Spherical Map

[Sandman]

I am strongly in favour of a civilization game with a spherical map. The reasons why a spherical map would be an improvement include:

1. A spherical map would be more realistic. The polar areas could be fully implemented, withn the possibility of nuclear exchanges over the poles, for example.

2. A spherical map would reinvigorate the game, presenting a new challenge to long-time civ players, who've grown accustomed to playing on a flat map. No other grand-strategy game has used a spherical map to my knowledge, and if civ doesn't get it, some other game will.

3. A spherical map would be aesthetically pleasing, particularly if it was combined with a renewed investment in the terrain graphics.

Possible problems:

An incomplete mini-map. I think that it's important that the mini-map should reflect the whole world, so I'd suggest that it could use a variety of flat projections, depending on the player's preference. Maybe it could even by tied to your tech level.

As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to tile squares onto a sphere. An analogue system could be used, or perhaps a province system.

[SCG]

it doesn't seem like there would be that much change to implement a basic north-south wraparound, as we already have an east-west wraparound of course a spherical map would be a lot more difficult as the current depiction is basically flat with squares as you mentioned. of course if the tiles had a soccer ball-like pattern, maybe it wouldn't be quite so tough to do wraparound?

[VetLegion]

This subject was discussed very much in practicaly every civ project out there. Some, like Manifest Destiny, even implement a spherical map.

[Sandman]

The problem with a North/South wraparound is that it's not very realistic. After all, the North pole doesn't connect with the South, does it?

A geodesic-type tiling would be pretty good, since hexes are a well established strategy game feature.



You have to throw in the occasional pentagon to make the design work, but I don't see that as much of a problem.

I downloaded the Manifest Destiny demo and tried it out. The map is pretty good, but I would really like to see a mini-map which was a typical flat projection, since spherical maps do tend to hide information around their curvature.

[badams52]

Populous: The Beginning was played on a spherical world, and I think it worked out nicely, but that was a RTS game and didn't need to have a tiled approach.

You wouldn't have to keep the area spherical, you could take the spherical and flatten it out and let people know where the wraparounds happen. It might take some getting used to, but it could work.

[Urban Ranger]

The internal data representation isn't all that tricky, all you need is to use polar corrdinates. But showing it on screen could be an entirely different story.

[Trifna]

Urban Ranger: Is there any problem to put it as Sandman proposed it two posts before you?...

[Dauphin]

It would work fine, but only for specific size maps. The problem is that for the majority of map sizes the hexagons will not be 'regular', and so different shapes of hexagons will appear depending on which part of the map you are looking at.

If you have a good graphics template you can problem hide/resolve that issue as it is not a topological problem, just an aesthetic one.

[Trifna]

Which size would that be? Those with a number of tiles = exponents of 8 or something? If so, do we really need map sizes that are THAT customizable? Doesn't seem to bad a handicap... No?

[Lemmy]

Do we really need tiles?
Tiles are somewhat of a problem on spherical maps, maybe you could have a civgame without tiles?
Units and cities can both have polar coordinates.
The only thing that would have to be solved without tiles is how the terrain is handled. Pathfinding would also be different, but if there there is a good way to model the terrain, then pathfinding shouldn't be too hard.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
It would work fine, but only for specific size maps. The problem is that for the majority of map sizes the hexagons will not be 'regular', and so different shapes of hexagons will appear depending on which part of the map you are looking at.

Actually, there's only one map size where the hexes would be regular: the one that looks like a soccer ball. All maps larger than that would have different sized hexes. I think.

But then again, if you're going to have a map where the tiles are irregular anyway, why restrict yourself to geodesic spheres? The whole map could be a free-form polygon mesh.

[Trifna]

We can also look at the possibility of hexagons with four-sided figures.

[War4ever]

unrealistic to connect the two poles...but it might make for some gaming fun ...again i would wonder what it looked like

[Spiffor]

In a spherical map, there is no need to connect the two poles in order to go northern than the North pole, or southerne than the south pole.

I'm all for it. A spherical map would be refreshing, look good, and let us feel more involved in the game

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by War4ever
unrealistic to connect the two poles...but it might make for some gaming fun ...again i would wonder what it looked like

A toroid: like a big (american-style) donut.

CtP2 has that option. You don't even try and picture it usually, just take y-wrap for granted and keep playing.

[Spiffor]

Well, Civ2 had the option too, it was called a "buoy" map.

I think a spherical map would be much cooler though. I want my Murmansk to be nearest of the American shores !

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, Civ2 had the option too, it was called a "buoy" map.

I think a spherical map would be much cooler though. I want my Murmansk to be nearest of the American shores !

hi ,

seconded

and subs should be able to go under the ice

have a nice day

[TimeTraveler]

I'm actually thinking of designing a civ-type game with a spherical map that uses hexagons and the occasional pentagon.

I've worked calculations with geodesic spheres like this and found that the number of tiles on any such map would be 10 times the square of the distance between two closer pentagons.
The distance can be calculated by going a distance x, turning 60 degrees, and going a distance y. The distance is (x^2+y^2+x*y)^(1/2).
Some examples of success are how the dodecahedron has 10*(1+0+0)+2=12 tiles, and the soccer ball has 10*(1+1+1)+2=32 tiles.

For anyone wishing to create a custom-sized map, they can choose an angle and distance between pentagons, possibly using the x-y system if I can simplify the explanation, but I'm thinking of keeping any map from going smaller than 912 tiles.

[LDiCesare]

I'm pretty sure we discussed something like that in the Clash forum. I don't know whcich thrad it was, but it's not that old... Spherical coordinates (hexes + some pentagons) can be done without too many problems in terms of modelisation. Rendering is a bit more tricky, and you'd in fact want a flat minimap somewhere.
About tileless maps, this has been suggested too in the Clash forums. Gary Thomas actually thought of polygons rather than regular polygons to make the map. Thus you could bundle many squares (or hexagons, ...) into one big area, f.e. sea or desert, and have exact coordinates for units. Search for polygons in the Clash forum if you're interested.

[Dauphin]

I think the main problems is not how to do it, but how to do it without puts the computer specs required too high.

I'm wondering how much memory is required to store information on a cartesian grid, and how much memory is required for a polar variable-sized irregular polygon grid.

[Trifna]

Well wasn't Populous (many years old) built on a spherical map? It doesn't seem to add that much more information to manage for a computer. Perhaps it would ask a little more graphically? Well then it wouldn't make it a serious problem since the average computer now has a pretty strong video card, and quite some speed. If a civ game gets on the market in one or two years, just imagine how much cpu strength wont be a limit...

[Dauphin]

Too my recollection Populous wasn't a tiled game, it was a continuous surface. This removes a lot of the problems.

Any game could easily be made on a spherical map if you don't need discrete tiling. Of course removing tile from Civ would lead to a loss of many of its central features.

[Trifna]

Wouldn't a football-type tiling be correct?

[Dauphin]

Football tiling varies depending on the number of tiles being used.

[Trifna]

Then it would simply mean that the number of tiles should be dependant on the tilling :P
It's not that much of a handicap.

[Dauphin]

Its not just a change in quantity but it also effects the shape and orientation of each and every tile.

[Vince278]

Spherical maps have been done successfully in other games. The best example I can think of is X-Com. The strategic map is a globe of the earth that you can zoom or rotate on a North-South or East-West axis at will. Something like this would look really nice in a future Civ, or similar, game.

[geeslaka]

Why use only spheres? Why shouldn't the map be wrapped around other thngs?
My favorite idea for the topology of a map is this:

Originally posted by geeslaka
Another topology came to me in a dream last night. Take the formula that is applied to the top and bottom of the rectangle in the cylinder capped with frictionless hemispheres topology. Apply that formula to cases where units go off the left or right side as well and you get a much more complex topology.

 ________________________________
|         a               b      |
|h                               |
|                               c|
|                                |
|                                |
|g                               |
|                               d|
|           f               e    |
 ________________________________

If a unit goes up from point a it moves to point b.
If a unit goes right from point c it moves to point d.
If a unit goes down from point e it moves to point f.
If a unit goes left from point g it moves to point h.

For other topology ideas of mine see this thread. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=89943

[Vince278]

Originally posted by geeslaka
Why use only spheres? Why shouldn't the map be wrapped around other thngs?

Because we are trying to accurately simulate worlds?

[geeslaka]

Spheres should be just one of many options, not the only one. If people want to play on a map that resembles the real world they can choose a sphere. Besides, until someone develops a way of dynamically figuring the tiles needed for a spheroid or the tile system is dropped entirely, we are stuck with squares. Why shouldn't we do as much with squares as we possibly can?