A New, 3D Interface

[Slingshot]

To simplify the math:

Forget polygons! All we really need to do is mark the globe with points. At each point you would put a terrain icon. The land-based icons could be made with fuzzy edges so that they blend together. The ocean icons would be solid all the way to the edge. Each icon could have an octagon shape.

Points are easier to keep track of, since each point can be specified by:
- radius (from the center of the planet)
- angle from the north pole (0 - 2*pi radians, or 0 - 180°)
- angle from the "front" of the globe (I think it is called the Prime Meridian). This should make a sperical planet more processor-friendly.

[Dienstag]

Slingshot-
Isn't putting a terrain icon (as you suggested, an octagon) at each point kinda like the polygon thing you just said to forget? I understand that the icons blending into each other will help things, but I think we still have pretty much the same problem.

As you said, each point on your map has three coordinates (essentially altitude, lattitude, and longitude). Let's say a unit is at one of the points, and that the unit can move but only onto an adjacent point. This is the heart of the problem: If the points are arranged so that there is always a point to the north, south, east, and west, then the points get closer to each other at the poles, so that it takes the same amount of movement points to get around earth no matter what lattitude you're at. Then we have a cylindrical world that just "looks" like a sphere. Whats worse, this is what happens if the points are arranged in _any_ reasonable pattern that would make movement easy.

If, on the other hand, you arrange the points so that they are all about the same distance from each adjacent point, then you get a really messed up map (ever look at the little bumps on a basketball?), such that just moving a unit becomes obscenely complicated.

If we really want a sperical world with logical movement, I suggest the following:
1. forget polygons
2. forget points (as a basis for movement)
3. use the unit's actual coordinates

This may seem really weird, but I don't know any better. This would answer the movement question; just give the unit a direction and there it goes. Terrain could be distributed by points (assuming points evenly spaced, thereby making a neat map), but the affect of these "terrain points" on movement would be subtle. A unit is never really on a space, but for the purposes of movement we can consider it in the terrain of the nearest "terrain point." The distance the unit can travel in any direction is based on the MP's of the unit, and the coordinates and movement penalty factors for a few Terrain Points. The math would be somewhat difficult (just spherical trigonomtery, nothing the computer couldn't handle easily), so the player would never be certain how far they could get. This is just an extension of the current Civ II system of randomly being (un)able to enter the forest on your last MP, except it's less random so after a while the players will have a pretty good idea.

This idea needs a lot more developement before anything productive will come out it. I hope this idea isn't altogether dumb and that I've described it somewhat well. I'm not convinced of either at this point. I think its the best bet yet for a spherical world, but I'd really like your input. Also, does anyone know _exactly_ what Populous did, and how? That would be nice to know.

Dienstag

[Gord McLeod]

I think the basic problem is that you're trying to combine elements of a grid-based movement system onto a 3D sphere, and that's simply not going to work. Populous didn't even try - they used, as far as I can tell, a pure coordinate system. There were no tiles on the world, it was a 3D object with heights and depths and elevation. The way I remember it playing was, if the characters were moving in a direction, they simply moved over the surface of the ground at whatever elevation they were on - steep elevations caused an increase or decrease in speed (depending on whether they were going up or down).

Different terrain types in Civ could simply penalize movement speed (ie, you'd get through a forest no problems, but you'd see your units moving more slowly.) You basically just take your start coordinates, end coordinates and movement rate, and off they go... the path they take and the movement rate along that path may vary due to geographical considerations, but if you know the rough path they'd be taking you'd be able to estimate the time it will take them to arrive, as you'd be able to see the intervening terrain and estimate how it'll affect their speed.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Has anybody played UFO - Enemy unknown (aka X-Com - UFO defense)? The geoscape view was a globe, apparently made of polygons, the units were simple points and the system looked great. The map was easy to read and the globe was a real sphere. And the best thing in it: It easily worked quickly with 386-40 and no math co-processor. Now almost all have pentiums. So, I don't think the globe would be so heavy.

[Dienstag]

Well, I haven't seen X-Com - UFO Defense, but it sounds neat.

Thanks Gord Mcleod for that last post. It gives me the best idea yet for how Populous works, and it says pretty much what I tried to say, only much better.

Assuming the X-com thing is some version of the others, this leaves us with two basic methods of making a map:

1. Grid-based (cannot be spherical)
2. Coordinate-based (I'm guessing can be whatever shape you want - in this case: spherical)

So what would it take to make Civ III on a coordinate-based map? The movement question seems to have been answered. I suggested a means of creating landscape above, but that's open to debate. What happens to the city radius? What happens to special resource distribution? What about roads and railroads? What about all the other things that currently depend on a grid-based system but I can't remember them right now?

Dienstag

[MidKnight Lament]

You're probably right from a graphics perspective, but I think you'll find that once you have a think about it, there'll be tonnes of ways this affects game concepts. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's a radical change, and it will mean that many things will be upended.

