Map Graphics

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-23-2001 09:12 PM Hopefully you'll come up with the brainstorm that solves all our problems has been hiding from us in the past...

Hmm... I don't know, it's just an idea, but I think it needs some refining, so your comments will be very appreciated.

Trying to draw the chariots has reminded me of one of the major flaws I think the Power Circles system has. Power Circles are OK with infantry units, which are "vertical" unit icons, thus taking up only a few pixels of the tile surface. But what about more "horizontal" unit icons, like a chariot? In most cases they will fill a large portion of the tile surface, so the Power Circle will be difficult to see for the player, unless you depict the circle over the unit, wich will look very weird.

So this brings me the idea that Power Circles are only suitable for infantry units. I think that we should only use infantry units. That's aright, since with the current system, we are already symbolizing a whole Task Force by just one unit on the map. My proposal is one leap forward in this "representative" system. Also take in mind that, for most ages and cultures, mounted troops have had an equivalent type (of the same technology level) in foot troops. So if you want to depict a Scythian-like Task Force with Light Cavalry, you could show the Horde unit icon, and place a smaller icon in the upper right or left corner, depicting the Horses. We could make one of these icons for each type of cavalry (including modern day Tanks) and siege (catapults, cannons) unit. Of course, this would go only for ground units, since ships and planes would have to be depicted in the "traditional" way.

Here's an example. I've made the small icons very quickly and Ican work more on them but I think you'll get the idea. www.geocities.com/fiera_com/graphics.html

The wheel next to the Phalanx depicts the presence of chariots in the TF.

Well, what do you think?

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-23-2001 06:54 AM The three closely-nested circles look really cool, but unfortunately that doesn't cover what they need to do functionally. First, if we use something like the circles, I think they need to be player color, so you can't use that to distinguish them (I don't think that was your intention anyway, but just to be sure ).

Yes, I know they must be player-color, I just tried that as an easy way for everybody to distinguish the three different circle levels.

quote: Second, when there are alot of My-civ-color circles on the map, it won't be easy visually to tell the red one in your demos from the blue one. Third, it needs more than three levels, it really needs something like a Factor of 3 in diamater like I said earlier. That's because you need to have recognizable at least five or six gradiations between Very powerful TFs for the age, or relatively insignificant garisons. As currently defined a range of 3 in diameter lets us show a range of 9 in power, which is I think adequate.

Ah, sorry, I hadn't understand you the first time, I thought you wanted three different levels of Power Circles. Sorry again, my English is poor, I'm afraid.

I'm not yet truly sure of understanding what you mean. I think you want the biggest circle to be three times bigger than the smallest one? I'm sorry for this, but I'd like to be really sure about how the Power Circle are going to be implemented.

quote: On opposing figures in the same square. Well, IMO it would be cool to show that on the map. Gives the right visceral feel that my guys are Fighting someone! But Power Circles of different color in a single square would show there is a fight going on in a crude way (that's what's done in d4). I think offsetting the figures to the sides and/or top/bottom should work. Perhaps that's the next important thing to try. Take two chariots and see what size they can be and still both fit...

Uff, you're asking for really difficult stuff here... You see, if you really want those features to be implemented, a 120x60 tile is a better choice. However, I'll give it a try.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai on 03-23-2001 12:24 AM WoW! I just checked out your new sets and i must say your cities kick a**!

He, he, thanks. I think that isometric view is the way to go for city icons. It's pretty easy and the result is always good.

quote: You think you can clear up some of the other stuff especially the forest?

Well, I don't have much experience with terrain icons... It may be difficut, but I may try something once we've setted up definitely the tile size.

[Richard Bruns]

The idea is intriguing. The combination of pictorial graphics and icons might cause some confusion if not handled properly. For example, if a unit of Parthian horde archers looked like a normal archer but had the movement characteristics of cavalry, players might get confused.

So instead of showing a certain type of military unit as the graphic, we could show a generic soldier or even citizen from the culture and time perios that produced the unit. That would make it clear that the type of unit is represented by the icons and that the picture is a generic representation.

