Civ IV will have a 3D map! A discussion of possibilities

[PresidentMarcos]

Hmm. Problematic, then. Well then how about an irregularly shaped map? Not just a square or a recctangle, but a disc, ellipse, or in the case of my proposal, even a star shape...(four pointed)

[FrostyBoy]

I'm trying to make a good guess here...but you would have to multiply the largest Rise of Nations map maybe 10 times to get a small map suitable for Civilization. (in 3D).

I'll be interested to see what they do to pull this off and hopefully it doesn't remove computer resources from the actual gameplay.

[FrostyBoy]

Actually, I can think of one way to achieve it.

Take a cube. Make each side of the cube the total viewable area. You can zoom in and out on that side, but your viewable area cannot exceed the edges of the side (otherwise you will see that it is actually a cube, and for graphics sake, no one wants to think that they are playing on a cube).

The good thing about the cube, is that it has a top and bottom side (north and south pole), and since each side is flat, there doesn't have to be any distortion with the tiles.

Infact, I would not be surprised if this is what they are going to do.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by PresidentMarcos
Hmm. Problematic, then. Well then how about an irregularly shaped map? Not just a square or a recctangle, but a disc, ellipse, or in the case of my proposal, even a star shape...(four pointed)

That's where it stops being practical...


There was a game that used a projection similiar to this:



I don't remember what the game was called, but I remember it being frustrating as hell to use that map.

[PresidentMarcos]

Like that, but with the upper parts fused toghether. Above the equator, that is. The lower parts stick out like points on a star. Hmm...

[rickontherun_21]

wheres empire earth SSs?

[Leland]

Am I the only one getting deja vu with this discussion? Every two months or so someone suggests "hey, wouldn't it be cool to have a 3d/spherical map" and then we go through the same soccer balls, hexes, triangles, geodesic spheres, distortions and why 2d bitmap squares are the best. It's like an episode of twilight zone where the same things are repeated over, and over, and over again...

Originally posted by Fosse
A spherical map is just the way to go. Continuous zoom is nice, but doesn't justify 3D all by itself. They could just add more zoom levels if that's all the more that they wanted to add.

It's impractical to have a huge level of zooms in 2d, because every level has to have its own tile set and unit graphics. And if there aren't enough levels, the effect is jarring and disorienting. Nay, I think that continuous zoom is the reason for going 3d. Spherical or tileless maps and other oddities are good concepts and eventually there will be games that will attempt them in civ-like games, but in the mean time there's absolutely no reason to stick with prehistoric technology just for the sake of nostalgy.

How much justification does 3d need anyway? SMAC was semi-3d, and that was 6 years ago. My opinion is that 3d is the default these days, and 2d is the choice that has to be justified...

The days of the tiny cylindrical map should be over with. The cylinder is a hanger-on from low power PC days... please Firaxis, let it die.

Well, from gameplay point of view, cylindrical map (if you have square tiles) is easy and intuitive to use, and civs are traditionally rather abstract games to begin so the unrealism doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by Trip
I think everyone should be considering how a map of diamonds could be implimented into a spherical map (if at all), because I really see there being no way that Civ 4 will change from diamonds to hexes or anything else.

Eh? Diamonds are just squares tilted 45 degrees. One other alternative might be to take your average "hex sphere" (like the one vulture showed) and split the hexes into 3 diamonds (you still have those 12 pentagons though).

Originally posted by Drachasor
Well, one way to deal with distortion is to hide it. You keepthe distortion at the edges or opposite side of the sphere as much as possible, and whenever you move your perspective, it doesn't rotate the sphere as much as it overlays the area you move to on the good part.

Doesn't work. The distortion is not just in the way you display the map, it's in the fundamental map geometry. What you are suggesting above would require that the map is fundamentally tileless, and the tiles are just an overlay on the real map.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Trip
Doing the map in 3D allows many more zoom levels to be implimented rather easily, and they'll all look just as good as any other, just bigger or smaller.

I'm not saying that continuous zoom wouldn't be nice, just that it doesn't justify 3d all by itself. A little work on 2d zoom levels (which would be a lot less than a 3d engine) to correct scroll speeds and using graphics that are designed to look better up close would solve those minor problems.

