Why Squares and not Hexes ?

Brad doesn't like hexes.

The question has already been answered in the other thread.

Squares and not hexes because Brad Wardell doesn't like hexes.

Bees don't like Brad.

I agree this game should be made of hexes, the fact that Brad doesn't like\know wargames IMO is one of the main reasons this game has problems: movement is incoherent and buggy (0 movement points coming out of cities?, using auto fight spends one movement point fighting manually a boring battle makes you save that movement point?) battles are slow... etc...

But Brad is also a smart, committed guy. Hopefully he will change his mind in the future and\or will find all necessary fixes.

I had a feeling he didn't move to hexes because Civ V did, and Brad didn't want to follow a competitor. Hex is vastly superior in broad strategy games by all accounts. All TBS games I've played, hex always offer more strategy base on unit position, adjacency bonuses, etc.

Somethings are fixable, others aren't. The square tiles is too central in the game design to switch out like it was nothing, all the tilesets would have to be redone. Asking about this now is like 2 years way too late.

MoM didn't have hexes and no one ever has complained in these boards about it, despite being greatly acclaimed by many of the forum users.

Because chess would totally be a better strategic game if it was played on a hexagonal board.

And when dealing with small areas create rounder spell AoE (when the radius gets to like 100 or some other high number, squares start to form a more circular area, but with the current scale that does not matter).

I really don't understand the love of hexes.  It's a slightly different shape that works out to function the same as a staggered grid.  If you take Elemental's grid and shift every other row 1/2 a square to the right you would have the identical system it just wouldn't look as "pretty."  With a grid each square has 8 adjacent squares.  With a hex system or a staggered grid each square has 6 adjacent squares, and that's the end of the functional difference.

And how is chess relevent? A game with pieces that can travel unlimtied distance is not a realistic strategy game

Hex's superiority lies with realistic equidistance movements and engagement. In most square based games you can always cover more ground by running diagonal in a square setup.

Hex maps are more nuetral and harder to exploit distances than square tile maps but if the head-guy does not like hexes, then that's that.  Live with squares. 

But please fix the Kingdom Tech Tree.

How ironic that the one big game this year that did make a move to hexes, and the public went crazy complaining about it.  (of course, now that "that" game has been released, perhaps the clamor has gone done)... I remember when 2k first announced the move to hexes, the public almost rioted... And now here are people saying they want hexes over square... Damn fickle public... heh heh heh

Would it help if we called the squares tetragons?

It's easier for devs and modders to work with right angles and squares don't have any real disadvantage if diagonal movement counts as 1.4 moves.
This game has floats and not just integers. What's the problem?

D&D uses squares.  I like D&D.  So Elemental using squares is fine with me.  Thanks.

Does Diagonal movement count as 1.4 moves?  I understand your point however I think that you highlight the problem with your IF above.  You're kind of a bright fellow not to notice this game does not do this..

Because we can't remake MoM on hexes

hexes or squares--i don't think it really matters.  Game was designed on squares, works just fine.

Squares can be easily linked to a matrix. And that is easily understandable by an AI.

Because otherwise you would post:

"Why Hexes and not Squares ?"

instead.

Not sure you understand what today's AI is capable of (or not cabale of) if you think AI can understand a matrix.  If you mean a  square matrix is a simpler construct/logic to program into the AI than a Hex matrix then you are only on the right track. However if you think of a Hex matrix as a matrix itself but each element is a circle with 6 sides each with 60 degree arcs.  A Square matrix is the same but owith only 4 sides and 90 Degree arcs.  In this way of thinking about them they are the same and if diagonal movement was 1.4x the cost of adjacent movement then they would be equivilent as Robert pointed out above.

I admit my knoweledge of mathematics and coding is somewhat limited. I actually understand your points and you're right! But wouldn't that require more time/processing power? I think squares were choosen over hexes because they are more "streamlined" from an AI perspective...

Please, correct me if I'm wrong

Because it's possibly the finest turn-based strategy game ever created and gets along just fine with a square grid.

More to the point, a hexagonal grid is not inherently superior.

That's purely aesthetic.  Units don't gain an advantage by moving diagonally.

AoW was hexes...  And they had the awesome effect of being able to pull multiple stacks into combat.  Yeah, you could do that with squares, but it wouldn't look quite as good I think.

Jes saying.

Hexs are better than squares for tactical combat at least, but getting poked in the eye is better than what passes for tactical combat thus far in Elemental.