Grid: squares or hexes? Or vector based?

[Signal]

We all know Fargo said that the game will be a turn-based, "top-down" RPG. So the question remains: will the maps we fight on have a hex or square based grid? Or even vector based?

Which would you prefer?

EDIT: Added mentioning of vector based, since I forgot about that when I originally made the post.

[Drool]

It doesn't really matter to me. Hexes allow for diagonal movement, but in the grand scheme of things, that's not especially important.

[Aliasalpha]

Squares have 8 possible movement options, hexes have 6. Squares win.

[mina86]

Squares have 8 possible movement options, hexes have 6. Squares win.

Not really. Problem with squares is that all of those moves do not have the same length -- ie. four of them should cost 1 AP, and another four should cost 1.41421356... AP. In hexagons, all 6 moves have the same length.

Then again, in grand schema of things, it does not matter that much. At the same time, however, I would gladly accept lack of strict grid system, ie. possibility for player to stand anywhere rather then in well define discrete points only. That's in part because I'd like to see combat mechanics the same as in Frozen Synapse.

[Anarkopsykotik]

Hex or square? Hell, it's obvious... Vector based movement !

[DarkNacht]

Squares have 8 possible movement options, hexes have 6. Squares win.

Hexes have 6 possible movement options, Squares have 4. Hexes for the win.
I always prefer hexes because they tend to provide smoother movement most of the time.

[undecaf]

Squares have 8 possible movement options, hexes have 6. Squares win.

Hexes have 6 possible movement options, Squares have 4.

Squares have 8 if you count diagonal movement over the corners of the square, but as people said it doesn't offer even distances like hexes.

I've always preferred hexgrid over squaregrid, but I'm pretty much fine with either.

[nenaza]

Like Fallout Tactics but fixing covers.

The traditional hexagon battle-grid for movement has been replaced with a more free-form system. Moving still requires action points, but a small number will appear at the cursor to indicate how many action points it takes to get there rather than it being sectioned off. While this change is largely better than the constrained grid from the prior Fallouts, the free-form system does prove annoying at times when a character cannot shoot an enemy due to cover that would not ancpply had the character been ihes to the right.

[Badunius]

While this change is largely better

with no ability to estimate distance between you and enemy

[Gabriel77Dan]

I'd like hex-grid since I come from Fallout.
No idea which would be superior to the other but I think hexagon worked fine for Fallout and square is ugly, so hexagon for me.

[Roger Wilco]

I would go with a hex-based system, if my choices were between square, hex, or vector. With that said, I know they have been working on updating their system and I'd guess this isn't an area we are going to have much input.

The problem with a vector based system is that it isn't a good translation of many table top games. If the idea behind Wasteland 2 is to bring back the table-top experience as stated, then you need a grid system of some kind.

If combat is tactical and more like a chess match, or table top strategy game, then you need clear and easily identifiable boundaries. You want to know that if you move 4 spaces you are 9 spaces away from your opponent and it can't get closer than 2 spaces away on its next turn. That's a big part of where the strategy comes into play, and what connects it to the table-top game experience.

Square-based movement has the diagonal problem.

But perhaps, as I stated above, they've already thought of something else. I'm sure what they have in mind has taken what I said into consideration and be a good choice.

[Signal]

I come from Fallout.

Turn in your "dinosaur" card.

[fixT]

Hex grid. Squares are lazy.

[paultakeda]

The problem with hex is there is no true north or true south. Watching someone walk north/south doing so by zigging and zagging just looked ridiculous.

The square grid is much maligned but it's served quite well for board games and CRPGs. The idea of even spacing? Meh. I'm not that anal about a diagonal being "longer" than a cardinal.

Be that as it may, I'm fine, either way, but my preference is square.

[Gabriel77Dan]

I come from Fallout.

Turn in your "dinosaur" card.

Nein, Dinosaur membership stays.
I am on the other hand not a member of the Origin Of Life Club.


(Dinosaur Club: Fallout, so around '98. Origin Of Life Club: Wasteland, so around '88)

[Badunius]

The problem with hex is there is no true north or true south.

or true west/east
the problem is not with hexes, the problem is with pathfinding
also there is the problem with aligning orthogonal geometry on hexagonal grid
(spent months trying to find a reasonable approach)

The idea of even spacing? Meh. I'm not that anal about a diagonal being "longer" than a cardinal.

so 10 diagonal steps being almost equal to 14 cardinal do not bothers you?

[paultakeda]

The idea of even spacing? Meh. I'm not that anal about a diagonal being "longer" than a cardinal.

so 10 diagonal steps being almost equal to 14 cardinal do not bothers you?

Not really. If you really want to equalize the tiles, then the difference in distance can be used to determine ranged weapon effectiveness and when squares are adjacent melee is always possible. The issue for movement can be corrected by making a diagonal cost more movement points than a cardinal. Et cetera.

It's just not something I'd say I obsess over. Square vs. hex may mean using different tactics. Beyond that, meh.

[wormspeaker]

I love me some hexes. On the other hand hexes complicate the development process. I say this because I have tried to make a hex based game before and it makes it much harder to implement the square buildings and streets that humanity likes to build. I think standard 45 degree angle Isometric is probably the best bang for the buck when it comes to a game like this. I think it would allow them to provide true multi-level maps instead of transitioning between maps when you want to go up stairs like most games.

In other words I'd love to see multi-level maps like Old School X-Com/UFO Defense using an Isometric system, than to transition between maps when going up or down a level. I think if they skip the added difficulty or making a hex engine they could make a much more advanced 45 degree square engine.

[mina86]

The problem with hex is there is no true north or true south. Watching someone walk north/south doing so by zigging and zagging just looked ridiculous.

This actually can be fixed by simply rendering the walk in straight line. All it takes is looking to moves in advance and checking one more field if it's empty.

[paultakeda]

The problem with hex is there is no true north or true south. Watching someone walk north/south doing so by zigging and zagging just looked ridiculous.

This actually can be fixed by simply rendering the walk in straight line. All it takes is looking to moves in advance and checking one more field if it's empty.

Works for me. I just think squares would be more practical to implement, but if it's six of one half a dozen of the other regarding resources in development, then it means the same to me.