No elevations?

[aaglo]

I just realized, that there doesn't seem to be any elevations like in SMAC, or am I mistaken? Well, yes there are those one-tile-mountains, but that seems so lame after SMAC. Does anybody know what happened to the elevations?

EDIT: As I started to look the history of this forum, I found out that there has been some threads concerning this. So if you are a newbie, go and look the history; if not, ignore this thread. Or don't. Do whatever you like, I won't disappear anyway

[Tjoepie]

I don't agree about your elevation problem, I think they look nice. Remember this not a 3D shooter! My opignon is the SMAC's way would not look nice in civilization since it was a bit to "squary" and was ok on an alien planet but not on earth with the many different vegetations.

Anyway I think that the grafics are fine, my main worry is the AI and in a lesser sence gameplay.

[aaglo]

Yes, the current graphics look very nice and calm, but I was accustomed to the rolling landscapes of SMAC. At first the graphics of Civ3 looked a bit outdated to me, but maybe I get along with it

[Solver]

No worry on gameplay. Just on the AI...

[General Ludd]

I'd rather not have the planet looks like a series of small bumps and dimples, thanks.

The elevation that SMAC had - in practice - was OK, but graphicly, it stunk. and it would be more or less pointless in civ2 where you aren't going to have settlers filling in the ocean(that could be simulated with out elevation, anyways... though not aswell), or solar collecters catching rays in the highlands.

[Fiil]

In Civ one tile is a big portion of land - A mountain tile in civ does not represent a single mountain but a large area of mountainious terrain.
In SMAC the world seemed so small because you could put several big cities on the side of a giant mountain, whole continents often consisted of only a few mountains and a valley or two. It was allright I guess because this was an alien planet but with earth or an earthlike planet this simply won't work!

If you want elevation in terrain go play something like SimCity where the entire map only covers a city!!

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by Solver
No worry on gameplay. Just on the AI...

Yep.

As for the map, It's true: like aaglo I didn't find so far the SMACx beautiful "rolling landscapes" I really like. However it's Civ, with its traditional units and an earthian "flat terrain" at first not impressive, but on second thought I find the mountains and river design well defined. A real mountain is not always "round", isn't it?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by aaglo

I just realized, that there doesn't seem to be any elevations like in SMAC, or am I mistaken? Well, yes there are those one-tile-mountains, but that seems so lame after SMAC.

Well, I dont know about wavy SMAC-elevations in Civ-3, but I DO agree that the current map looks boringly flat. Personally, I would have prefered a simplified architectual 3D-landscape look, with few (only 4) and small (only about 20-25% of one tile) level-differences.

- Level 1: Deep ocean
- Level 2: shallow ocean
- Level 3: Shore, lowland (support all terrain-types)
- Level 4: plateau, highland (support all, except djungle & swamp)

Sea & river both on level 3-4, but minus 0.5 level. The water should be bluish semi-transparent so one can see any sea/river/ocean indentations. Or if not above - at least letting the landarea raise itself somewhat from the ocean-level. Sadly, they had gone for a 100% flat map, there grotesquely overproportional mountains alone represents the supposed 3D-look. It all too late to change now though.

[Tjoepie]

You'r right about the water areas being too flat without sence of depth but I think the land area doesn't look too bad.
On an alien planet I agree the SMAC elevation system did the job, but it would look rediculous on earth if you ask me.
Altough if another intermediate step could be found that would be great, but all this talk is way too late for civ3, maybe civ4?

[RedWhiteArcher]

Also the SMAC system just can't have a sharp elevation changes. You just couldn't imitate something like Himalaya.

[dearmad]

I hated the SMAC terrain so much... it was ugly ugly ugly... I much prefer the way Civ3 is looking.

I can't believe I'm admitting this but the graphics for SMAC were so ugly I didn't buy the game until it was only $5- normally I don't let graphics iterfere w/gameplay to that extent but Red and brown and interlaced-looking- and BORING MAPS!!!!! ugh.......

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by dearmad
I hated the SMAC terrain so much... it was ugly ugly ugly... I much prefer the way Civ3 is looking.

I can't believe I'm admitting this but the graphics for SMAC were so ugly I didn't buy the game until it was only $5- normally I don't let graphics iterfere w/gameplay to that extent but Red and brown and interlaced-looking- and BORING MAPS!!!!! ugh.......

I agree, the graphics where one of the only things keeping SMAC from being great instead of good.

[saracen31]

Ugh, SMAC was so ugly I couldn't play for more than a couple weeks. I hate to admit graphics can affect me that way, but they sure did in that case.

[Inverse Icarus]

well, they said on mountains and hills, units get a father range of sight, so thats kind of a higher terrain bonus there...

and didnt someone say that trimeres can only go on shores, and Caravels only on seas, and the lightbumps caravels to be able to go on Oceans? i'm at work right now but i'll look for that thread when i get home...

[Sava]

I'd like to see an elevation-based map, since this is purely a graphical issue and not a gameplay issue, all you anti-realists can't complain if I say I want this part of the game more realistic looking. NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!!



Uber r0x0rz!!