Spherical Map

[Prussia]

They could also make the mini-map zoomable, just like the current regular map.

[mrmielke]

or the mini-map would be a mini-globe, self-centering on the current position but drag-rotatable by the player. if you want an overview, you can look around, and as soon as you let go, it rotates back.

@padillah: I am totally of your opinion when you say that it needs to be turn-based and tile-based and fun to play. and I think the geodesic sphere is just the thing to make that possible. (btw, how can you say that a geodesic sphere or dome has no symetry? have you even looked at one?)
a spherical map would make the game more interesting, because it more accurately resembles an actual planet - some pathways that touch the polar regions are very much shorter than the civ way. consider moving from northern europe to canada - in civ, that's the same distance as central afrika to central america. in the real world, it's a lot shorter, which makes tactics more interesting. since civ always had the "random map" function, why not have a planet without sub-zero polar regions? wartime strategies where you have to literally watch all sides for incoming enemies. not just left and right.
if you don't want a game that is a little bit more interesting you can just stay with civ as it is, I guess.

[padillah]

Originally posted by mrmielke
@padillah: I am totally of your opinion when you say that it needs to be turn-based and tile-based and fun to play. and I think the geodesic sphere is just the thing to make that possible. (btw, how can you say that a geodesic sphere or dome has no symetry? have you even looked at one?)

I have seen a geodesic dome, yes. And I still maintain, supported by your statements above, that a geodesic sphere as a regular polyhedron will only be symetric as an icosahedron. You've said so yourself.

I don't mean to maintain that geodesic domes themselves are not symetrical, they're domes for cryin' out loud. But rather to say the faces of most geodesics (icosa aside) are not symetrical. I'm no expert but it seems to me most any face constructed with more than a 3v chord would not be symetrical.

But, we've already established that the faces don't have to be symetrical as long as they have a set number of edges. A tile is a tile regardless of how big it is visually.

a spherical map would make the game more interesting, because it more accurately resembles an actual planet - some pathways that touch the polar regions are very much shorter than the civ way. consider moving from northern europe to canada - in civ, that's the same distance as central afrika to central america. in the real world, it's a lot shorter, which makes tactics more interesting. since civ always had the "random map" function, why not have a planet without sub-zero polar regions? wartime strategies where you have to literally watch all sides for incoming enemies. not just left and right.
if you don't want a game that is a little bit more interesting you can just stay with civ as it is, I guess.

I understand why someone would want to play on a spherical representation, but why the need for an actual sphere? It's been posited, and it's not that hard to do, to make the tiles hexagons or some other repeating polygon. Now, I understand that hexagons do not allow for a true geodesic sphere but, they do tile seamlessly and steps could be taken, that have already been put forward by geeslaka, to program in a transition replicating the movement on and around an actual sphere.

You say we are currently playing on a cylinder, but that's not true it's simply replicated to react like movement on a cylinder. Why isn't the same thing acceptable for sphereoids? Why must it be an actual sphere?

Tom P.

[Blaupanzer]

An effective, if less than fully elegant, solution would seem to be a cube where the folds would be invisible to the user. So you would get the minimaps right, and still be able to go around the world.

It seems the fantasy maps (a start new game option) do something like this in CIV IV. I know that in using that map I could approach the same civ by going north or south, east or west. The minimap and the fully zoomed out map both misbehaved at times. However, the map worked fine on the levels where units could be seen.

Anyone know what "tricks" were used to create that map.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
An effective, if less than fully elegant, solution would seem to be a cube where the folds would be invisible to the user. So you would get the minimaps right, and still be able to go around the world.

It seems the fantasy maps (a start new game option) do something like this in CIV IV. I know that in using that map I could approach the same civ by going north or south, east or west. The minimap and the fully zoomed out map both misbehaved at times. However, the map worked fine on the levels where units could be seen.

Anyone know what "tricks" were used to create that map.

No tricks, it's more a doughnut than a sphere. Notice that if you go too far north you end up in the south? On a sphere if you went too far north from Canada you don't end up in south Brazil, you end up in Europe.

That's what these guys are looking for. Access to the north of a foreign land from over the poles (or south, whichever).

A doughnut is easy and do-able in Civ IV. No tricks.

Tom P.

[mrmielke]

anyone here who is still interested in this please have a look at http://www.freeciv.org/index.php/Sph...erent_Approach and tell me what you think. especially the programmers. I really need a programmer to think through it and tell me whether it is possible.