You fags will argue about everything

Hex is uglier, therefore i reject it.

Attached: 618f03a3a270e5899004c830f3eb4721406125aa61213d12d7e7910103675070.jpg (965x1280, 201K)

>He didn't like Leanne's game

Attached: 1579434936373.png (680x425, 203K)

Just use distance-based free movement, gramps

>muh hexes
I'm not a fucking bubble bee, fuck off!

Ok sure, if you're making a game designed for rudimentary archaic controls, squares would be easier to navigate.

Which makes isometric the absolute worse.

>some contrarian retard always tries to argue for a "triangle" grid in these threads

Attached: 1578897335898.jpg (250x241, 7K)

That's just using tiny squares.

>Square with movement on diagonals and cardinals
but moving cardinally and moving diagonally are uneven distances

based

Attached: skub.webm (512x288, 2.99M)

No, the distance is defined differently.

>Use Hex's
>Units literally can't move forward/backward or left/right depending on the board orientation

Literally the dumbest shit imaginable.

triangles just to spite the dumb frog

How?

>but moving cardinally and moving diagonally are uneven distances
Literally fucking what?

Squares are better for party based stuff, hexs are better if you are controlling a single character.

>use squares
>units in the diagonals can't do shit
fuck you

>Use Square's
>Units literally can only move forward/backward or left/right depending on the board orientation

Literally the dumbest shit imaginable.

moving cardinally is 1 unit
moving diagonally is √2 (~1.414) units

*solves ur problems*

Attached: octagon-tessellation1.png (1222x678, 7K)

He's right, you know?

Consider x the horizontal "length" and y the vertical "length" of your movement.
Distance in square is x+y, while real distance is sqrt(x2+y2).
A "circle" in square distance is a diamond shape.

Square gives you eight directions you can move, hex gives you six.

Square is objectively superior.

So for making a tactics game based around melee combat, what is better?

just move 2 spaces retard

Squares with diagonal movement that costs 1.5 to move trough

>Square is objectively superior.
If squares are so good then why they aren't naturally occurring in the nature like hexagons? checkmate

But if everything is measured in squares it's a moot point.

A square is a square, if a unit is advancing diagonally across the board one square at a time or straight ahead one square at a time, it's not moving any faster.

Hexes: six directions
Squares: eight directions
I think it's obvious.

Fags in this thread will cry, but this is unironically the best way to do movement. We are not technically limited anymore, we can just do free range movement.

Attached: The future.png (708x632, 15K)

he used it wrong, this is why people hate skubfags.

we can also measure character's stats in an RPG in millions but sometimes less is more

Name 3 games where an unit can move in all 8 directions.

>If squares are so good then why they aren't naturally occurring in the nature like hexagons? checkmate
I have a mountain, do you?

Attached: GRIDMOUNTAIN.jpg (1260x670, 137K)

Chess
Shogi
Xiangqi

Yes, and sometimes a simple story can enjoyable without being complex. But complex stories are better.

Story and mechanics are different.

you know it's true

Attached: tr.jpg (351x352, 82K)

Attached: minecraft is real.jpg (1024x1084, 238K)

there are hexagons on your skin right now. The only squares i can think of are in the salt crystals contained within your tears.

Attached: 1572055851953.jpg (800x450, 21K)

But hex is already an option

>muh squares with diagonal movement
There would be no reason not to move diagonally all the time since it covers more distance
The point of hexes is that moving in all six directions covers the same distance

Octogonal (with corner squares) grid

Attached: UvO5x.jpg (400x297, 34K)

Stat numbers and mechanics are different.

Vague fucking reference brah.

Besides, it's not Leanne's game, it's Vashyron's.

Attached: ForsakenTidyArkshell.gif (560x315, 2.65M)

Only correct Opinion:
Hex for games controlled with mouse.
Square for games controlled with controller.

Also:
Square for DnD. So much easier to draw maps.

Lord of the Rings is a simpler story than A Song of Ice and Fire but it sure as hell is a better story

Hex for space, square for land.

video games you fucking retard

only correct opinion is node system.

since floating point units are discrete everything is effectively in a square grid

One of my fucking players is constantly on me about using a hex grid for our 5e game. Like, fuck off dude.

>Implying I have skin
>Implying I have tears
>Implying i'm not a glorious, geometrically perfect grid based cube
Fly back to your beehive hexacuck.

Attached: InfiniteGrid.jpg (1410x940, 107K)

No, ASOIAF is better.

>complex stories are better.
lmao get a load of this guy

soul vs soulless

This never worked well in my opinion.
There were some games during the PS2/Gamecube era, that tried to do that, but it usually leads to really dumbed down movement.
Breath of Fire 5 used that iirc.
The Nep games past 1 also use this and movement really isn't a factor in these games.

God, I wish. He stole every scene he was in.
>His military background is constantly brought up
>Instead of it being fleshed out we get Leanne in her tower
>Only real detail we ever go into is when Sullivan's pet vampire loli wiped out his squad for some reason

Attached: 1552392181451.jpg (1920x1080, 234K)

hexes>squares mechanically
squares>hexes design/immersion

Yes, complexity is valued above simplicity. If two stories are equally enjoyable, but one is complex and one is simple, the complex one is better.

That's just grid movement, but letting you move diagonally.

Vidya chess
Vidya shogi
Vidya xiangqi

you don't cover more distance since distance is measured differently

Explain more what you'd have in mind please.
Thought you were just memeing first, but looks like it could work, but I'd rather have you explain it.

Trails of Cold Steel uses it and party positioning is a huge factor in those games.

Surely if the two are EQUALLY enjoyable, the simple story gains more praise for being able to tell a story just as good as one with many twists, turns, and subplots?

OK, let's assume you're actually not trolling. Imagine a game like Heroes, or maybe a tactical RPG or something. A turn-based game, obviously. Squares or hexes, doesn't matter, it all allows for a very abstract but very immediately obvious gameplay options. A three-headed monster always hits 3 hexes/squares in front of it. Drawbridge is two squares wide. This monster takes 3 squares and can't fit into a single-square pass. Dragon fire range is 3 squares and master elf archer's shot is 7. You see the grid and all those options are immediately apparent to you. Now try to translate it to a smooth gridless system. At best you'll have to select a unit and see a colored circle around him indicating his attack range, another for movement range etc. Then you have to decide if you need this circle to connect to some arbitrary center of enemy model or just a pixel of it for an attack to hit... I don't see a benefit?

Obviously real-time games are different.

It gets different if you have fog of war and a unit can move multiple squares per turn. In Civ IV I move my caravels in a zig zag to maximize their vision range so I can find new land easier.

This is just a tilefucker thread in disguise.

Hexes can be decent for larger outside maps in the wilderness or for cave systems with a more natural feeling. Whenever the inside of buildings are involved however nothing beats squares.

pity is the only thing i feel for someone with tastes this shit

I generally prefer hexes, but one thing I've missed from squares is movement.
In Civ2 I can just blitz fast work the numpad+space go through all units.
I think hexes lead to more mouse reliance and in turn made the mechanics surrounding movement much slower.
It's not inherently tied to square/hexes, but the way developers handle hexes mean they suffer because of it.

Aren't hexes selected for in nature? Bees, et al.
>all the ESL ITT

No, people would say the complex one is better because there's more to analyze, digest, and pick apart than the simple one.

>game allows multiple tile types, and you can mix them up or change them for board advantages
>circles can go in more directions, but can't bodyblock diagonals as easily
>skew your tile mid-attack to avoid attacks
Make this game, if you're so great

Attached: sip.jpg (480x265, 19K)

Are we talking top-down or isometric?

>2020
>his game still takes place on a finite-dimensional lattice
lmaoing at ur life

Attached: 1565096680640.png (468x468, 41K)

go back to your grave mandelbrot

Triangles is just subdivided hexes.

wrong they subdivide squares

>all these debates because we focus on the edges of the polygon
You know, we could consider the vertices as movement directions as well you know.

Only if you are retarded. A grid of equilateral triangles is also a hex grid.

Every example you gave works fine in a free range movement system.

>Then you have to decide if you need this circle to connect to some arbitrary center of enemy model or just a pixel of it for an attack to hit...
You don't sound like a game developer if you're thinking of it in this way, so I'm not sure why you're trying to talk about the implementation. Creating a free movement system in not any harder than creating a grid-based system.

The benefit is that it's smoother, gives you more movement and attacking possibilities, and makes the whole system feel more realistic.

no, you would more likely congratulate the simpler work for reaching the same conclusion in fewer steps

The civilization games already answered this question. Squares are better. A square is in contact with 8 other squares. A hexagon is in contact with another 6 hexagons.
Hexagons limit movement, they limit how many units can be in proximity, in combat they create more choke points and less maneuverability.

Maybe hexagons are better for mobile games, but squares are better for video games.

Attached: abzLwYp_700b.jpg (700x816, 68K)

I'm sorry user, but this just doesn't happen in the literary world. Critics will place more value in an imperfect complex story that is very ambitions but has a few flaws than a simple story executed perfectly.

patrician's choice coming through

Attached: warped.png (2000x2000, 530K)

not him but you don't get what he's saying. He says that distance based gameplay adds complexity, is harder to think about an attack that hits up to 3.2 meters than one that hits up to 3 squares. Discrete mechanics generally work best for rpgs

bees are fucking based holy shit

What game is that?

Hyper Rogue

>Hex based movement
LMFAO

Attached: Hexes.png (984x926, 1.86M)

i don't give a fuck what critics say to be honest with you

Why does the one on the right bulge out in the middle, but stops bulging when I expand it?

oh no, what a failure
the square system isn't perfectly oriented around this tree, what a terrible system

Attached: ohno.png (70x85, 1K)

Squares, if you count the angles they actually have more neighbors.

The grid and the structures should not be the same scale. Or do you think that most walls are five feet thick?

because your eye's receptors aren't squared so they print an approximation of what you're seeing, forcing the perspective to fit in with they are capable of

Floating point units are discrete, but the precision is different at different magnitudes. As your number gets larger, the precision drops, so it's a rectangular grid where the rectangles get larger the bigger the number that you're measuring or comparing is.

This is an interesting point. When the movement is simple and predefined into to small chunks like a grid, it makes it easier for humans to think and make decisions tactically. Alright I agree with you, I think for skirmish tactics games, they work best with a grid-based system. I wouldn't say they work best for most rpgs in general though.

you're saying that as if you didn't just post some of the best vidya debate material in all of existence

well yes, but since you are measuring differences it shouldn't matter too much

For a lot of tabletop games, people use a square grid for cities, buildings, and other constructed environments, and hex grids for natural environments.

Literally burst out laughing at this. What on Earth were you trying to achieve?

agree

disagree

I'll actually live either way. even the 3rd option where you can trace your move route and there's no obvious grid.

>Every example you gave works fine in a free range movement system.
I gave you counterexamples why it doesn't and all you say is "you're not a game developer", no shit I'm not.

>gives you more movement and attacking possibilities
A smaller number of more distinct positions is better for decision making.

>makes the whole system feel more realistic
Only relevant for games that strive for realism (most don't).

Holy shit you actually agreed. Cool, fine.

*ahem*

Attached: 1565734670999.jpg (970x546, 96K)

It'll matter significantly if you let the numbers get too big. If you have a map that's way too big, this can cause really noticeable issues as the magnitude increases (Minetest had these issues at one point). If your number represents meters for instance, early on, you'll have really fine precision, being able to measure as small as micrometers. As you increase, you eventually get to a point where the closest numbers are several feet apart. This is especially bad for single-precision (32-bit) floating ponit numbers.
So with some integer representation (or fixed-point), you just hit a point where everything wraps around or things will crash, usually. The problem is obvious. With floating points, instead, you get to a point where as the player gets further away from the origin, things just get progressively buggier and glitchier, which can frequently be very hard to diagnose, especially if the numbers don't get extraordinarily high, but high enough to cause subtle problems.

I haven't played it, but isn't that just an isometric square grid?

Hexfags btfo

Works fine as long as your units have a bigger circle than the actual space they stand in, for positioning/blocking purposes

>form defensive wall
>still get gangbanged by 2 fuckers

>sqrt

Attached: wildburger.png (1200x1844, 597K)

Isn't Triangles superior to both?

Hexes literally don't work for anything that isn't abstracted garbage.

>Advances toward you
Hexes are so fucking dumb.

Attached: HexMovement.jpg (2121x1414, 156K)

today I'll remind them

Attached: 1525107069160.webm (800x320, 233K)

>why yes I play Battletech, how could you tell?

Attached: Battletech.jpg (2448x2448, 413K)

That lady has some serious pit game going on.

The reason was to show all three main characters were spared by the system, seemingly for no good reason/unjust reasons. Vash survived a clearly fatal assault, Leanne survived committing suicide, and Zephyr was a psycho killer who survived getting shot.

GO AWAY REALS

Attached: 1568678672359.jpg (487x650, 82K)

This is the crux of the argument, if you've been paying attention. Hexes give really natural movement in 6 directions and awkward movement in any others. Squares give natural movement in 4 directions and also 4 diagonals, but measuring the distance for diagonal movement is awkward, leading you to either underestimate (diagonals count as 1 movement) or overestimate (diagonals count as 2 movements) unless you do some really awkward shit (D&D used to have a hex system where moving diagonally would alternately cost 1 and 2 movement, to average out to 1.5, which is close to the real value of ≈1.414, so moving diagonally on a 5-foot grid would cost 5 feet for one square, 15 feet for 2 squares, 20 feet for 3, and 30 feet for 4, which is awkward, but close to the real value of ≈28.28 ft).
It's a trade-off. It always was.

>tiddies

> D&D used to have a hex system where...
I meant "D&D used to have a square grid system where..."

Lotr is not simple and the fact you mention game of thrones makes your opinion irrelevant anyway

Triangles > Squares > Hexagons

LotR has enough plot and backstory to fill 5000 encyclopedia-sized pages: amazon.com/Complete-History-Middle-Earth-Christopher-Tolkien/dp/0007105088/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the history of middle earth&qid=1583182338&sr=8-1
It is a world with many dialects of at least 4 fully-developed distinct languages, thousands of years of history and lore in these languages, changes in culture and language over this time.
If you think LotR is simpler than almost any other fantasy story in existence, you are ignorant and wrong, and clearly haven't read the books.

the funny thing is that in a square system you are incentivized to walk like that to cover more ground ,but further to the sides, while in hexes there's just a shimmy motion.

It depends whether the square system has diagonal movement. Many don't.
Either way, that poster is wrong.

Squares are more reflective of indoor areas or other similar man-made terrain, so if your game takes place mostly or fully indoors it's the best choice.

>this didn't turn into a mineral thread right here
Pyrite is cool but this thread belongs to bismuth.

Attached: Free-shipping-colorful-high-pure-30g-to-40g-Bismuth-Crystals-professional-making-Bismuth-Metal-cryst (800x800, 192K)

>forgetting the elder God tier option

Squares but moving diagonally takes more time points.

Attached: ufo-enemy-unknown-7.jpg (320x200, 35K)

Name a single game with octagonal-square grid

>plot and backstory
not that user but that doesn't count if it's not mentioned in THE LotR book

the journey of frodo going on an adventure across middle-earth is definitely simpler than ASoIaF

i know it's there but by definition it's extra material

>It depends whether the square system has diagonal movement.
Yeah fine

This guy gets it.
Hexes are superior for large-scale and outdoor stuff, squares shine in urban environments.

I think you mean tiny hexagons

Only actual retarded grognards think squares are better.

why is bismuth so perfect

Is there a shape with more than six sides that cleanly fills out a space with no gaps like this?
That would probably be better if so.

your shitty hexagons get stored in a square matrix in memory

Huge amounts of it is. They go into tons of the old legends and history throughout the books.

>checkmate
>using reference to a square grid game, which also happens to be one of the greatest games of all time, while shitting on squares

Games like XCOM and FE benifit more from it because the setting is smaller and supposed to be buildings. Specially in XCOMS case with cover squares are much better.

Hexes did wonders for the 4x genre because it gives more natural looking maps.

>They go into tons of the old legends and history
they go into or do they mention them in passing for a couple paragraphs each, assuming either the character or the reader know about it already?

been a hot minute since i read the books, but i don't exactly remembers pages upon pages explaining lore and backstory of gods of old

Only a damn dirty Bee or Beelover will defend hexagons

Fuck bees

Yes. The beauty oft democrazy

Hex for world/strategic map, square for the local/tactical map.

>t.

Attached: .png (360x360, 65K)

t. waspnigger

Attached: bee shells.jpg (500x336, 41K)

triangles

For newfags/laymen, this means; the farther away you are from the center, the less precise your movement you'll be, as well as other things dependent on location. For relevant examples look up old Nickies threads in an archive, or Mario 64 QPU's and T.J. Henry Yoshi's theory of minimum "A" presses.