And that's not all 3D does - it makes it easier on the developers, because instead of creating objects in 3D and rendering them back to 2D (like they did for Civ 3), they can keep them in their native format, which look better and are also more flexible to use in game (rotating, zooming again, etc.).

Wouldn't that in turn make things harder on most modders? I know that the more advanced the graphics get, the fewer consumers are equiped or skilled enough to make their own... it's a trade off that we'll all think differently about. In my opinion having units that rotate nicely isn't worth not being able to easily create my own.

[Enigma_Nova]

Then get a unit modelling program.
...
Seriously, 3D is mainstream. Is there any financial reason for sticking with 2D?
Why do you even need a Grid, anyway? Give stuff a movement radius and run it as vectors.

I think 3D would be a leap ahead of that old Civ garbage.
Adjust the game to fit the tech, not the other way around.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Leland
[In respone to my comment on hiding the distortion from view]

Doesn't work. The distortion is not just in the way you display the map, it's in the fundamental map geometry. What you are suggesting above would require that the map is fundamentally tileless, and the tiles are just an overlay on the real map.

Yeah, that's the idea. You keep the distorted geometry as far away from the viewing area as you can, and undistort it when some is looking at it. A sphere is of course fundamentally tileless, and that's why you'd have to handle it in this manner to get a decent sphere.

It's just a little wizardry behind the scenes, basically. It's the only decent way to have a spherical map.

Though, as others have said, there still need to be other types of maps. Flat maps, cylindrical maps (with less restrictions on the X/Y...some sort of Ringworld might be nice to mess with), and donut maps. However, there is room for a spherical map, it is just the implementation would need more work.

-Drachasor

[Enigma_Nova]

Well, Populous managed to do it,
and if a game THAT old can do it then surely Civ IV can manage.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Yeah, that's the idea. You keep the distorted geometry as far away from the viewing area as you can, and undistort it when some is looking at it. A sphere is of course fundamentally tileless, and that's why you'd have to handle it in this manner to get a decent sphere.

Right, so why would you want to have that partially distorted tile overlay at all? One might as well render the globe (or the currently visible area) with as much detail as the graphics engine allows and forget about tiles.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Leland
Eh? Diamonds are just squares tilted 45 degrees. One other alternative might be to take your average "hex sphere" (like the one vulture showed) and split the hexes into 3 diamonds (you still have those 12 pentagons though).

I know, diamonds = squares. They're displayed as diamonds on the screen though, so that's what I call them.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Fosse
I'm not saying that continuous zoom wouldn't be nice, just that it doesn't justify 3d all by itself. A little work on 2d zoom levels (which would be a lot less than a 3d engine) to correct scroll speeds and using graphics that are designed to look better up close would solve those minor problems.

I was just citing the zoom as one of the features of going to 3D. Other types of manipulation, rotation, etc. are possible as well, and all quite easy to access once the 3D engine (which Firaxis has already licensed, so they won't be spending time programming that) is in place.

Wouldn't that in turn make things harder on most modders? I know that the more advanced the graphics get, the fewer consumers are equiped or skilled enough to make their own... it's a trade off that we'll all think differently about. In my opinion having units that rotate nicely isn't worth not being able to easily create my own.

All the mod graphics used in Civ 3 are 3D anyways, except for terrain graphics. That would basically be the only difference in the way of doing things, excluding things made easier for modders.

Are you familiar with FLICster?

It's a program necessary to convert 3D models (which are already made by modders and could be easily implimented into Civ 4 if it was 3D) into 2D graphics for Civ 3. It's pretty complicated, and IMO, hard to use (though it's a nice tool to have since nothing else does the job right). With the conversion to 3D, this entire step is taken out of the process.

These days only people really good with graphics can do good mods any more anyways. It's not the days of Civ 2 any more. The days of freelance graphic switching and implimentation by anyone with Paint ended 6 years ago.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Trip

These days only people really good with graphics can do good mods any more anyways. It's not the days of Civ 2 any more. The days of freelance graphic switching and implimentation by anyone with Paint ended 6 years ago.

It's still going strong with Dominions 2.