I realise that you are trying to make large changes for the better, but if you wanted a safer option, I think you'd be better to stick with a hex based system.

Sorry if I've dampened any spirits.

- MKL

[Slingshot]

As far as Civ is concerned, there is no difference between a grid- and coordinate-based system. In each, all units/cities/tiles have a set of coordinates to call their own. Recall that you could find where certain units were from the city screen if they weren't at home. The computer gave their location by two coordinates.

The only trouble is for an artist to make certain that the tiles mesh together in an appealing manner. Perspective must also be considered.

[Slingshot]

Bad post. See below for the right stuff!
[This message has been edited by Slingshot (edited March 15, 2000).]

[Slingshot]

MKL-

You are a top-quality Apolytoner!

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

I found an interesting site (made by hippies, I think) that talks about how to make geodesic domes (and two domes make a sphere!)

It can be reached at www.desertdomes.com

Note how six triangles make for a cool hexagon!

Check out their links for more information on the math.

Actually, I've been putting my efforts on the CTP2 - General and Dino fronts. There I have had some very interesting, um, interviews with members of Firaxis and Activision. They're titled "An Ode to Firaxis/Activision"

[Victor Galis]

I think on a 3D world has too many problems. The terrain features, wcan have coordinate features, but e=they also need size... and it gets complicated, you can't just call them a circle or something simple because it overlaps. UNits, cities, and all such have sizes, and rendering them as simple polygons just won't work. More later... but in any case this idea is definitely in the realm of civ4 discussions because it needs to be fleshed out.

[Slingshot]

Victor,

I have tried to start a Civ 4 thread, and it didn't go anywhere.

It would be great if somebody could start one on this buletin board - or at least tell me why they won't do it.

Now would be a great time to say "Believe in Firaxis. They're creative and resourceful, and they probably end up surprising us!" But given the distinct silence, I don't feel so generous.

"New thinking, new hopes, new World... Time for a Big, Huge Gaming World to take hold!"
(And in my opinion, it should be 3D )

[korn469]

slingshot

i think that the only reason people do not want to discuss civ4 is because civ3 is a year away so here is a civ4 time table

April 2001: Civ3 released
December 2001: Civ3 expansion pact released
September 2002: SMAC2 announced
March 2004: SMAC2 released
October 2004: SMACX2 released
December 2004: Civ4 announced
Febuary 2006: Civ4 cancled because of the demise of TBS games
July 2006: CivOnline announced
January 2007: CivOnline open beta test begins
September 2007: CivOnline released


ok of course my time table isn't correct...but i doubt that civ4 is going to be hitting store shelves any time soon...and when civ4 does finally go into a prototype phase who know what form it will take...

------------------
The OpenCiv3 website
korn469

[Slingshot]

Heh heh, I like the timeline! But how about this?

March 2000: CivNextGen forum opened on Apolyton
August 2000: Dinos released.
September 2000: Due to the inspiring work of Apolyton, Big, Huge, Next Generation Civ Announced
October 2000: CTP2 released.... patch pending
April 2001: Civ3 released - people are dissapointed because it's got dinosaurs in it
September 2002: SMAC2 announced - Alien factions look oddly like dinos
June 2001: SMAC2 cancelled because the Next Generation of Civ is right around the corner
November 2001: CTP2 patch is almost complete !
August 2003: Ideas from CivOnline are incorporated in CivNextGen. The world is taken by storm. Free vacations and promotions are given to all Apolytoners!

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by LightEning on 03-12-2000 04:13 PM Has anybody played UFO - Enemy unknown (aka X-Com - UFO defense)? The geoscape view was a globe, apparently made of polygons, the units were simple points and the system looked great. The map was easy to read and the globe was a real sphere. And the best thing in it: It easily worked quickly with 386-40 and no math co-processor. Now almost all have pentiums. So, I don't think the globe would be so heavy.

Yeah, I played UFO: Enemy Unknown and it is way cool. Even though I was watching the Geoscape like a hawk, I can't recall it being a grid system. Seemed like a coordinate one to me.

[Urban Ranger]

I think I have got it.

When you try to make a sphere out of regular polygons, it doesn't work. It seems to me that we were thinking backwards.

What we should be doing is to project a grid of regular polygons on a spherical surface. That should work.

Imagine a cube of clear jelly measuring 10 units on each edge. Inside the clear cube is a purple jelly sphere 10 units in diameter. Impose a 10 x 10 square grid on each face of the cube. Make cut marks 1 unit deep along the grid lines. Remove the clear jelly. Now the cut marks left on the purple jelly sphere is the projection of a square grid on a spherical surface. (Hm, I feel that something is missing here, what is it?)

It is just like etching out longitude and latitude lines on a sphere.

I don't think a hex grid could be projected in such a way to completely cover the surface of a sphere. Please correct me if I am wrong.