Attached: readyforaction.png (171x254, 104K)

Only in Euclidean distance, which is not the only measure of distance.

>not free range movement
A fucking psp game did it, and it was fun
Also Valkyria Chronicle for the Xcom argument

Attached: 59F44D0B-C22D-4DB6-97C1-49E0D3E95BEA.jpg (1592x896, 353K)

Attached: Supreme.jpg (1662x1462, 470K)

>Hex's
It's "hexes." Plural, you illiterate retard.

Not the guy you replied to, but I'm pretty sure it's the latter. Unlike Melville, Tolkien knew not to spend too much time digressing.

>psp
you mean ps2 game that was ported to psp

The hexes from bees are an accident. They wax drys out and "pulls" it to fill in the gapd

Hexes, not because of any game design reason but simply because they're more aesthetic.

Attached: 1507548744042.jpg (591x600, 92K)

entry level rock

Hex movement systems are peak retardation

>they go into or do they mention them in passing for a couple paragraphs each, assuming either the character or the reader know about it already?
A bit of both, depending on how relevant it is and important to the character. Sometimes it's just mentioned in passing, and sometimes a character will go into a huge monologue, or usually, a multi-page song.

why the fuck do you think pixels on monitors and tv displays are squares instead of hexes?

>hexes for grand strategy maps ie coastal, river, etc that will either require tons of small squares too look decent, or just plain unatural
>square for the isometric smaller scale battles ie trpg
And then you have Advance War/FE that just throw everything out of the window. Still, older jrpg’s top down, squarebased aesthetic is nice too ie old pokemon, FF6, golden sun, etc

Because the corners of the TV screen are 90°, a hex wouldn't fit. Plus you can't draw a straight line with hexes to fill the edges of the screen.

Akshually they are a round light sources aka cathode tube producing dots, that was simplified into square pixel, until it became a standard
Also its much easier to do x-y than whatever the coordination mess hexes create

People used to eat the comb too. It's different from the wax you're familiar with. Also stop posting shitty facebook/twitter "memes"

It is for a square grid, chump. A square grid is as Euclidean as it gets.

Attached: euclidean.png (995x251, 12K)

Hexes are good for huge but abstract scale maps like Civ or whatever.
Grids or just straight distance measurement work better everywhere else

>posts a metal

His threads were comfy, his style was fun, but it is off-topic and I'm mildly sad I didn't save the turquoise and watermelon colored minerals.

Attached: 1457575055003.jpg (1024x682, 267K)

I miss Geologist-kun.

Hexes are still just x-y. You can represent hexes as a square grid. The difference is which x and y values are "connected".

They're fine in games with different movement patterns, Chess being the prime example. The unevenness of diagonal versus cardinal movement is built into the game and part of the strategy.

Euclidean distance, not Euclidean geometry.

Under the hood it still works the same. Its basically a grid with really tiny squares.

Euclidean distance is just straight-line distance in Euclidean space.

that's some aesthetic crystal

I want to touch it.

you can't add a third dimension with hexes

With the content of thw Wii port included too.

Finally a man of culture, hexes are for casual games and squares are for boomer retards thinkin it's chess but TRIANGLES limits movement in such a way requiring you to use your brain more!

And there are other measures of distance what about this are you having trouble with

This image bothers me fuck you, Hexes better

That somebody decided to be pedantic for literally no benefit to the conversation.
Somebody pointed out the distance of the hypotenuse of a right triangle, and somebody else (presumably you) jumped in with "actually, that's only true for the purposes of your entire point, and doesn't take into account the things you weren't talking about because they weren't relevant."
Unless you were going to use your point to actually talk about something interesting, you're just blowing hot air.

No, that is the worst. Now you have to do pixel perfect positioning to be in range to hit one guy while being out of another. Or moving just enough to still have the resources to do a thing and so on. It's way too finicky.

Attached: 1354743982446.jpg (572x572, 214K)

Attached: Triangles win.png (230x462, 7K)

>he doesn't build superior hexagons like nature does

But you can with Rhombic Dodecahedrons. Czech mate.

A bunch of equilateral triangles are literally hexes, but with half the calculating distance unit
good lord what happened to that kickstarter trpg that used triangle grid?

>implying and competent game make's it so they can move diagonally

>animeposter
>is retarded
Shocked. None of what you just said is an issue in real games with free movement.

