tiles or provinces?

[The diplomat]

What do people here think of the idea of province-based maps, where the map is divided into territories instead of tiles?

It seems to me that a province-based map would have very interesting advantages compared to a tile-based map.

1) simpler path-finding.

a map divided into territories means less paths to choose from than with tiles. So path-finding would be easier. Easier path-finding would make it easier for the AI to launch better invasions.

2) Better economics.

You only need to worry about the ressources of the territory instead of the ressources of each tile in the city radius. You don't need to manage workers building tile improvements everywhere.

2) Better looking maps.

Tiles give the terrain a "square" look, with squares of desert in the middle of squares of grassland. It can make maps look a bit unnatural.
Province-based maps can look much more natural, as you can have much more fluid lines and much smoother transitions between different terrain types.

3) faster wars.

If it takes 5 or 6 turns just getting the units to the enemy city, a short skirmish war can take a long time. With province-based maps, wars can be quicker since you can attack another province in 1 turn and if you win, you have already seized an entire area.

Faster wars means you can have more wars during a game. More wars means more excitement.

4) more strategic options.

With province-based maps, you could set the size of territories, small, medium, large, mixed. This could allow more strategic variety. With a map with lots of small territories, you would have a longer game approximating a tile based map. If you play with super large territories (like 1 territory = half of north america), you could have short games where each battle would have a lot at stake.

As a result, being able to set the size of territories, would give players an extra set of variety in the type of maps they could play on.

In conclusion, I definitely think that future civ games should consider switching to province-based maps instead of tiles.

[geeslaka]

Are you thinking of something similar to Risk?

[Frozzy]

Are you thinking of something similar to Risk?

That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw the thread title.

It'll be too Risk-esque IMO. Keep to tiles. A lot better, and think about it. Divide you nation into tiles, and most will have a definitive type of terrain/buildings. What would be good is different sized tiles, for bigger farms, more space for units et. al.

I'm not convinced, though. Sorry

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by geeslaka
Are you thinking of something similar to Risk?

Yes. But as I mention, the player should be able to choose a map with territories ranging from very small to RISK size.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Frozzy
It'll be too Risk-esque IMO.

And what would be wrong about that? The game would have much less micromanagement. Wars would be easier to manage and have a much more strategic feel to them. Overall, a RISK type map would make the game much easier to manage, and much more strategic.

Obviously, with very large territories, the game would have a RISK feel to it.

But this would not be true with small territories!

[Frozzy]

It works with an RTS where you have something else in addition to Risk (i.e. Rise of Nations). However, it is FAR to easy to complete the game if you have Risk size, and it would become a sideshow to a nothing game.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Frozzy
However, it is FAR to easy to complete the game if you have Risk size,

Like I said, the territories would be much much smaller than RISK size. So, you would have a lot more territories than in a RISK game. I doubt that it would be easy to complete the game as quickly as you think.

and it would become a sideshow to a nothing game.

I am not quite sure I understand you. Are you saying that a RISK stye map would make the game boring?

I am not talking about a RISK clone where all you do is build armies and conquer provinces!
There would still be everything we know, like managing cities, building units and city improvements, researching tech tree, changing governments etc...

[geeslaka]

The current form of city management requires terrain. Either in the form of tiles with a type or in the form of objects at points.
If I understand you correctly units would be unaffected by terrain. 1) and 3) are the points that seem to lead to this.
Overall it seems like an interesting idea but there are a few problems.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by geeslaka
The current form of city management requires terrain. Either in the form of tiles with a type or in the form of objects at points.

Obviously, you would not have a city radius anymore. The base number of food/shields/gold would be based on the overall terrain of the entire province. (think of the province as if it were 1 single tile). The number of food/shields/gold would then be modified based on pop, tech, city improvements etc...

If I understand you correctly units would be unaffected by terrain. 1) and 3) are the points that seem to lead to this.

No, units would still be very much affected by terrain. For example, say you have 2 territories with mountains in between them, units moving across the mountains from one province to the other could lose some hit points. Terrain would also modify combat. For example, if a battle occurs in a province with mostly flat plains, then horseback and chariot units would get +1 attack to simulate the increase mobility on flat terrain. A province with a lot of hills and small mountains would give archery/artillery units +1 range to simulate the advantage of height.

Overall it seems like an interesting idea but there are a few problems.

Vel is making Candle Bre with a province based map. And it is still a very civ like game from what I can tell.

[Aramis]

Tiles and provinces, maybe? Tiles for mangement of resources; provinces for movement? Sounds like a whole new game. Could be fun.

[geeslaka]

In 3) you say that an entire province is gained with one battle. This umplies that troops move across the province in a single turn regardless of terrain.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by geeslaka
In 3) you say that an entire province is gained with one battle. This implies that troops move across the province in a single turn regardless of terrain.

Well, it could require more than 1 turn to conquer a single province, depending on the outcome of the battle. If the battle were a stalemate, then both sides could fight another battle on the next turn for the same province. So, it could take several turns to win a province.

But you are right, that units would always reach an adjacent province in a single turn regardless of terrain. This seems only fair to me, considering that a turn can represent several years.

But as I mentionned, terrain would affect units in other ways, like hit points etc...

So, units would be affected by terrain, just not in movement.

[geeslaka]

Since you bring up the fact that a turn can represent several years I'll say something that's been bugging me for quite some time. We should drop the idea of years entirely and just keep track of the number of turns passed.

[LDiCesare]

We've talked about that in Clash, in 2 ways: Tiles are grouped into provinces to provide less micro-management than cities (implemented), and then we have a discussion about replacing square tiles by polygons, which is more like what you were talking about (like Risk, Diplomacy and such).

simpler path-finding.

This is true only if each region costs the same to travel, which is unrealistic, and leads to strange side effects, if the regions are of vastly varying sizes.

Better economics.

You don't really need regions or that. In Clash, you can manage a square all by itself, so you don't have to worry about the neighbouring squares. However, when you build a region, you may be interested in having food and production squares lumped together.

Better looking maps.

This point is hard to argue with, but if you don't have underlying squares or triangles (or hexagons), it will be extremely hard to make random maps, so they'll end up being either square-like or a repetition of the same bits of maps.

faster wars.

What you say is simply that with smaller maps, you have faster and more wars. I don't think the 'more' part is true, nor do I think that more wars is necessarily more fun.

more strategic options.

Except for mixed categories, what you say is basically playing a small or big maps in a tile-based game. Mixed categories makes for weird moves, giving huge importance to big regions. This can be in fact interesting.

[geeslaka]

Another question: Would the regions have a uniform shape?