movement borderline obsolete" and therefore it's problematic to have in a grid square.I have disproven that nonsensical gross generalization in many ways which also included showing how orthogonal movement can be superior depending on the game through rooks.>you understood his point but were pretending not to understandIt's the same post. You called me out and when I replied "But I mentioned rooks so your accusation makes no sense" you are now accusing of understanding all along based on things I've written on the same post that you called me out for. At this point I have to assume you're trolling me in which case congrats you've won, last (you) you'll get from me.
>>2150521>"I bet you're the sort of bitch who quits a game because you're a rook down.">unrelated to previous statementNotice how you don't deny it, which ironically is the same thing you're doing here:>At this point I have to assume you're trolling me in which case congrats you've won, last (you) you'll get from me.You've realized by deliberately acting retarded you've wrote yourself in to a corner and now you're making an excuse to run away. The sad thing is you made some good points along the way but ended up triggering yourself.
>Notice how you don't deny itI didn't deny a baseless accusation on my character that I can't reasonably disprove. Does it matter?If I accuse you of being trans will you post your cock to disprove me? No you won't. These kind of accusations don't mean anything and you know it.>You've realized by deliberately acting retarded you've wrote yourself in to a corner and now you're making an excuse to run awayYou have addressed none of my points and are not presenting anything resembling a discussion. Yet you post again because you can """"win""" arguments on the internet by replying endlessly and getting the last word in. It doesn't mean anything to me if you agree or not because you clearly are not interested in or capable of having a discussion. When you accused me of misunderstanding another anon's points I proved you wrong without needing to add anything to the post you pointed at, when I accuse you of misunderstanding the same point you cross your arm and smugly announce >"heh, leaving without denying that you ragequit after losing rooks in chess? guess I won another argument!!!"You are not a person that anyone would benefit from discussing with.>The sad thing is you made some good points along the way Yeah you know you are not in the right here but your ego prevents you from admitting it so you continue your sophistry.>but ended up triggering yourself.Another accusation I can't reasonably deny, what a fitting way to end this conversation.Goodbye anon I hope you get to win many more internet debates.
>>2150551>Goodbye anon I hope you get to win many more internet debates.We both know this isn't goodbye, you said that a moment ago, and sure, you can try argue the semantic difference between "congrats you've won, last (you) you'll get from me" and actually saying a final goodbye but tacitly they're the same. You're triggered and apoplectic. In a moment, when you're done wading this post you'll want to respond but you'll be torn between your pride when you said you'll stay away and your pretentious need to be seen as being right to a bunch of strangers on the internet. The only way you "win" is by letting it go, hopefully you can do that for both our sakes because I don't want to live in your head any longer.
>>2150385If you had anything useful to say you wouldn't have opened your post with strawman greentext. I won't be reading or acknowledging your wall of text. Stop blaming other people for the fact that you're too stupid to comprehend the conversation at hand.