They gave up and changed to squares

Consider the following

Attached: Phantom Brave.png (480x272, 127K)

Squares are better. Clean, easy to read, intuitive, more efficient for screens and vidiya maps layouts. You can also add extra layer of depth by introducing special conditions allowing diagonal attacks and movement.
Hex grid might be cool for filling infinite flat space with it but it's fucking garbage for video games unless you play fucking bee simulator or something.
If square tile grid seems too restrictive for a certain game then it's better to just go with free movement without any grid at all.
Get dabbed on, hexniggers.

Attached: 1534499775515.jpg (300x212, 12K)

>Okay guys let's head east
>Uhh sorry that's literally impossible due to the geometry of the world map!
Meanwhile on a grid you can move 8 directions by using diagonals.

If you're using the hypotenuse length of a right triangle as your fucking argument as to why diagonal movement and cardinal movement are different, then you are saying that Euclidean distance is what matters. I'm saying Euclidean distance is not all that matters. I'm not being "pedantic", I'm literally attacking the fucking core of your argument. Other distances are relevant because Euclidean distance isn't the only fucking measure of distance, you daft fuck.

I last had to deal with it in Divinity Original Sin

The best.

That specific implementation has some flaws though. Positioning was kinda finnicky and you sometimes target the wrong mob or an ally. Still a shitload of fun and v satisfying.

A triangle grid where you stand on the corner can be a fix for hexes’ lack of straight edge (for houses, cliffs, etc)

Attached: F24DFA39-168F-4253-B857-ABD7351B120C.jpg (1581x839, 99K)

defend this, square fags

Attached: 6236236233.jpg (365x303, 23K)

What other distances are relevant when it comes to calculating a straight line across a diagonal of a grid cell with a length of 1 for each axis-aligned grid unit, then?

Yo hear me out
What about square based movement here moving in diagonal just waste 1 "action point"

It's like the best of 2 worlds

So Chinese Checkers I guess?

>Only 6 hexes surround any single hex at one time
>A square is surrounded by 8 other squares
Hexes are for brainlets who can't figure out positioning.

>6 ways of movement vs 8 ways of movements
How is this thread even a thing

That was already mentioned. D&D counted diagonal moves as 1.5 moves.

That's why you also have units that look like this

Attached: Square image.png (340x280, 35K)

The idea wasn't wrong but it didn't do anything so good that it would make people drop the square grid for it.

name a game that does that

Chess

Its good to prevent mobbing, both for you and the enemies. Square only has 4 viable melee spots, while hex has 6
More of a balancing issue, really. Some square grid games do allow you to attack from the other 4 “non-viable” spots too, which is tb h a nightmare

But mobbing goes both ways, balancing isn't really an issue.

Luminous Arc did IIRC. A lot of weapon types had weird attack patterns, or if not the weapons then the character's special moves.

Checkers.

wrong square has EIGHT (8) movement options
do NOT reply to me if youre going to argue stupid shit like diagonal movement doesnt count
fuck off they do count and you need to shut the fuck up if you dont think it does

>stupid shit like diagonal movement doesnt count
nigger I've been playing Front Mission 1 and my units literally can't attack diagonally

Precisely for that reason, its extremely feast or farmine. The one who establish a mob colony 1st will steam roll the other one by sheer number, especially for phase based games
>you go 1st
>mob a poor guy or two to death
>since you are the initiator, your position is much more stacked, with less opening spaces
>they can maybe at best mob 1 of yours, and deal minimal to the other
>the advantage just snowball up in your favor, since they have less and less unit to mob. Even a 3 kill 1 + 2-for-1-trade ratio is enough for that

If you count square diagonals, you should count hexagon diagonals as well, which doubles hexagon's movement to 12

Fire Emblem

That does assume units can only attack at point blank though

and that zerg rush is an invincible strat

get rekt sqrtards

Attached: Selection_296.png (998x262, 11K)

Well thats why when games like FE3H extends their ranged option the game becomes a mobfest, even as a square grid game. You can get up to like, 16 viable attacking spots
But yeah, for games that are balanced around gunfight like xcom or jagged mobing is a part of the games

Advance Wars would be unplayable with hexes
D-pad controls are part of it but also the simplicity of reading a square grid at a glance. You can judge distances and mentally draw paths easily. AW is designed to be played very fast because you have a lot of units.
The 60-degree angled paths would be awkward and slow you down

Attached: 46354.jpg (1019x683, 109K)

I can't fucking imagine playing SRW on hexes
In the end of some of those games you're literally fielding 25+ squads that are made up of 2-4 units each. Endgame stages can already take hours if you're trying to get all the secrets and bonus objectives and shit.

