PDA

View Full Version : Why not the hex grid?



ArchWarlock
08-20-2010, 12:18 PM
I guess the title says it all.

The only "improvement" the square grid had to offer was the 4-tile large creature variant. But honestly, the big creatures were not new to the series, and the big creatures in Heroes 5 were somewhat clumsy. Moreover, Nival had to mantain a sort of "balance", increasing the size of several creatures, which were fine looking on one tile. And dragons, who are stuck to be always flying? Don't get me started http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Meanwhile, the hex grid:
- Is sort of a trademark, a tradition, a thing associated with the Heroes series.
- Is balanced and time-proved.
- Has no problems with diagonal movement, which is the drawback of any square grid.
- Has more tiles for movement on a speed tier than a square one (for example speed value 3 has 29 tiles in H5 and 37 tiles in H3), and also is more proportional from one speed tier to another, unlike than square grid in H5, in which the increase of speed gives slow creatures too little potential.

With so many pros, there's a con - there still are large creatures to be considered.
So the best ways I see to deal with it are:
- Make all creatures the size of one hex. Diferences should be in their playstyle, role and abilities.
Yes, this may sound as "copying", but come on, this is a logical and a useful solution.
- Or large creatures can stay, but the devs could try to improve them.
I'm not much of a great idea generator, but I thought it would be great having large creatures like in H3 to actually turn around in 3d environment for better positioning or enemy blocking. An example of that is on this pic I've made - http://yfrog.com/n4attackschemeturningj

So here's all I wanted to say. Hopes for the poll results to affect Ubi and BH's plans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dchalfont
08-20-2010, 08:26 PM
I like the large creature tiles...it gives lesser units a chance to get more attacks in.

GhostDracolich
08-20-2010, 11:36 PM
Its possible to have 1, 2, and 4 Hex sized units on a hex grid. Even more actually.

As for the return of the Hex Grid, I am in total support for its return.

GoranXII
08-21-2010, 05:24 AM
Nah, square grid works well enough (and they've dot diagonal movement down pat by the looks of the screenshots), since you can have 1*1, 1*2, 2*1 and 2*2. Battlefield size is a separate issue from the square/hex argument.

ArchWarlock
08-21-2010, 06:40 AM
since you can have 1*1, 1*2, 2*1 and 2*2.
Creature sizes I suppose?
Have you tried to imagine how strange diagonal attacks will look for 1*2 or 2*1? Or moving and turning animations for such creatures?
That's the problem coming from the very shape of the square. Nival had to "use effects" to "cover up" diagonal attacks even for 1*1 stacks, not mentioning 2*2.


Battlefield size is a separate issue from the square/hex argument.
Probably because large creatures have almost no space to move? Or the speed is too high, so lots of stacks reach enemy lines fast?
So how does an incresed battlefield fix the problems with clumsy big creatures? Simply by giving them more space to move in? Moreover, are you sure that 1*1 creatures won't become visually smaller on a large field and won't become more easy to avoid for their similar 1*1 enemies?
If the speed is the problem, increased space won't solve it. A 16*16 field with averege 8 speed is almost the same as 8*8 field with average 4 speed, except one thing - it's more precise.
Have you played Heroes 4? The larger field thing there is taken to extreme, with thousands of small tiles, so a creature can have a hundred positions, but actually few of them are "key" positions. Those many tiles won't give the tactics seeming to appear.
So why not simply to lower the speed? Because large creatures are clumsy by their design, and 1*2 or 2*1 will hardly solve the problem.

Backing up all I've said, here's an Google-translated version of an article about Heroes 5 development process, the part about the battlefield, which can clear things up.
You can read it here (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtf.ru%2Farticles%2Fread.php%3F id%3D41640%26page%3D3&sl=ru&tl=en)
And Nival's problem had two parts:
1) They wanted their creatures to be huge while containing a small battlefield.
2) They found the problems of a 1*2 hex tiles creature, but didn't do anything to fix it. They made a right step in the wrong direction. And that's the thing I'd like to be fixed.

Dreamwright
08-21-2010, 07:53 AM
I would absolutely love the hex grids back and I'm certain that I'm not in the minority.

