Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (
More info?)
Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:02:40 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
>>> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
>>>> news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
>>>>
>>>>> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
>>>>> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
>>>>> want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
>>>>> let units patrol!...
>>>>
>>>> I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
>>>
>>> I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I
>>> could swing that way...
>>>
>>> As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I
>>> had a patrol capability.
>>> -
>>>
>>> T.
>>
>> I'm not sure about either idea to be honest! Like you say, I don't
>> think patrol is suitable really and would make that much difference
>> due to the way you can move units as it is and the slowness of them
>> moving and all that
>
> There are two reasons to use patrol (which was a feature in Sid's
> Alpha Centauri, btw)
>
> In the early game when there is a great deal of unclaimed land, horse
> patrols are very handy to help you keep tabs on opposing civ movement
> and to ferret our barbarians... The 25 gold per camp is nice for a
> growing civ.
Yes, but this can really be done by manually moving your troops. I mean,
you have the function where you can select where you want your troops to end
up in Civ3.
I'm just not so certain that a patrol function would suit the game. You are
effectively looking down at a map, and I'm not sure a patrol function suits
that metaphor.
>
> In the late game patrols on land arent terribly useful... But
> destroyers, subs, and battleships patrolling regular routes can be
> exceptionally beneficial.
>
>> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
>> traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the
>> in-betweens there too. So you can attack from the north and the
>> south or what not. I think a hex map would be a little messy, and
>> would lead to clumsy attacks and movement.
>
> Hex maps aren't clumsy at all. The hexagon is a very logical shape to
> use to allow a broad variety of movement. The only reason not to use a
> hex map is that there really isn't anything wrong with the current
> grid map model.
>
there are problems with it. Firstly, it takes away from the logical
structure of warfare...as in, you can attack from the north, south, east and
west, as well as north east etc. And secondly, if you have a hex map, there
are less squares that can contact a central square (or hexagon as the case
would be). Imagine attacking a city in civ. Currently, you can surround it
with 8 units. With hex map, it would only be 6, with it being impossible to
attack from either east or west (or if you can attack via east or west,
impossible to attack from north or south).
I agree totally with you on nothing being wrong with the current model
anyway. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!
> I wonder if programming the game to work on a hex map would be harder
> than on a square grid?
I think it would be easier to be honest, as was seen above, a hex map would
grant less freedom of movement, which could only make the game easier to
program. The only way a hex map would suit the game better is if you
couldn't move diagonally in the current game. But you can, and even if you
couldn't, the addition of being able to move diagonally would be a better
option than moving to hex.