SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: May 07 2010 11:13 pm

Yeah, changing the shape of the spaces adds soooooooooo much to the game. I want a basic square grid. It looks better, and it makes more sense.

Posted: May 07 2010 11:19 pm

It actually will. It's not just an aesthetic change, with 6 sides to every space rather than 4, it's that much more realistic to a civilization's growth. And I don't think it looks bad. If it went to 8 it may start to look too cluttered, but even that would be a cool. Fuck it, go to 16 or 32!

Posted: May 07 2010 11:22 pm

It also means you can't play with a keyboard. How would movement even work? Menu? Drag and drop? Don't like either of those options.

Posted: May 07 2010 11:27 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

It also means you can't play with a keyboard. How would movement even work? Menu? Drag and drop? Don't like either of those options.

With a mouse.

Posted: May 07 2010 11:31 pm

Klimbatize wrote:

With a mouse.

Right, but with a mouse, it would be drag and drop, or some variant thereof. That or it gives you a menu of the directions you can move in, and you click the one you want. And again, I don't like either of those options.

Joined: Mar 01 2010 Posts: 126

8 doesn't make sense anyway. You can't stack octagons like you can squares and hexagons.
Hexagonal spaces make sense in games like the Heroes of Might & Magic series and strategy games where the contents of the spaces aren't 3D. But when your hexagonal spaces have 3D objects in them, the objects tend to cover other spaces too much.
I think Civ has pretty much had the right formula from the beginning.

Posted: May 07 2010 11:33 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Klimbatize wrote:

With a mouse.

Right, but with a mouse, it would be drag and drop, or some variant thereof. That or it gives you a menu of the directions you can move in, and you click the one you want. And again, I don't like either of those options.

I use hotkeys and mouse right now anyway with Civ. It's just point and click. It's really not that difficult. And it's Syd Meier...would he completely overhaul an interface if it wasn't for a good reason? I have faith that it will be a positive progression.

Grover wrote:

You can't stack octagons like you can squares and hexagons.

Kind of true. The only way would be to have the squares in between octagons work as 'neutral' or unplaceable spaces. It wouldn't work for a Civ game as it would make the map look ridiculous.

Joined: Mar 01 2010 Posts: 126

Indeed, you'd basically have only 4 directions to move in, so why not just have square spaces to begin with, right?

Posted: May 08 2010 06:40 am

They're changing to hexagons to use a more realistic and fluid Civ growth/culture aura or whatever that red border is. In Civ IV, using squares, the culture borders were always blocky and predictable and it allows for more varied tactics when it comes to battle then just throwing two huge stacks at one another.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I can see how resources would need to be thought of differently. If you are the type that doesn't automate your city work, the choice of where to improve would be much more important since you have more surrounding locations.

I am still new to the game and find it complicated as hell without more choices, but I can see the appeal for those who play often.

Posted: May 09 2010 12:17 am

GPF, you will get the hang of it. Your first couple of games will simply be to get familiar with everything. Once you do you'll understand and enjoy the micromanagement elements more.

Posted: May 10 2010 12:51 am

You have less actually. If I recall couldn't you move diangle in CIV 4, so you had 8 directions, instead of the now 6? Or, am I thinking of Civ: Revolution?