GoranXII
08-21-2010, 08:11 AM
[/quote]Have you tried to imagine how strange diagonal attacks will look for 1*2 or 2*1? Or moving and turning animations for such creatures?[/quote]

Diagonal attacks yeah, but the turning, well that works no better with hexes than with squares, and H3 got around the fact by not implementing it at all, whereas now we can implement. A 1*2 creature will be able to get through any opening 1 space wide, while a 2*1 creature will require an opening 2 spaces wide.


That's the problem coming from the very shape of the square. Nival had to "use effects" to "cover up" diagonal attacks even for 1*1 stacks, not mentioning 2*2.

You can just disallow diagonal attacks, and make a few creatures that can attack at one space distance, which then can attack diagonally.


Probably because large creatures have almost no space to move? Or the speed is too high, so lots of stacks reach enemy lines fast?

Those are two separate issues, the first of battlefield width, the second of battlefield length, and the battlefield in H5 wasn't big enough in either direction


So how does an incresed battlefield fix the problems with clumsy big creatures? Simply by giving them more space to move in? Moreover, are you sure that 1*1 creatures won't become visually smaller on a large field and won't become more easy to avoid for their similar 1*1 enemies?

That's an issue of 2D vs 3D, and of comparative scaling, and you could solve it, if it became an issue, with rotation and zoom functions.


If the speed is the problem, increased space won't solve it. A 16*16 field with averege 8 speed is almost the same as 8*8 field with average 4 speed, except one thing - it's more precise.

Ah, but a 16*16 field can have an average speed of 6 will providing a greater variety of speed than an 8*8 map with an average speed of 3.


2) They found the problems of a 1*2 hex tiles creature, but didn't do anything to fix it. They made a right step in the wrong direction. And that's the thing I'd like to be fixed.

And I'll note that hexes have an issue for any creatures bigger than 1*2, you have the spare hex on the bottom/right when the creatures are facing one way, and on the top/left when the creatures are facing the other way, really really inelegant.

The issue with a hex battlefield is that it's difficult to work with creatures bigger than 1*2, the problem with square battlefields is diagonal attacks. Neither problem is totally insurmountable, but nor are either of the solutions going to be elegant.

ArchWarlock
08-21-2010, 09:46 AM
You can just disallow diagonal attacks, and make a few creatures that can attack at one space distance, which then can attack diagonally.
Yes, I've seen several games which work that way. However, it limits the number of attack directions to 4 (mostly), giving hexes a bit of an advantage with 6 directions.


Ah, but a 16*16 field can have an average speed of 6 will providing a greater variety of speed than an 8*8 map with an average speed of 3.
True. But, a speed of 3, as I've mentioned in the opening post, hexes have more tiles to choose, same goes for other speed tiers. Well, that probably means that a small hex field may be equal in terms of tactics to a bit larger square one. Why have a large one then?
Also, with having more tiers of speed, it's a huge risk of getting an individual one giving too little against the previous one, somewhat like having a speed of 3.5. I suppose it's a quality over quantity here.

On the side note, we can also count that we'll need a smaller number of obstacles, because each of them will affect a smaller field much more. I don't mind having a huge rock or a chasm on the field, but it again asks for zooming. And I guess I would rather see everything without zooming. Also, on a larger field it would be a hard work to make RNG generate a fixed number of obstacles of each size. If not, maps will vary from ones where you can't block to ones where you can't pass.


And I'll note that hexes have an issue for any creatures bigger than 1*2
But do we need more? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
If we take H5, most 4-tile creatures are either "round", meaning they can fit on one hex (and I mean lich here, but there are more, like djinn or thane), or "long", meaning they can be placed on two.


you have the spare hex on the bottom/right when the creatures are facing one way, and on the top/left when the creatures are facing the other way, really really inelegant.
True, even more for a 3d environment. well, I've placed a idea-pic in the OP and I find turning a good solution, because hexes allow it, while squares do not. It also may allow different interactions with creatures, like blocking attack availability, or using the battlefield to lure a large enemy into the trap. Not mentioning it looks natural.

infinity_at_end
08-22-2010, 10:29 AM
I think it is the best solution to be added the hex grid combat system ...