Hexes are for large scale warfare games. Squares are for everything else.

sphere grid or no sale

don't sauce casuals you fag

kill this man for his heresy

This

>tfw too brainlet to play AW
I can handle a squad of 6-8 max, or maybe 12 in Tactic Ogre’s huge maps, but AW’ small maps an fuck huge army size just feel too claustrophobic and stressful
Making this shit hex will be an even bigger nightmare

>filename
I had a good chuckle, thank you user.

Attached: Giants_Causeway_détail_de_la_chaussée.jpg (532x399, 72K)

I bet you never played Goldeneye as a kid if you believe that. Moving diagonally makes you go significantly faster unless the game enforces a "3 every 2" cost for diagonal movement.

Attached: 1583141847011.png (350x494, 43K)

Odd dimensions

Fuck hexagons

Attached: vinyl-mosaic-ceramic-colours-floor-decorative.jpg (800x800, 34K)

>measure hexagon like a square
>wut? it doesn't have dimensions like a square?

what did he mean by this?

where's the octagon grid disguised as a square grid?

> not measuring x and y

nothing personal to you,but i fear thats why they opted to go full FE instead of trying to make another AW, the retards they get cannot macro, only micro and focus on the small things

Hex grids are lopsided

They ugly

You can simulate hex with squares.

Screens are rectangular.
Why wouldn't the grids be too?

Because the grid has a different function than the screen.

No it wouldn't. Stop being retarded.

>"Hahahaha can't touch me, I'm hiding behind 7 diagonals"

Attached: 1562328438895.jpg (409x535, 68K)

I am bereft of turquoise, but the WATERMELON TOURMALINE is all yours.

Attached: WATERMELON TOURMALINE.jpg (1671x1181, 1.44M)

triangle chad where?

>Upper right can't do shit to lower left
lol t. melee fag.

From a construction perspective the square tiles are superior as they are larger and take less time to plan for and place, but for a use perspective the hexes are superior as they look better and tend to not be as prone to getting damaged from general use due to their lower surface area.

Either way I'm more of a rubber sheet over concrete kind of guy.

Attached: T-34-85 Serb Gimp Suit.jpg (1144x784, 770K)

You can do whatever you want in math. But it's pants on head retarded and a ridiculously overcomplicated thing to use cartesian coordinates for a fucking hex grid

Squares. The only time hexes are superior is in a 4x game, srpgs work better with squares, squad based tactical combat works best with squares.

Squares are better if you want to allow players to act defensively. with 4 possible points of attack from 1 range and 11 possible points of attack from 2. In comparison hex has 6 attack points from one range and 18 from two. This means that on any enemy phase the player's units will be on average taking a lot more damage. Hex also makes it harder to set up defences as they can be evaded with less movements allowing your enemy more room to charge in.

Ultimately squares is the superior choice as all hex's do is encourage unit clumping with it's inferior defensive options.

Attached: grids.png (952x459, 191K)

One solution for hexes and defenses is to do what Civ 5 did and trying to maneuver around an occupied space takes extra movement for most units.

Because my favourite TBS games use Squares.

how do i triforce

Try force. Worked for Ganon.

>me after seeing an italian

As a player, I prefer hexes. As a designer, I prefer squares.

My DnD group complains about this every damn time, yet they never want to DM because "it's so much work". If I have to design everything, it will end up my way.

Attached: IMG_20191027_223416.png (320x208, 44K)

Are there even any games that simulate bifurcating systems in their design? I can only think of Shadow the Hedgehog's morality system, but I guess I want to see a puzzle game play with fractals.

܂>how do i triforce
Backquoting is the new triforce these days, fag..

square maps are always full of soul, hexagonal games are almost always shitty phone games or cheap trpgs

Attached: 1558877924799.jpg (705x868, 302K)

.pls work

Any distance, that's how distances work. You can use literally any norm from 0 to infinity.

GO AWAY REALS

idk man valkyria chronicles did it and it was fine