One very nice thing about this plan is that it lets us display the components of a task force. Look at the example that I managed to post after a harrowing fight with our school's arcane VAX system:
http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~RB22393/

The shield and sword icons represent heavy infantry, the spear represents skirmishers, the bow signifies archers, and the horse signifies light cavalry. What do you think?

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Guys:

Well, I can't say I really like either of the recent proposals . For some reason a guy on for with a little horse icon above him just doesn't really give the message cavalry to my brain . Personally it doesn't really bother me, at least in concept, if a horse figure were to extend beyond the power circle attached to it. It seems to me if the power circle were just to go down first and then have the chariot or whatever put on top of that, that it wouldn't be ideal, but wouldn't look that bad. To go with Fiera's style figures anything with a horse should be roughly facing the viewer, at a 45 degree angle or so. That was shorten the footprint of the horse so it wouldn't look quite so odd with a smaller power circle. However, I will certainly admit to my limited capacity in an artistic sense, so a test would be good. Fiera, would you be able to make or find a horse-based unit consistent with your style that you could put on top of a relatively small power circle so we could see what it looks like? And of course, it's not clear we will even have the power circles far in the future, so limiting the graphics at this stage due to a potential clash with the power circle seems premature.

The thing that I think the iconic representations both of you presented could be really useful for is in zoomed-out views. When it got to the point where one could barely resolve a figure, the icons could still be easily distinguishable.

I had one other idea regarding the graphics. At least it makes sense to make that if a TF is predominantly composed of one sort of unit, that the TF should be represented by an icon for that unit type. But sometimes TFs will be composed of roughly even amounts of several types. I thought for that sort of TF we could use a commander icon.

Thanks to both of you for all your hard work!

[Richard Bruns]

quote: But sometimes TFs will be composed of roughly even amounts of several types. I thought for that sort of TF we could use a commander icon.

quote: So instead of showing a certain type of military unit as the graphic, we could show a generic soldier or even citizen from the culture and time perios that produced the unit. That would make it clear that the type of unit is represented by the icons and that the picture is a generic representation.

Maybe we could have an option to show the task forces by using a commander graphic with the little icons above that figure. We can have one commander icon for each culture and time period, alpha-channeled to the controlling civ. The commander would represent the civ and task force and the icons would represent the units that make up the task force. At higher zoom levels, we can erase the commander graphic and use only the icons. At extreme zoom, there is room for one icon, a civ color indicator, and the power and movement bars.


Edit: Image directly into forum (Mostly a test)
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited March 24, 2001).]

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-24-2001 07:27 AM For some reason a guy on for with a little horse icon above him just doesn't really give the message cavalry to my brain .

Yes, that makes sense. I told you that I wasn't very confident with this idea myself, but I had to try.

quote: Personally it doesn't really bother me, at least in concept, if a horse figure were to extend beyond the power circle attached to it. It seems to me if the power circle were just to go down first and then have the chariot or whatever put on top of that, that it wouldn't be ideal, but wouldn't look that bad.

Yes, but what if you couldn't see the circle at all, specially if it's one of the smaller circles? We have to avoid that.

quote: To go with Fiera's style figures anything with a horse should be roughly facing the viewer, at a 45 degree angle or so.

Yes, that's the way to go, but it requires very good painting abilities.

quote: Fiera, would you be able to make or find a horse-based unit consistent with your style that you could put on top of a relatively small power circle so we could see what it looks like?

There aren't units of this kind that I know of in the Civ2 scn arena. As I said, it requires a lot of skill, so trying to make one of those seems really challenging and fun to me. Let's see what I come up with.

quote: And of course, it's not clear we will even have the power circles far in the future, so limiting the graphics at this stage due to a potential clash with the power circle seems premature.