Reasons :
- in case of the square battlefield a deffending unit can only have 3 attakers ... in case of the hex grid...there will be only 2 attackers is he have left and right covered by other "friend" if not there will be like 5 for the square and 4 for the hex grid .. this will greatly force the players to adopt other strategies that differs from previous Heroes games...
- there will be some minor problem with the units that will be implemented on 2 hexes, examples : Knights, Griffins, Unicors,etc.... because they can't face STRAIT the battlefield... they will always have to be turned on one side.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif if they build then on 2x2 hexes... there will be problems with diagonal attack.... wich will make them powerfull(knight's Charge..Griffin's Flight..etc..)
- on the Hex grid there can be placed some units much more better than a square grid.. examples : Hydra - they can cover 3 Hexes.. 1 for back legs and the other 2 front hexes for the front legs and his heads... quite a standings and a perfect unit for deffending archers of csters... in the same way Hellhound/Cerberus and some others...

Kosh401
08-22-2010, 01:26 PM
Absolutely I would like to see the Hex grid back. In fact, out of all the things we have seen with HVI, the Square grid is the only thing I can 100% say I do not like - unless you count the name change, I also do not like that at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

znork
08-22-2010, 01:44 PM
I like hex grid to, we can only hope. But there was no hex in the demo.

ArchWarlock
08-23-2010, 02:36 AM
Well, according to Marzhin, it's in the pre-alpha stage, meaning lots of things can be changed. But I really don't know what we can offer above already known math facts and public opinion in form of a poll so the company would make this descision.

Kartabon
08-23-2010, 04:20 AM
I don't understand why they put a squared-grid, i really think it's a backstep instead of a forward step :P Please, consider it more seriously Black Hole, the battles would be far better with an hex one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Alderbranchh
08-23-2010, 07:57 AM
I agree that the hexgrid is better. Another issue that is a technical one that was brought up was that there is no possibility to make proper 2*1 units... so 1*1 or 2*2 units... thats a flaw in my book.

But it depends on battlefieldsizes ofcourse.

Kartabon
08-23-2010, 08:04 AM
Yep, i bet for a battlefield size similar to the HoMM IV one, i liked the size of that one, it was great.

The point of making units 2*2 is... well, I dislike it a lot, i prefer 1*1 units or 1*2 units like knights in HOMM III.

CelestialSeraph
08-23-2010, 08:22 AM
I definitely prefer a hex grid over a square one. Like the OP mentioned it's sort of a tradition, but more importantly it opens up more natural diagonal movement.

As for large creatures, I don't mind them as long as battlefields are large enough to support them. The Homm V battlefield always felt a bit to small.

Dergos
08-23-2010, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by CelestialSeraph:
I definitely prefer a hex grid over a square one. Like the OP mentioned it's sort of a tradition, but more importantly it opens up more natural diagonal movement.

As for large creatures, I don't mind them as long as battlefields are large enough to support them. The Homm V battlefield always felt a bit to small.
completly agree with this. eventualy i just did the same tactic over and over again with the small field

GhostDracolich
08-23-2010, 08:09 PM
Hexgrid is the best grid geometrically speaking too for a TBS with grid locations.

Here's an eye popper... How about a hex-grid adventure map? Everything won't need to be squarish anymore ;p... Though they would have to edit the animations to prevent silly zig-zagging.

Kartabon
08-24-2010, 03:05 AM
That would be a nice idea ghost, but still, in the adv. map is it really necessary? Would it make a notorious improve?

ArchWarlock
08-24-2010, 06:58 AM
So, folks, I've created another poll (http://forums.ag.ru/?board=glas&action=display&num=1282654291&start=0) at Heroic Corner (probably the largest russian fansite) and I may try it on Heroes Community or elsewhere.

I'd like to ask you to help out and create similar polls on regional fansites and post links to those treads here. I suppose that it'll be better to have some proof if we decide to create a petition, and fan polls would be a good indicator together with the signs.

BlackEscaflowne
08-24-2010, 07:45 AM
Hex grids are cool and offer more flexibility IMHO.

N.M.I.
08-24-2010, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Kartabon:
I don't understand why they put a squared-grid, i really think it's a backstep instead of a forward step :P
Wholeheartedly agree. Even the developers of Civilization 5 realized that hexas are much better and offer more strategy and tactical placement.
Why dumb it down again? King's Bounty is perfectly fine with hexas as well, so were the Heroes series (until H5 which isn't very good anyway).
Bring hexas back please.
And the 3 good (Tower, Castle and Rampart), the 3 evil (Inferno, Necropolis and Dungeon) and the 3 neutral (Stronghold, Fortress and Conflux) factions.
And the random map generator.

That is all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

LongDarkBlues28
08-25-2010, 09:44 AM
The distance between hexes - the only advantage of using them over squares with diagonal movement - only matters on a tabletop. In a computer game, the distance is arbitrary. It doesn't matter how far the center of each square is because it still takes the same amount of moves to reach it. Particularly so with Heroes, where you are only choosing the end location, not the movement path itself. Hexes have zero functional advantage in a virtual space.

LongDarkBlues28
08-25-2010, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by N.M.I.:
Wholeheartedly agree. Even the developers of Civilization 5 realized that hexas are much better and offer more strategy and tactical placement.
That's to accommodate Civ 5 not having unit stacking anymore. Also, Civ is a game where you are moving over actual distances, Heroes combat movement is on a board where relative distance is meaningless: 8 movement points away is the same whether it is hexes or squares with diagonals.

ArchWarlock
08-25-2010, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by LongDarkBlues28: Particularly so with Heroes, where you are only choosing the end location, not the movement path itself.
True now, but I've seen thoughts about having to choose a movement path. It can definately be an improvement and I guess we can ask for it while we're at it.

Also, what are your thoughts about hexes having more tiles for movement on each tier?

Labyrinth
08-29-2010, 03:25 PM
I don't really care much. The hex grid looks somewhat cooler, but on the other hand the square one is closer to chess (and that's kinda what Heroes combat is inspired by, no?)

I don't see us missing any functionality by having squares, though... Why would you restrict yourself to moving only in 6 directions, if you can have 8? Why should you be able to go straight across the field in one way, but not orthogonally?

GhostDracolich
10-07-2010, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by LongDarkBlues28:
The distance between hexes - the only advantage of using them over squares with diagonal movement - only matters on a tabletop. In a computer game, the distance is arbitrary. It doesn't matter how far the center of each square is because it still takes the same amount of moves to reach it. Particularly so with Heroes, where you are only choosing the end location, not the movement path itself. Hexes have zero functional advantage in a virtual space.

That is completely wrong. Hexagon's provide the most "circular" grid without introducing fillers between the grid slots. This allows units, in a TBS game with grids, to have a more circular and natural move range. With squares and movement points measured in squares, the moving diagonally consumes more "Movement" geometrically speaking. So if your planning future moves in advance you will need to keep in mind the conversion ratio when moving diagonally so many squares, especially when units are affected by spells before they can move.

Mr.Dragon
10-07-2010, 07:24 AM
Obviously an Escher grid would be best!

Seriously though, I think the HV grid worked perfectly fine, a hex grid is awkward anyway now that we have 3d graphics and creatures larger then 1 hex take up more space in more dimensions.
Hex grid was great for 2d Heroes.
Square grid is better for 3d Heroes.
Love it or hate it, we're in 3d again.

DaveJame
10-12-2010, 01:25 PM
Did Any of You old Heroes veterans thought about the implantation of Hex grid in a 3D eengine?

If we look at the hex grind, we can see that it realy up an forward option. If you want to move left or right, you don't have that potion. And this is, I think, the reason why they staid at the Squer grid. Because the rotration of the camera would by at some point confuising.

Befor anyone counters with KB. That game had a 7 til wide batle field. (Which is not much more then in Heroes 1). So spare the coments.

Mr.Dragon
10-12-2010, 03:14 PM
Another thing about KB's hexes, one of the tiny few nagging things I don't like about it, is that it doesn't have creatures (other then bosses) that take up more then 1 square.
A mighty black dragon in KB isn't that much larger then a snake, archer or imp.
I understand why they did it, but I think the hex grid combined with larger monsters is a more elegant solution.

Just look at Dungeons and Dragons, both 3rd and 4th edition are strongly reliant on the square grid, and it works great for dynamic encounters with many large opponents.

Another issue is that in a square grid you can have characters walk in 8 directions, hex grid only 6, this might not seem like much but it is pretty weird when in HoMM3 I see my hydra zig-zag walk up or down the battlefield because hexes won't allow him a straight line.

kmbogd
10-15-2010, 07:04 PM
Hex grid: better visual impression, traditional in heroes games

Square grid: big creatures possible-> more tactics, implementation in H5 was very good not at all difficult to estimate as someone tried to imply.

Putting in balance the 2, I would have to say that the square grid seems better.