Re: world as a globe

On 2003.01.08 02:55:32 -0600 Jason Short wrote:

> This is unworkable; it is impossible (or rather, nobody has
> demonstrated it to be possible) to fit the edges together.
> You might be tempted to set things up like:
> 
>     <- X ->
>   <- X X X ->
> <- X X X X X ->
> <- X X X X X ->
> <- X X X X X ->
>   <- X 3 1 ->
>     <- 2 ->
> 
> with wrapping shown by the arrows.  But what happens then if you
> move south from position 1?  Do you end up at position 2?  If you
> move north from position 2, do you end up at position 1 or 3?  The
> correct answer should be both, but this is obviously impossible.

You can make a decent "round" world by tiling the faces of a 
dodecahedron with a hex map such that the edges of the dodecahedron 
split the centers of rows of hexes.  The only artifacts are (a) the 
"hexes" on the corners of the dodecahedron are reduced to pentagons, 
and (b) it isn't really "round".  Neither are particularly big 
problems.  I have long wanted to make a world model this way, but 
haven't had time.  The old _Journal of the Travellers' Aide Society_ 
from the _Traveller_ SF RPG used to put world maps like this on the 
inside of their mailing wrapper.

> The only advantage of the hexagonal grid that I can see is that the
> distance to the next tile is equal in all directions.

It also gives a more naturalistic look to the terrain.  I'm dismayed 
that computer games have reverted back to squares, which the wargaming 
industry gave up all the way back in the '60s.  I'm even more dismayed 
that computer games offer the fake "iso" diamonds as if it were an 
improvement over squares.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas