Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline Hexes or Squares?

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
Squares often fit dungeon designs better, though the less blocky your dungeon becomes, the less relevant this is
Also not sure about this, but when you have large-sized monster taking up more than just a square or hex, it's probably easier to fit them into squared- than hexed-battlefields
Hexes seems superior in almost every other way, though
 

Naveen

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
1,115
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
You may use squares in a dungeon, but don't use squares for the overland/wilderness/campaign map. That's really plebeian.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Well since Realms Beyond uses hexes I'm obviously supposed to argue in favor of hexes but personally, I think both systems can work equally well but it depends on implementation, of course. They both have their advantages and their disadvantages.

Squares obviously have the issue of dealing with diagonal movement. Does it cost the same amount of movement/action points as straight movement? Then in many cases walking the same distance diagonally will be cheaper in AP cost than walking it in straight lines. If you make it cost more than 1 AP, how much more will it cost? Diagonal movement on a square grid is more problematic to implement than on a hex grid.
Same goes for diagonal attacks. Do you require a reach weapon to attack diagonally, or is a normal melee weapon fine? What about the range of ranged weapons?
Square grids are also, well... square, which can force level design into very blocky shapes depending on whether all your assets confirm to a square grid, too. Look at games like Eschalon, the Spiderweb games, the early Ultimas and other similar games. There aren't any diagonals in these games, everything confirms to the square grid - no round shapes, no hexagonal or octagonal shapes, etc. This issue can easily be solved by allowing assets to be placed more freely and occupy half a square (which for the purpose of movement would count as occupied), so you could have, for example, diagonal wall tiles that occupy the halves of two squares rather than one full square.

Hexes have fewer issues with that kind of stuff. With 6 sides instead of 4, diagonal movement is easier to handle, as is diagonal attacking since every neighboring hex is the same distance from the hex you're standing on, while on a square grid the distance of diagonal squares is higher than the distance of straight squares. You don't have to make up any special rules such as "diagonal movement costs 1.5 AP" or "diagonal attacks are only possible for reach weapons". Everything just works better from the get-go, without any special rules required for diagonal things.
Hexes also make for more natural terrain design than squares, which is one of the reasons we went for hexes in Realms Beyond. Nature isn't square, and with a hex grid it's easier to create irregular terrain than with a square grid.
For tactics and area effect spells hexes are also better suited. We've made a nice graphic to illustrate it:
RB_Hexagons.jpg


So overall, hexes seem to be the superior style of grid, offering higher tactical variety, easier handling of the diagonal axes, and a more natural and less "boxy" level layout.

However, that doesn't mean squares don't have advantages, too. Even though diagonal movement isn't as natural as with hexes, a square grid potentially offers 8 directions to walk into, where hexes offer only 6. Depending on how you deal with diagonal movement and attacks, square grids can potentially offer more tactical depth as far as maneuvering and outflanking is concerned.

Personally, I think the best system would be one of square tiles with a good and tactically interesting implementation of half-square tiles, essentially turning the grid into an octagonal one with small half-grids filling in the empty space between the diagonals.

Both squares and hexes are limited and boring, give me some fuckin OCTAGONS :M
 

CryptRat

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
3,548
Do you use distances in number of hexes or real distances to determine big radial areas of effect of fireballs, etc...?
Both approaches suck for different reasons (first one because unintuitive result, second one because not radial) and that really pissed me off while trying to work with hexes.
To determine character walking number of hexes are fine since it's normal to consider the character crosses the center of every hex but for an area of effect it's not as evident.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
Do you use distances in number of hexes or real distances to determine big radial areas of effect of fireballs, etc...?
Both approaches suck for different reasons (first one because unintuitive result, second one because not radial) and that really pissed me off while trying to work with hexes.
To determine character walking number of hexes are fine since it's normal to consider the character crosses the center of every hex but for an area of effect it's not as evident.

From his picture I think its option number one
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
Hexes are basically superior to squares in many ways. The main problem that arises is you trying to place traditionally right-angled objects on a hex grid (e.g., buildings) and also if you have facing and need to run in a straight line that the hex doesn't allow you to but a square grid will (e.g., trying to run straight upwards in any of Jarl's hex grids in the above post).
 

Theldaran

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
1,772
Can't you trace the wall of the building at the center of the hex? Isn't that how wargames do it?
 

Darkzone

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,323
Hexagons look visually better, because they approximate better a circle and the line connecting the centers of each adjacent field has the same length. In Image editing and recognition this is a very keen attribute. The square having eight adjected fields and therefore having a direct path towards their centers in a 45° instead of the 60° of a hexagon (the lines connecting the centers have different length 1 and 1.42) , approximates better the true length for a path between fields that are not adjected. For A* both cases pose no problem. Periodic platonic (regular) tessalation is intersting, but concerning games i think that it depends on the system which is to be prefered and if both can be equally well used i would prefer hexagons because they look better. What looks really bad with Hexagons (not present in squares) is the movement along the line connecting the vertices of the hexagons and if the agent is bound to go through the centers of the hexagons (Fallout 1 and 2 examples). But this can be solved by approximating the path with a function of at lest the 4 degree and by omitting the centers of the hexagons. In WL2 they have used some functions to let the movement look more fluid (i have not paid attention toward which of the functions they have used and if it was my post that inspired them to this) even in square tessalation. Squares have also one interesting attribute, but i have not seen it used in games and that attribute is: a very easy incremental division.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Kit Walker
Yeah, I did mention that an octagon system would require half-tiles in between the diagonal spaces.
Yes, you did. My bad.

How would you treat the half tiles? I mean, what could be abstracted into them?

I'd use them as something of a half-step, close range thing to deal with the issue of diagonal movement and diagonal attacking.

Let's say moving one square (or octagon) costs 2 AP. Moving into one of the diagonal half-squares costs 1 AP. From the diagonal half-square you can attack into the four diagonally bordering octagons. This will allow for flanking from more directions, and for diagonal attacks with smaller weaponry such as daggers, while attacking a diagonal octagon from another octagon would require a longer reach weapon.

The half-tiles are a nice way to solve the diagonal movement issue in a square grid in a satisfying way, I would say.
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,899
Location
Okinawa, Japan
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
I'm supportive of square tiles in dungeons and hexagons for wilderness travel like Mentzer Gygax God intended.

iu

iu

ansalon-crop.png


expert-known-world-24-bw.png


In all seriousness, I agree that hexagon's are superior to square tiles when it comes to combat facing and figuring out side attacks and rear attacks, but square tiles are much easier to use for dungeon mapping. I'm curious on how this discussion on octagons works out though. I suppose a front attack would be against the front three facing siders of the octagon, a rear attack would be the back three, and a side attack from the two middle faces of the octagon.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
Hexes certainly have a visual pleasantry about them, possibly because they are found more often in nature than square grids. Similar to high polygon count and graphics-whores, hexes give a game a free pass so a certain segment of the population will check it out.

In real-life, people think in terms of the cardinal directions. Even though the Earth is a globe, not a plane. Two examples to highlight this: travelling east or west on a hex map requires a drunken walk, and perhaps more importantly, there isn't even a word in common parlance to describe 4 of the 6 directions on a hex grid.

Happy to have an expert chime in on this, but I also think the majority of real military troop formations (marching, battlefield, etc.) and search patterns were laid out as a square grid. Not being able to represent those on a hex grid is a little funny.

PS: Most complaints about square grids can be solved by making the standard unit size 2x2 instead of 1x1.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom