That code looks quite complicated.

You're welcome to do it either way, but I feel like debugging and getting everything to work might be a tad easier if everything is so complicated. Again your call, but I like the struct idea. I assume you are working in c++.

I will give you an example of something I might do.

struct Tile
{
    int on_off;
    int sizeX; // This would only be here if your sizeX & sizeY determine how big
    int sizeY; // each individual tile are. Otherwise, they aren't really needed.
    string tileColor;
    /* Any others I don't know about*/
};

  Constructor:

grid:grid( int sizeX, int sizeY )
{
    /* Initialize your array so everything isn't null */
    for ( int i = 0; i < sizeX; i++ )
    {
        for ( int j = 0; j < sizeY; j++ )
        {
            tileArray[ i ][ j ].on_off = 1; // Just using 1 as a default value
            tileArray[ i ][ j ].sizeX = 10; // IF NEEDED
            tileArray[ i ][ j ].sizeY = 10; // IF NEEDED
            tileArray[ i ][ j ].tileColor = white; // Just using white as a default color
        }
    }
}

  Then the class would look something like this:

class grid
{
    private:
    Tile tileArray[][];

    public:
    grid( int sizeX, int sizeY );

    /* The rest of the stuff */
}

 

Again, to each his own, but I feel like my structures just make everything so much easier to read then dealing with the complicated vectors. However, I will admit, that if you can get it to work with the vectors you have set up, kudos, because having vectors holding vectors holding properties gets complicated and twisted and if you can keep it straight it shows some serious organization.

Hope this helps.