Aestethically, the Power Circles are quite a good solution. I like them, they will give personality to Clash, so I want to find a consistent way to implement them.

quote: The thing that I think the iconic representations both of you presented could be really useful for is in zoomed-out views. When it got to the point where one could barely resolve a figure, the icons could still be easily distinguishable.

Yes, we can give a Chess-feel to all those crazy for pure strategy out there. They aren't really looking for fancy graphics, but for strategy.

quote: I had one other idea regarding the graphics. At least it makes sense to make that if a TF is predominantly composed of one sort of unit, that the TF should be represented by an icon for that unit type. But sometimes TFs will be composed of roughly even amounts of several types. I thought for that sort of TF we could use a commander icon.

Interesting idea, but I fear that, in the end, the map will end up filled with Commander units, which may be boring, unless we plan to include a lot of different commanders (as Richard suggested). We could have Alexander, Julius Caesar, El Cid, Pizarro, Wallenstein, Napoleon, Rommel, Patton, etc. Fun for the gamers and for me too.

quote: Thanks to both of you for all your hard work!

You're welcome, as long as we are all having a great time, I'll keep on helping Clash very gladly.

[Mark_Everson]

quote: Yes, but what if you couldn't see the circle at all, specially if it's one of the smaller circles? We have to avoid that.

Since the circles have a minimum diameter that will be something like 1/4 the way across the tile, and will extend "in front" of the unit figure, I don't think this will ever be a problem. Basically if the figure covers the circle then you know its not a very powerful TF, and its exact power probably isn't so important anyway. And you could always look in the TF Box, or whatever we have for it at a later stage, to see what the actual power is anyway if its that important.

So IMO when its important, you'll always be able to see enough of the circle to gauge rough power unless the TF is really weak.

[Mark_Everson]

Fiera, it looks Great! And the PCs should be at worst a little smaller than the sample you've used so it should be ok at least for all the horse and man units. I think the next thing is to see what happens with a tank. There must be something vauguely like that around, I hope! That seems like the thing that has the most liklihood of not working.

Another idea to make it look a little better would be to have the shadows to the back of the base of the unit. As if they were moving toward the sun, with the sun like it is in the summer at 16:00 or so. That will help in making sure the shadow doesn't blot out the front part of the circle.

Excellent job!

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-25-2001 01:06 PM Fiera, it looks Great!

Good to hear you like it, but I really think I can make it look better, giving the unit more "contrast" and some small details. But I think that isn't really important now, is it? Are you planning to use a Cavalry unit in Demo 5? If so, what should it be like exactly?

quote: I think the next thing is to see what happens with a tank.

Bronze age chariots concern me even more. I've been tring, and it's really difficult to show a chariot with, say two horses, in a 45º angle, and still make it look so that the player know what the hell is it.

I may easily find some suitable tank icons out there, and at least we'll see what happens then.

quote: Another idea to make it look a little better would be to have the shadows to the back of the base of the unit. As if they were moving toward the sun, with the sun like it is in the summer at 16:00 or so. That will help in making sure the shadow doesn't blot out the front part of the circle.

I've always designed with the shadow to the front, for no particular reason, just because the original Civ2 were like that, I guess. But if the Civ2 artists chose mostly that kind of shadow view, I think it's 'cause it's less confusing. I'm not making too big shaows anyway, so I guess that's not really a problem, but I may give it a try, specialy when designing the chariot.

quote: Excellent job!

Thanks, boss!

[Mark_Everson]

We may have a horse unit in demo 5. It would probably be either spear or sword armed. So I think what you have is already fits well with what we might need. By demo 6 we should have a reasonable variety of ancient horsemounted units.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-25-2001 06:58 PM We may have a horse unit in demo 5. It would probably be either spear or sword armed. So I think what you have is already fits well with what we might need. By demo 6 we should have a reasonable variety of ancient horsemounted units.

Well, I'll be sure to have the unit refined soon... I'll post the improved unit in the Unit Graphics thread when it's ready...

What I can ofer you right now is a Tank units demo. I've "stolen" a suitable tank icon made by Allard Höfelt. It was the one that covered a smallest tile surface, and if we want to have our own Tank icon, I think we have to make it in a similar way to this one.

Note that the size can't be consistent with the Infantry unit we already have. Tanks, and possibly chariots too, as well as planes and ships, need a reduced scale, but that's OK.

Take it a look here:
www.geocities.com/fiera_com/graphics.html

The phalanx' power circle is the same size as that of the Tank below, and yet seems bigger... Apart from that, I think there aren't any other major problems... perhaps we could reduce even more the size of the tank...

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks Fiera! Its pretty good to see that with an image that completely fills about half the square that the cirlce still isn't too bad. I think, as you said, we might want our tanks to be a bit smaller. Off hand it looks like we'll have some trouble with images that cover more than about 40% of the tile area. Are you basically happy with the visual impact? Its clearly not ideal with the tank as is, but IMO its not too bad.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-25-2001 09:08 PM Are you basically happy with the visual impact? Its clearly not ideal with the tank as is, but IMO its not too bad.

It can be easily improved, I think. For example, we may add a long and menacing cannon to the tank, that will give the unit more impact, and won't really interfere with the circle, as it will be "elevated"...

So now, what's next? What else should be testing? Maybe should I try with a chariot unit? What about the effect of having two units in the same square?

[Fiera]

Hi again,

I've got something that could be the right way to go for cavalry units. I will probably add it some details and try to refine it, but I think it already may serve for the purpose of seeing how the circles deal with these units.

Go to my Demos page to see it (#8):
www.geocities.com/fiera_com/graphics.html


[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

I want to know if we plan of changing the views of the icons depending on how they move like in civ2?

[Mark_Everson]

Fiera, the next steps you outline sound good to me. I think doing a chariot first, as an example of a large unit is good. Then you can use it as an acid test to see if we can fit two TF icons in a square when needed. We may just need to give up on two TFs in the same square if they're both large icons. Any ideas you can come up with would be welcome .

LGJ: I don't know exactly what you mean, so can't comment...

[Lord God Jinnai]

Remember how you want to have 8 directions the player can move? Are we going to make it so that the icon looks different depending upon which direction the unit went last?

[Mark_Everson]

Ah, thanks for elaborating. My guess at this point is probably not, at least with the unit graphic itself. We might do left/right facing because its easy. But that means each facing needs to represent 4 of the 8 possible directions.

Movement direction would be a good thing to show... maybe with a little arrow on the power circle? Anybody got any good ideas?

[Fiera]

Uff, the chariot has been one of the toughest to draw units I've ever made. It's not yet a definitive graphic, but I've already got something to show you.
www.geocities.com/fiera_com/graphics.html
(pic #10)

The size and position of the icon is the best I could come up with, I think it still lets the player see the Power Circle, but it will be very difficult to fit two of those in just one tile.

I have a few ideas to deal with that problem. First, changing the view automatically when ever two TFs enter the same square, from a 80x40 tile, to a 120x60 tile (or maybe bigger), which will allow the player to have a better view of the "battle". Second would be changing automatically the unit icons from the graphics we are working with to the small icons that I proposed earlier. Richard has posted some ideas regarding those in his website.

I don't know if I made myself clear enough... I hope so!

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-27-2001 12:15 PM I think the preliminary chariot looks pretty good! IMO its just a bit too big, but it sounds like you've already looked into the size issues and thought what you have is the best compromise between being able to make out the figures, and filling as little as possible of the tile.

That's right. I don't like how anything smaller than this looks like, 'cause it makes an strange effect when compared to an infantry unit, such as the Horde. Now it doesn't look really bad.

I think I can even extract some kind of conclusion from my tests: whenever there are human figures in the units, those must have a consistent size. We can (as we did) make the tank smaller, since you can't see a human figure there and thus can't establish a comparison. What do you think of my little theory?

quote: One suggestion I have is to seriously reduce the shadow underneath. That will make the horse figures easier to recognize, and give more space for the PC to show through.

Yes, I did it and I think it looks better now. Check it out: www.geocities.com/fiera_com/graphics.html

quote: On two TFs fighing in one tile, I like your idea about just reducing the TF image size if its needed. The program will know about the size of each image, and it can decide on the fly if it needs to reduce them so they won't overlap or not. BTW I don't think changing tile size to make it larger as needed is a really good idea, because it could be maddening for the player. At least I'm sure I'd be bothered by it... I'm sure the examples will help to show if the size reduction idea will work. My guess is the PCs should remain the same size as normal, and only the actual TF images should shrink. Is that what you were thinking also?

Yes, the PCs should reamain the same, otherwise it would be too confusing. Rather than tiny icons, like the ones I used on my first example, I was thinking of reducing and simplifying the current unit graphics, maybe showing them only in black. Something like the old Civ1 icons would be neat too. Shall I try to put together some examples of this?

[Mark_Everson]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 03-27-2001 04:26 PMWhat do you think of my little theory?

Sounds reasonable! And I think we can live with it, since the most human figures we'll likely ever show for a single image is two. With luck the chariot will be the worst case.

quote: Rather than tiny icons, like the ones I used on my first example, I was thinking of reducing and simplifying the current unit graphics, maybe showing them only in black. Something like the old Civ1 icons would be neat too. Shall I try to put together some examples of this?

Love to see them

I do like the new chariot better also! I'd vote for even less shadow if you care to try it the next time you happen to work on it... FE I think it would look better if the white horse's one leg wasn't shadowed. But I am artistically challenged, so don't trust what I say .

[Lord God Jinnai]

I have an idea that might solve the problem with the rings being hard to see sometimes. This first of all depends on whether or not we want to make certain parts of the units match a color of the originating nation and then we could simply have 1 ring of 1 size and change its colors to match the power level.

Do you think you can work on some ships now? We have enought units for the next demo for land units. The one i'm concerned about is the large battleships (which dwarfed any land item in size) as to how much detail they could have with the current resolution. But mainly we can concentrate on the wooden ones from ancient times.

Also can you work on some of the land tiles, esp. the forest and make them more scale-oriented with the cities and more descent looking, maybe if you feel like it add a few types.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited March 27, 2001).]

[Fiera]

OK, here's what a "battle" depicted with small icons would look like:
www.geocities.com/fiera_com/graphics.html

The blue Horde, as attackers, have their PC over the red chariot's one.

If you look at the chariot carefully, you'll see that I've made the white horse leg clearer, thus making it look so much better. Which means that Mark is not artistically challenged after all.

I haven't touched the chariot shadow for the moment. But there's no doubt that there is a lot of tiny details that I will have to re-touch before the graphic is definitive. Would you like this chariot graphic to appear in demo5?

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai on 03-27-2001 05:59 PM Do you think you can work on some ships now? We have enought units for the next demo for land units. The one i'm concerned about is the large battleships (which dwarfed any land item in size) as to how much detail they could have with the current resolution.

Well, I've made only a few ships for Civ2 scns, and I must reckon they're not my most brilliant unit graphics. However, I know that certain quality can be reach with the average resolution allowed by Civ2.

Take a look at this link. The author is Bernd Brossing, a German Civ2 scn designer and artist. http://civ2000.civ2.gamesweb.de/webs...ics/Units3.gif

I think we should use an isomteric view for Clash ships, similar to the one used by Bernd here (the one Civ2 generally uses too). However, we can take advantage of the bigger tile size and of a better color depth.

quote: But mainly we can concentrate on the wooden ones from ancient times.

Shall I get a trireme type unit graphic for Demo5 then?

quote: Also can you work on some of the land tiles, esp. the forest and make them more scale-oriented with the cities and more descent looking, maybe if you feel like it add a few types.

Well, once we finally reach an agreement on which tile size to use, I think I can start working on the terrain.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi all, wow, lots of progress! I don't have much time, but I'll try to get the important stuff said vaguely coherently.

