Civilization 5 Announced!

[ealabor]

I only hope they don't make the map atrociously small as they did with the previous Civ (at least with the colonization convert)

Not much of a read. Anyone else find other informative links?


Also, you guys must realize the previous games were tiled. I'm sure they'll make an interface option to turn off the display.

If not then it shouldnt be so bad, since the landscape spills over into neighboring tiles
http://www.examiner.com/examinerslideshow.html?entryid=1017952

 

[Taimat396]

Ho
Ly
****

AWESOME

Edit: I'm as excited for this as any game I've ever looked forward to. Hexagons? THE POSSIBILITIES! More than 3 dudes in a unit? And the inevitable Fall from Heaven mod. /lightheadedness

First thought I had, too. Haven't been able to play stock Civ 4 since.

 

[Mage246]

I don't see how hexagons is an improvement. As fooshie correctly pointed out, in previous versions (even going back to the original Civ) you could move in 8 directions. This is a step backwards! However, fooshie was incorrect in calling them octagons. You might have been able to move in 8 directions, but they only had 4 sides. If they had been octagons, there would have been large gaps between the tiles.

 

[Do not look here]

But it looks like step forward.

Democracy was a best government only in Sid Meier's games
                                                                                - random guy

 

[ealabor]

I don't see how hexagons is an improvement.

Hexagons are an improvement because they allow for the mapper to create much more smoothed tile edges, rather than having jagged blocks like in previous versions

Pictures in first link were not working so i'll append here

Hi-res

隐藏

隐藏

隐藏

 

[Mage246]

You do realize that what you just said doesn't make any sense, right? There's no reason why a 4-sided figure should be more or less jagged than a six-sided one. That has nothing to do with the tile shape and everything to do with the texture quality and the foresight to map terrain over multiple squares. Linking to images from Civ5 can't change that.

 

[Taimat396]

Yes there is. Six sides means the edge is spread over three sides instead of two. the corner is much less acute. If you were to look at a hexagon map and a square map side by side, the difference would be pretty easy to spot.

 

[DSparil]

Civ III FTW. Nothing makes you feel as fullfilled as watching your stone age spearman destroying a panzer tank after impaling several machinegunmen.

 

[ealabor]

You do realize that what you just said doesn't make any sense, right? There's no reason why a 4-sided figure should be more or less jagged than a six-sided one. That has nothing to do with the tile shape and everything to do with the texture quality and the foresight to map terrain over multiple squares.

Seriously? Have you ever taken Geometry?

Linking to images from Civ5 can't change that.

[quote author=ealabor]Pictures in first link were not working so i'll append here
[/quote]

seriously...

 

[Mage246]

Yes there is. Six sides means the edge is spread over three sides instead of two. the corner is much less acute. If you were to look at a hexagon map and a square map side by side, the difference would be pretty easy to spot.

You do realize that what you just said doesn't make any sense, right? There's no reason why a 4-sided figure should be more or less jagged than a six-sided one. That has nothing to do with the tile shape and everything to do with the texture quality and the foresight to map terrain over multiple squares.

Seriously? Have you ever taken Geometry?

Like I said, if you map the terrain over multiple squares, it makes no difference. Which is exactly what you are supposed to have when you use procedurally generated terrain (like Civ does). And graphical arguments aside, why would you ever want to reduce the complexity of maneuvering for purely aesthetic reasons in a *strategy* game?

As for Geometry, I took that while you were still in elementary school. 

 

[Lord Drake]

Do you guys really have to fight?
If you like what they've stated will be in civ 5 then great, party away!
If you're not all that thrilled but can live with it, then feel free to join the party.
If you think it was a really bad idea then fine, go somewhere else and complain about what ever, this thread wasn't made to be a verbal brawl.

 

[Mage246]

I've been a fan of the series since the very first one came out, I don't think I have to listen to you tell me what I can and can't talk about on the subject.

 

[Dryvus]

I'm not seeing any real hostility, anyway.

 

[Austupaio]

I've been a fan of the series since the very first one came out, I don't think I have to listen to you tell me what I can and can't talk about on the subject.

I think the whole bit's kind of pointless, they're hexagons and nothing's going to change that other than a mod that likely, won't be made.

 

[Mage246]

It's not about what can and can't be changed, it's about what should and shouldn't have. Sorry, I forgot that criticism was illegal on the internet. Since when are people not allowed to compare a sequel to the games that preceded it?

 

[Austupaio]

Okay, Hyp, settle down. Maybe take a nap?

 

[Mage246]

I'm not Hyperion, you imbecile.

 

[Archonsod]

I don't see how hexagons is an improvement. As fooshie correctly pointed out, in previous versions (even going back to the original Civ) you could move in 8 directions.

Eight directions yes, and eight potential tiles to move to. With hexes, six potential tiles to move to. It's also impossible to move in a straight line east or west, you have to zig zag.  If you really want a run down of the differences, head to any wargame forum and suggest one style is better than the other

Whether it will be an improvement or not will of course depend on how they make use of it.

 

[Austupaio]

I'm not Hyperion, you imbecile.

I agree with your right to criticize it and all, I'm simply stating that it's too late to change it, and it'd be best to see if they ditch it or use it effectively. Which would mean actually playing. You know, judging a book by it's cover and all that. They may make it interesting.

Personally, I'm happier seeing less perfectly square coasts and islands.

 

[Mage246]

I don't see how hexagons is an improvement. As fooshie correctly pointed out, in previous versions (even going back to the original Civ) you could move in 8 directions.

Eight directions yes, and eight potential tiles to move to. With hexes, six potential tiles to move to. It's also impossible to move in a straight line east or west, you have to zig zag.  If you really want a run down of the differences, head to any wargame forum and suggest one style is better than the other

Whether it will be an improvement or not will of course depend on how they make use of it.

I already know the differences, I've played enough hexagon-based games. Hexagon is inferior to 8-directional. Moving in a zig-zag in order to move east-west (or north-south, depending on the hexagon orientation) is laughable when compared to a straight line. Especially since it biases movement in one direction over another.