Whatever happened to the 3D map

[SerapisIV]

As much as I agree with the artists don't write AI statement, the complaint over 3D maps is a fundamental design issue because in it contains the coding for world generation, path finding, and user interface questions. The decision by Firaxis to skip the 3D map was most likely made very early in the game cycle so that time was not lost changing things if 3D didn't pan out as desired. I think that this where the answer to the globe map civ question lies, aside from being too extreme a departure from the standard civ formula, it would've been hit or miss for coding properly, the game is already taking forever in development in my mind, imagine how long it would take if they went to a globe?

[N35t0r]

Re: "Useless"

Originally posted by DarkCloud
However, if they HAD implemented bonuses based upon height the 3D map would have been useful.

In SMAC they did, it was an optional rule you could trigger...

[Geoff the Medio]

I think there are about 3 different things being discussed here, all of which could vaguely qualify as "3d map" or something to that effect.

1) Each map tile having a "height" value (above/below sea level) like in SMAC, which is used to determine combat bonuses or resource output

2) The graphics of the game being generated using models (made of polygons) which depict the terrain or units (not just bitmaps)

3) The world map being a globe (sphere), not a flat rectangle (or cylinder or some variation thereof)

Specification of which of these is being discussed in posts would help the discussion a bit... (or at least help me follow it)

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Geoff the Medio
I think there are about 3 different things being discussed here, all of which could vaguely qualify as "3d map" or something to that effect.

1) Each map tile having a "height" value (above/below sea level) like in SMAC, which is used to determine combat bonuses or resource output

2) The graphics of the game being generated using models (made of polygons) which depict the terrain or units (not just bitmaps)

3) The world map being a globe (sphere), not a flat rectangle (or cylinder or some variation thereof)

Specification of which of these is being discussed in posts would help the discussion a bit... (or at least help me follow it)

As Borderpatrol mentioned, a preview spoke about your 1), where height should affect long range fire effect. It can be calculated also if the map is not made with real polygon but by "flat" bitmapped tiles.

The interview often mentioned that Firaxis started using SMAC engine (visually polygonal 3D map) but using pic of Civ II as placeholder: some of us supposed that early screenshots where take with that old engine "flattened" for test.
Now I'm almost sure that Firaxis chose again the shortcut to all flat. Only units model is changed, to add realistic movement: I suppose it's all the useful part left from exctinct Dinosaurus project (they mentioned a new technique on a Sid's Diary).

AFAIK Simcity 3000 was supposed so full 3D (your 2.point) to let you "walk" down the streets of your simulated City. The full amount of details to manage was too much for that game, so it was dismissed.
But a simple rotable 3D terrain is a basic of today games: it's not too difficult to make and manage it without bad side effects on AI routine

A globe was in my hope (and one of the enhancement requested into CIV III essential poll and list), but we already know hasn't been in design. Never. Let's forget it.

Listen, is not as I want to insult or minimize the work done by Firaxis programmer: simply I can't get where they put two years of effort. They stated two years ago that first thing they did was to throw away the bad SMAC graphic engine (or do I misunderstand the sentence?). Is the new engine any better? Not looking at current screenshot or E3 movie IMHO.
It looks like time isn't changed from last Civ II
But surely they spent two year on a radical better AI who will kick @$$ to all that proud Deity vet players around here