Why do devs use tiles?

[operating]

There's a couple of games I like, however tiles just drive me crazy, they just don't allow for natural movements. I have been wondering why the devs did not use hexes instead?

[Jagdtiger14]

I will not buy a game that uses tiles. Very un-imaginative, in-accurate, cheap looking, and lazy. I'll throw in disrespectful.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

[ntrlpr]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan
...

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Freyr Oakenshield]

I say, I love tiles. They're lovely and so cute [:'(]

[aaatoysandmore]

I have no problem with tiles either. Heck I started out with tiles (checkers/chess) and then moved to hexagons when I got my first taste of Avalon Hill. I actually like the more terrain that can be used as long as you can move diagonally from the tile. My beef is more with graphics than tiles. I do not like the top down views of them. I much prefer the isometric views now. I wanna see the outline of my tank not the mechanical drawing of one.

[Jagdtiger14]

Yeah, I used to play Chess...then I became a war gamer.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Yeah, I used to play Chess...then I became a war gamer.

I understood you were referring to the particular type of wargame not the level of stratego but I guess others missed that.

[operating]

The games (at present) I am most interested in is: SCWWI also BA2 (Kursk). BA2 is OK to a certain extent on a limited map and for the most part tactical. I'm no expert with the game, but my first impression is; it's clunky to move units on a tile map. As for SCWWI, it's a strategic game, again the movement is somewhat clunky. Both games do not allow stacking, which again interrupts movement, not that hex based maps are all that different for similar reasons, however the hex based games seemed to just have more fluid movement. I just have to wonder about the devs decision making in choosing tiles over hexes or visa versa?

[aaatoysandmore]

I just have to wonder about the devs decision making in choosing tiles over hexes or visa versa?[

Pretty simple it increases the strategic and tactical choices. More places to go more ground to cover.

[Kuokkanen]

Sid Meier's Civilization V introduced hexagons to the series and game got much flak. Maybe not (just) becouse of the hexes, but becouse lack of stacking ("traffic jam simulator") and other significant changes. And AI has been complained about too.

[aaatoysandmore]

Yeah, stacking in another issue with me. I can go for couple of foot units and a plane but when they make these games like Ron Dockal of Scherpunkt with unlimited stacking, it kinda ruins the game experience for me. Back in the day when Kampfgruppe came out I couldn't wait to play it, but when I found out you could stack to the sky I quit playing it. Games were turning into stack-fests and not strategic or tactical ones.

[TheGrayMouser]

Pike and Shot uses squares and not hexes... It worked out well and any initial " why did they do this !" moments disappeared once I played. IMHO, as long as the engine accounts for the diffence in actual distances from grid to grid diagonal vs orthagonal , then it really should matter much at all.

[wesy]

or this game...

[waltero]

http://i.stack.imgur.com/a8idl.png

Points A and B are both distance 4 from the player (red lines). Lines-of-sight to both are blocked by walls (black tiles). However, due to the hexagonal grid, A can be reached in 4 moves, whereas B requires 5 moves (blue lines).

If you want people to not "play the grid" you're probably going to have to not use a grid.

Hex grids are tricky in a lot of ways.

Square tiles are OK as long as they are staggered (example: building blocks).

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: waltero

http://i.stack.imgur.com/a8idl.png

Points A and B are both distance 4 from the player (red lines). Lines-of-sight to both are blocked by walls (black tiles). However, due to the hexagonal grid, A can be reached in 4 moves, whereas B requires 5 moves (blue lines).

If you want people to not "play the grid" you're probably going to have to not use a grid.

Hex grids are tricky in a lot of ways.

Square tiles are OK as long as they are staggered (example: building blocks).

Excellent illustration!. Interestingly, if the black wall hexes exerted a "ZOC" and one needs to keep a hex away, one can reach A or B in 6 moves!! and they are equidistant again!
Not sure why offset grids are "better than non offset".. I guess is it depends on the game. I think Avalon Hills Bismark used offset grids, but that was a strategic level game.
One thing I dislike about hexes in tactical games is if a units facing is bound to a hex angle ( ie John Tiller games, FOG etc) then units always will face two enemies or stacks of enemies to their front, which heavily abstracts the concept of unit frontage ( which no tactical game pre-disbursed formation really tries to make concrete anyhow, except AOR to some degree...)
Also, units taht move this way will always zig zag left or rigyt and can move obliquily across the board without any tru manevuering ( ie orders) to accomlish an obliquie move. (unless one always moves an even # of hexes and alwasy zigs and then zag...)

[aaatoysandmore]

I look at a tile like I do a brick wall in a square. It has 4 sides not 5. Actually though in reality squares and diagonals go together. There are diagonals at some places from wall to wall but in general the wall or "foundation" of a building are usually square. Now, some abstract architect might make a hexagonal building but I don't see many of them anywhere I go these days. [:D] Plots of land are usually sold in a square acre of land. I've yet to see a hexagon of an acre yet. [:D]

[Freyr Oakenshield]

as long as the engine accounts for the diffence in actual distances from grid to grid diagonal vs orthogonal . . .

I don't really think that distance difference matters at all, as long as you and your opponent are both subject to the same distance differences. Games always simplify reality to some extent. Some could argue that hexgrids are more realistic since the distances are equal, but... you can't always move in a straight line on a hexgrid... Is that realistic? Or you can only move in 6 directions... Is that realistic? And anticipating a possible argument that might be put forward here - do you really think that moving in six directions is more realistic than moving in four directions...? [:D]

[PipFromSlitherine]

RBS has posted in a number of places on why he prefers tiles to hexes. From a development point of view hexes are much more complex to implement, less intuitive for the player, and look worse. Their only real advantage is the for a given tile to tile movement the distance is always the same. But that's pretty much it.

Cheers

Pip

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

as long as the engine accounts for the diffence in actual distances from grid to grid diagonal vs orthogonal . . .

I don't really think that distance difference matters at all, as long as you and your opponent are both subject to the same distance differences. Games always simplify reality to some extent. Some could argue that hexgrids are more realistic since the distances are equal, but... you can't always move in a straight line on a hexgrid... Is that realistic? Or you can only move in 6 directions... Is that realistic? And anticipating a possible argument that might be put forward here - do you really think that moving in six directions is more realistic than moving in four directions...? [:D]

Depends on how abstact you want! Using a grid that say is 50 meters per side, the diagonal would actually be around 70 meters.. Imagine if Steel panthers converted to grids and did not account for this... An infantry unit that with modern AR's could normally fire to a range of "8" Suddenly its weapons have an effective range 560 meters as long as its firing diagonally vs the normal range of 400 meters if it fired across grid "flats"...
The abstraction is worse if you designed a historical tactical map and then DONT account for the diffence becasue suddenly units literally will move faster than they historically could/should if they go diagonally.
It probobly matters little though in a large scale strat game where units are corps or armies and can only move one "unit" of distance at a time anyhow... ( think Strategic Command games)

I never implied I thought one was better or more realistic, as you have pointed out, they both have issues. (Althought in a square grid you can move 6 directions not 4 , same as a hex game, and since I know of NO game that uses all 12 possible unit facings that a hex technically offers, hexes and grids have the same # of unit facing options too!

Cheers man!