First of all about the big directions to go in... Personally I think Fiera's stuff is really good, and am not worried about trying to do refinements yet. We really only need 4 units for demo 5, and we basically have them now, at least close to the level we'll need them at. (I hope that's ok with you Fiera ) What I see as the most pressing need is to work out specs (some of which we have just formulated) that will work through the whole game. I don't think they need to be all your (Fiera) work at this point, so long as they test out things that might occur in the game.

So, there is now something that seems to work fairly well for a battle. I'm not sure the blackend icons completely work, but at least they are close. As LGJ suggested, seeing how ships look when combined with the land units is important. Another thing to try is a massed battle with a front as occurred in WWII. This will put lots of TFs from each side together, and we need to be sure our overall spec can handle that situation. Testing of PCs with ships and airplanes is another thing...

So my proposal for next steps is to see how all these things look using the rules of thumb we have so far. We don't IMO need final images for them, but rather just to be sure that things won't look really odd. Then when we think all the unit combinations look ok, testing of how units look on city icons and in conjunction with roads etc. seems the right thing to do next.

I think by the time we discover the new rules of thumb that would get us (well really you Fiera ) through all the crude tests, and that everything works together, is it time to start on a set of 'final' units.

What does everyone think about this proposal for how to proceed? I'm sure I've missed some things, but I think its the right general direction to go in...


Fiera:

I think the chariot is continually improving, but unfortunately we don't have chariot specs yet for demo 5. He will probably need to wait for demo 6 to take the field . But he is useful now as part of the tests!

Like I said above, I think the battle with reduced/silouette units basically works. But IMO its not quite exciting enough. Maybe something as simple as showing the TFs each in the respective player's colors would work. I just have the general feeling that guys in potential combat should be more exciting than what you have now. But I give you credit that the basic idea works! And I think with some refinement it will do quite well.

BTW those ships are great. I think our ships may need to be a little smaller compared to our tile size because of the need to show the power circle. Perhaps we could use that guy's ships directly if he doesn't mind and if they look ok next to your TFs... What do you think?

LGJ:

If PCs are color coded for size I think we'd lose something. I think its important for the player to see the map colored in their color. Lets see what others think...

[Mark_Everson]

I think the preliminary chariot looks pretty good! IMO its just a bit too big, but it sounds like you've already looked into the size issues and thought what you have is the best compromise between being able to make out the figures, and filling as little as possible of the tile. One suggestion I have is to seriously reduce the shadow underneath. That will make the horse figures easier to recognize, and give more space for the PC to show through.

On two TFs fighing in one tile, I like your idea about just reducing the TF image size if its needed. The program will know about the size of each image, and it can decide on the fly if it needs to reduce them so they won't overlap or not. BTW I don't think changing tile size to make it larger as needed is a really good idea, because it could be maddening for the player. At least I'm sure I'd be bothered by it... I'm sure the examples will help to show if the size reduction idea will work. My guess is the PCs should remain the same size as normal, and only the actual TF images should shrink. Is that what you were thinking also?

-Mark

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 03-27-2001 10:42 PM LGJ: If PCs are color coded for size I think we'd lose something. I think its important for the player to see the map colored in their color. Lets see what others think...

Well the rings are alright until we get into the age of flight.

[LEN77]

hi everybody!

first of all: i'm new!

so excuse me for eventual amde mistakes (like not knowing the latest news...)

i have a (maybe) new suggestion for the terrain in clash.
is it possible to use hex fields instead of quarter fields?

if you think this could work i'll explain you how i mean that.

cya for now,

LEN77

------------------

[Mark_Everson]

Hi LEN77, welcome to Clash!

Sorry, but we've already been over hexes vs. squares 32.5 times, and we're sticking with squares at least for the forseeable future. But diagonal movement on our squares in Clash will cost 1.4 or 1.5x movement across square sides, which mitigates what to my mind is the biggest reason normally expressed for using hexes.