Reply With QuoteHi Mark,
Personally I prefer the isometric vue from cov2 to ther overhead vue as seen in your screenshot.It's very clear and easy to see what's going on, and visually I find it better than the overhead vue.
Mikael
What do people think about 2D vs q3D graphics? I just find 2D graphics a lot easier to actually use. Anyway, I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on this question.
Hi Mark,
Personally I prefer the isometric vue from cov2 to ther overhead vue as seen in your screenshot.It's very clear and easy to see what's going on, and visually I find it better than the overhead vue.
Mikael
Mikael:
I think more people like the isometric view based on recent products. Contrary to your experience I just find an "above" view easier. I think we could go with either, we just need to decide which very soon.
I prefer isometric view but a top-down-view can also be nice.
Anyway both of them are 2D. Isometric only LOOKS like 3D.
Peter
------------------
3DTT - the 3D sequel to Transport Tycoon - demo 4.0 coming soon
Path of Mankind. Turnbased Civ-like game - demo 15 coming soon
I prefer isometric if there is any attempt to represent elevation and squares if there isn't. I guess because I expect more "realism" from isometric while square based systems give you the feel of a map. Both ways work, it just depends on the feel that you want the map to give.
I'd definitely go with the isometric view if we can dredge up some decents artists from somewhere.
If not, I think that a reasonable top-down view beats a badly drawn isometric view.
Jim
Here is a little thought on map matters, although not the 2D/3D view.
I was wondering how the world map will look like. If the whole world will divided into equally sized squares there are gonna be a Lot of spaces with limited value. Remember, 70% of the surface is water and vast land areas are tundras, deserts and such. So if we keep all squares equally large vast majority of them will have little or no relevance on the game. The answer is not to enlarge the squares, even if they´re then divided into smaller sub-squares, because from a strategic POV small states, which then would maybe only consists of a couple of squares, are at a serious disadvantage. If they lose one war half the kingdom might be gone. Of course we can never eliminate this completely, and we shouldn´t try, all I´m saying is that states such as Portugal, Venice and Holland should be more than just a couple of squares. I have here one suggestion, but I´m not sure how it´ll work in programming. We could base the size of each (land) square on the available water and soil fertility (as discussed by Don W.) so that the more fertile an area is, the smaller the square and vice versa. Squares could be ca. half what they are now if the area is very fertile and up to twice as big if it´s the Goby Desert or something. Movement cost would be appropietly modified. I realize of course that the same could be accomplished by simply allowing more farm/production sites, thus allowing more people, but IMHO this could lead to some squares becoming ‘mega-squares’, which is not good from strategic POV (too many eggs in one basket). Regarding sea-squares they can be ‘wrapped’, i.e. shrunken in visual (but nor actual) size, it would still take as much time as before to cross the Pacific Ocean but at least not half of the map is filled up with it.
I like Hrafnkell ideas about having non uniform areas instead of just squares. Though that'd be difficult for genereating random maps. I think maps might turn out looking like Imperialism.
as far a 3D vs 2D, I'm in favor of a 2D map that's photorealistic. Basicly a view of the earth from orbit, a God or satalite view.
I like Hrafnkell ideas about having non uniform areas instead of just squares. Though that'd be difficult for genereating random maps. I think maps might turn out looking like Imperialism.
as far a 3D vs 2D, I'm in favor of a 2D map that's photorealistic. Basicly a view of the earth from orbit, a God or satalite view.
I think the different-sized squares only would work well for a human-generated map. Besides with the 100km (60mi) squares, almost any state will have at Least of order 10 squares. And the problems with movement and handling of the map are much larger without a regular tiling scheme. I guess I really don't see any problem with some squares being better than others, that's the way it is in the real world. The more valuable ones also get fought over a lot more...
I'm with Mog that a top-down photorealistic map (within the context of memory usage) would be cool. With about 5 tile types for each variety of square even random maps could be made to look pretty realistic. You'd need a bunch for each "angle" of coastline too (i.e. straight along square side, straight diagonal, etc.).
-Mark
Mappish map and "isometric" unit graphics. Please keep the unit graphics overlappable with nearby squares.:-)
------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/imperialism/
Hey, I hope desperatly NOT to determine the tile's sizes by their "land value" or something! This map would be unesthetic and the player would get serious problems to estimate distances.
The real size of land does matter. Big countries can be divided, small can be united. I even dislike the province structure that has undivideable provinces like Imperialism had.
Peter
------------------
3DTT - the 3D sequel to Transport Tycoon - demo 4.0 coming soon
Path of Mankind. Turnbased Civ-like game - demo 15 coming soon
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks