What a poor statement. 

Tons of game sites worldwide have published preview reports for Civ 5, and lots of fans have got to play the game at demos.  Every report I've read (and I'm pretty sure I've read them all and even translated many from european sites) has only had good things to say about the shift to hexes.

I'm dying for Civ 5 - the game looks amazing, and I think the hexes will feel 100% more natural, as they do in Wesnoth.

GalCiv2, Civ, Elemental, MoM, Moo, all those games - all turn-based strategy games are essentially computerized and glorified board games.  That's one of the things that makes them own.

Anyways.  It's obviously too late to do hexes for Elemental, and I wouldn't say it *should* use them, but I do think hexes are a better and more natural way to do tile layouts, and the whole diagonal movement on squares where there's no real facing on the diagonal, is kinda cheap.  Civ will bring hexes to the mainstream and it'll be interesting to see if the genre evolves.

some folks prefer squares, some folks prefer hexes.  They guy who made this game, however...likes squares.  When you make a strategy game, you can make whatever grid type you want.  This is a silly thing to complain about.

I was kind of disappointed to see squares, if for no other reason than it is easier to tell how far away x number of  hexes is.  Although I cant quantify it exactly I have always liked playing tactical games with hexes far more than squares.  The system will do though, I have enjoyed plenty of games with squares including GalCiv and Civ 4.  Doesn't really break the game as both players have to worry abut using/blocking the awkward diagonals in the same fashion.

aaaaaaah my eyes!!!  Take away the octagons!! I'm happy with squares

And what kind of a player / forum goer does this make you?

This game is like so ruined by squares, like so totally. Yeah. Total.

If a game is built with square grid based level design, such as Elemental, then a square grid based movement system is more natural and compliments the design of the map.

Arguing that the measured distance travelled from the centre of the centre square in a 9-square grid to the centre of a diagonal square within that grid being different to the distance travelled to the centre of the non-diagonal square is moot unless the games uses that measured distance for calculations.  As it stands, Elemental does not.  Moving from the centre square to any other one square within the 9 grid is treated at the same distance, thus opening up three additional movement places that a hexagon grid does not.  Arguing that this is not realistic in a game that contains both dragons and magic, as well as some questionable naming conventions, is rather... pointless, to say the least.

What you mean is that you're sad that Brad didn't look past what HE wanted in HIS game, and put in what YOU wanted...

Wow, this old argument again.  Boy, that really took me by surprise to see it again here.  Anyway, I will say that of course, your arguments in favor of the hexagon as the grid for regulating movement is sound, and thus the reason that it became the system that was chosen by board wargaming years ago for their maps; like as in the 1960's years ago, back when this argument first really got going.  Scary that I know that, but I digress. 

The real point here, just as it has been in any game produced that forgoes the hexagon in favor of the square, is simple; it's what the designer wanted.  He doesn't like hexagons, you even quoted him saying he doesn't like hexagon grids, he likes square ones.  It's his game, so stop worrying about this as you are not going to be getting hexagons in this game, but it'll be alright.  Just think of how you can outwit and out-maneuver your opponents by always moving diagonally and getting that extra bit of movement range on your units!  The fools won't know what hit 'em!

I prefer squares because the normal nature of land is a square not a hex. Also if I wanted to play a board game I'd pull out my ASL game and play using hexes. But, the world of computer gaming advances and squares are the cats meow now.

Lol exactly! Too many want to REDESIGN this game instead of play it. Those that have NO MONEY and can't design schiitt. lol

I think Hexes vs Squares is probably the least important issue the game has right now. Personally I dislike Hexes for two reasons 1) You can't move in a straight line which is the most common movement you usually want to do and 2) They're ugly as fuck.

I honestly don't think it matters if you use Squares or Hexes, in the big scheme of things who really cares that the Squares allow you to move 1.5 boxes per move if you move sideways? And if you do care so much, you can just make diagonal movement consume 1.5 movement points, ZOMG.

I'm siding with Brad on this one. I want to use my keyboard for movement, and using the number pad is a pain with hexes.

^ This.

Talking about it as if it's something that will change is pointless. Squares are locked in. They're not changing.

Maybe they can add hexes with a hot fix.

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

It might be squares we see, but the units CAN move across via the edges. So in reality we sort of have a octagon, only with a flat top (like a stop sign) its better since we can move straight.

So this topic is kinda stupid since we can move as if on a flat top octagon, but we visually see squares.

Total waste of thread. There are no hexes. Stardock isn't going to change everything at this point to introduce hexes. Go and mod it yourself. Really.

I LOL'd.

Here's the solution...

The game already has larger tiles that are split into 4. This is to allow placement of the small-tile (1x1) city building. The large-tile (4x4) buildings can overlap the larger game tiles.

So why can't the game place the larger tiles in a brick pattern rather than a grid pattern, allowing the smaller tiles to manage the placement of roads etc?

This would essentially give us our hexes without breaking the games tile system.

I would have preferred a hex-grid, but really not that big of a deal.

I love hex grids. Panzer General and Fantasy General for PC and all those wonderful hex grid board games from Avalon Hill come to mind as great examples of why they work.

It's looks stupid how single units/single unit from stacks jump from one corner of square to other just to be able to show proper combat animation. I don't care about strategic map but squares in tactical combat are unrealistic and uncomfortable.

Hex or squares - just a matter of taste. No real benefit for one system or another.

Question: Good tabletop with squares?

Answer: BloodBowl. Played and enjoyed since 1986 up until today

I suggest we end this discussion once and for all, by using triangles.