There were three 'Nopes' as well, so if it was Nope cubed, then it could have been nope to the nope that replied to the original nope
.-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There were three 'Nopes' as well, so if it was Nope cubed, then it could have been nope to the nope that replied to the original nope
.
It's "realistic" in the sense that it is "strategic" like their games. PDS doesn't make tactical games where a ruleset defines army movement distance or zones of control like tabletop wargames. The combat is always represented somewhat abstractly by design.
You absolutely can if you code for battle events due to terrain, following the abstracted model. A province could simply be defined as having a notable terrain feature, like a pass or a bridge (This is already the case with things like river crossings in some games). If you want to avoid having a defined terrain feature inside the text files for the game, you could easily have the engine read the terrain types contained within a province and generate battle events from there.
Because the game is supposed to represent somewhat historical borders, and combat is abstracted. See above.
This is the reason for Infrastructure in HOI games, and road/railroad developement in Vicky, and then the pathing AI in other games. The maps in the games are also representing a flat model of a geoid, and there will be some distortion. Your solution basically involves either making a globe, covered in hexagons (and the 12 pentagons that would be needed for consistency) that are too big to handle things like OPMs in the HRE, or consists of multiple dozens of thousands of tiny hexagons to reach the same level of clarity. Civ V necessarily loses some of that by themselves abstracting provincial borders as more of "zone of control" instead of historical borders. Even on large maps this fidelity is lost.
This is already done in the sense that pixels subdivide the map into shapes. If you approach it from a hexagonal point of view, you run into a few problems:
- First, the map has to be a globe or its approximate, to avoid distortion. This brings up further problems describe in the third bullet below.
- If the map is "provincial" and does not have a globe, then the hexagons will distort the further away from the equator you move. This will be represented visibly on a flat provincial map by successively taller hexagons and would look like crap.
- Assuming you move to hexagons, you also lose the ability to modify the map in visual programs like Photoshop, since native display of all prior maps is represented with raster which is terrible for hexagons. To display a hexagon without distortion for custom maps, an outside program would need to exist and be maintained, or more likely for cost reasons be considered proprietary, or generated by the modding community.
- If you are using pixels, it is not any different from the regular system, only if you are trying to add a tactical element to the game by having unit-coordinate-specific positioning and placement of terrain and other effects, you just added a crapload of extra work for the processor, cut out half the game's market, and you'll need to have a cartesian system to accommodate distance changes from pixel to pixel as they run scalar to latitude. (i.e. Each pixel will be representing a small area the further north you go). This would eliminate the custom map projections in games like CKII without a complicated mathematical formula used in conjunction for actual positioning.
The hexagon solution just creates more problems than it solves. PDS GSGs are not "battle simulators" or anything like that. Changing the way they currently operate also makes it much more difficult for modders to work with the established file patterns, and sets everyone back to square one. It just is a bad idea.
My nope is against idea of those hexagons or whatever they are.. It would completely ruin the game imo.. Its not civilization 5..There were three 'Nopes' as well, so if it was Nope cubed, then it could have been nope to the nope that replied to the original nope
Ick- why would we want to ruin a series of good games with simple polygons when we can have elaborate historical borders?
I'm still of the opinion that contiguous map mechanics (in the same vein as the Total War strategic map, but obviously with far more thought/detail put into it) would make much more sense than the strictly rigid province system we currently have for these kind of games.
You could instantly get rid of the arbitrary decisions the game makes about where everything is, and what is and isn't historically accurate.
You could instantly get rid of the arbitrary decisions the game makes about where everything is, and what is and isn't historically accurate.
Why do you want to make from this game second Sid Meier's Civilization?
No, it is impractical and worse than what we already have in EU. Civ is much different game than eu4 and can work in that system.
Every game that I have seen so far and that has some sort of quadratic or hexagon map, even if only in battle mode, has lots of problems with AI using it properly.
Every game that I have seen so far and that has some sort of quadratic or hexagon map, even if only in battle mode, has lots of problems with AI using it properly.
although hexagons are nah il rather not
but i think we can get one idea from this thread
how about a thing that you can tick on your army like do not engage hostile units and depending on enemy army size and your army size and maneuver of your general you could pass trough a province and don t engage a fight ?
because that would actually make sense not always did hostile armies had fights while on same province
but i think we can get one idea from this thread
how about a thing that you can tick on your army like do not engage hostile units and depending on enemy army size and your army size and maneuver of your general you could pass trough a province and don t engage a fight ?
because that would actually make sense not always did hostile armies had fights while on same province
Civ 5 didn't ruin the franchise. Civ Rev did that, my friend!
On Hexes and historical borders?
Depends on how big the Hexes are. On Supreme Ruler 2020's map they use Hexes and their map's borders are alright(at least in comparison to PDS's vanilla maps) and there are probably millions of hexes on that map.
I am of course NOT suggesting building a game using SR's design mentality. That game's an example of a dev team repeatedly gut punching it's customers with complexity.
Last edited:
HoI3 map is based of "Prov-Hexes". Afaik there was an early alpha screen that showed the -surprise- very alpha map. And there you could see that the provs were -before finetuning- like hexes.
That might be hint to how the map was created at first only, but also shows that a "hex" could be even a "province" in some way.
Look at "Endless Legends", they have a new way of province and hexes for their "CIV-like" game.
Kind of that way is done in HoI4 too. You have the "provinces" where you can wage war, and the "regions" where you build factories, assign air units to and so on..
That system has quite some nice possibilities.
That might be hint to how the map was created at first only, but also shows that a "hex" could be even a "province" in some way.
Look at "Endless Legends", they have a new way of province and hexes for their "CIV-like" game.
Kind of that way is done in HoI4 too. You have the "provinces" where you can wage war, and the "regions" where you build factories, assign air units to and so on..
That system has quite some nice possibilities.
Part of me suspects OP is trolling... But in case he/she/it isn't, then I'd like to register my opposition to this idea.
I see some hostile reactions to this very simple idea. One common defense against hexagonal based gameplay is that you wouldn't get "historically accurate borders". I just don't get how province shaped borders are in any way historically accurate, it's not like borders of countries are determined by arbitrarily shaped blocks of anachronistic geographic abstractions that PDS games call provinces.
I personally would be a fan of it for some future title that Paradox may develop but not one at this time. I've always been irked by the fact that when you colonize in Victoria or Europa you always end up with provinces that reflect an administration that your country does not exhibit. I would prefer provinces to reflect administrative divisions than some abstraction of geography that can be conquered or lost.
That being said, I would prefer colonization to be more hex-based where settlers move and spread to different hexes and spread the settler population. The spreading of settler population would eventually lead to a dynamic province on the map reflecting the colonial administration of the area, with a bit of exaggerated claims over unsettled (or native) lands/hexes. The computing power needed to simulate this kind of colonization does seem unmarketable at the time, however.
Though this shouldn't stop at colonization, provincial administrations in Europe have definitely changed and it would be nice if those were dynamic and if combat depended on hex control rather than provincial control. This all necessitates an economy based on certain values of hexes rather than provinces overall. Unfortunately that seems like an unpopular idea that is likened to the shift from RTW to RTW2 (for some reason) and CIV IV to CIV V (which I would agree was a significant downgrade despite the hexes).
I personally would be a fan of it for some future title that Paradox may develop but not one at this time. I've always been irked by the fact that when you colonize in Victoria or Europa you always end up with provinces that reflect an administration that your country does not exhibit. I would prefer provinces to reflect administrative divisions than some abstraction of geography that can be conquered or lost.
That being said, I would prefer colonization to be more hex-based where settlers move and spread to different hexes and spread the settler population. The spreading of settler population would eventually lead to a dynamic province on the map reflecting the colonial administration of the area, with a bit of exaggerated claims over unsettled (or native) lands/hexes. The computing power needed to simulate this kind of colonization does seem unmarketable at the time, however.
Though this shouldn't stop at colonization, provincial administrations in Europe have definitely changed and it would be nice if those were dynamic and if combat depended on hex control rather than provincial control. This all necessitates an economy based on certain values of hexes rather than provinces overall. Unfortunately that seems like an unpopular idea that is likened to the shift from RTW to RTW2 (for some reason) and CIV IV to CIV V (which I would agree was a significant downgrade despite the hexes).
Supreme Ruler Cold War did this btw. Many problems with that game, but the hexagonal map tiles aren't particularly awful. I do prefer the pre-drawn borders tough.
Historical wars often ended in the victor gaining a province or many provinces. Of course the province borders changed with time, but still, no provinces at all. It's not just a matter of history, hexagonical borders would look awful. Why would we want hexagons anyways? They have many downsides in game, mechanics and aesthetics.
Hexagons are ugly. That's reason enough to not go that way. Why? Because it seems artificially uniform which doesn't really happen in reality. Entropy prevails. Also curves are more aesthetic than rectangles. Where do you see hexagons in real life in regards to terrain? Absolutely nowhere...
I'll always associate them with SPWPAW, Civ and most importantly Space 4x games, which all are pure fantasy in terms of their tactical settings.
I'll always associate them with SPWPAW, Civ and most importantly Space 4x games, which all are pure fantasy in terms of their tactical settings.
Last edited:
You've clearly never crawled around a beehive
.I agree though - I prefer the province system, particularly as they generally follow natural (rivers/hills/forests/etc) borders and so do a good job of reflecting the actual administrative/political boundaries of the day. A hex-based system could potentially work, but I think it wouldn't work as well given the current nature of PDS gameplay.
One aspect I haven't seen addressed is the AI. The combat AI would have an exponentially harder time with free movement like these. I really love Rome: Total War, but does anyone else remember the AI armies being stuck in silly places? How much of an utter joke it was unless you gave them significant bonuses?
That's silly, it'll never catch on!