This is what the map should look like...

[Sir Shiva]

If slingshot's spherical world is too revolutionary, perhaps the map could look like this

Right click on the place holder and choose 'Show Image'
------

------

------

------

------

------

------

------

------

------

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980
[This message has been edited by Sir Shiva (edited April 07, 2000).]

[tniem]

Shiva,

I right clicked and selected show picture and it still came up with the x saying that I cannot load image...

[Joe Bourque]

Well, those are all screenshots from Railroad Tycoon II. My crappy 166 Mhz Pentium with 32 meg o' Ram can handle that map, as well as loads of little 3D trains quite well. Hopefully, therefore, Firaxis could do something similar that would run on my computer. (A fantasy I know.)

Joe

[tniem]

Ok, I figured that the images had to have come from somewhere, but that would be a nice map in my mind. I especially like that this would allow cities to be able to expand their influence and also would allow cities to build improvements in way that you can see them outside of the city. I want to see that marketplace that I just spent 200 years constructing.

[The diplomat]

beautiful! It is what I imagined civ3 to look like. I like the realism of the map, and the fact that each city improvement in visible. Good work!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Sir Shiva]

Hmm you're right..

I'm new to UBB..

Go over to http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva/maps

You will find 5 jpegs..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[tniem]

Shiva, first reaction beautiful.

Second, how did you make it?

Third, if you made it, you should be working for a gaming company!

Comments:

If this type of map is implemented it would allow for the couple of changes that I would like to see in Civ III. One the end of 21 squares per city. The squares it appeared would then go citys by influence or something in this map.

Second, citys grow and have improvements on the map. You can actually see the wonders as you are playing. The Colossus, Lighthouse, and other large wonders should be visible from the map giving each city a more distinct feel from each other.

This would also allow larger maps, altitudes, and other items we discussed on these forums.

Nice job Shiva

[Dobermann]

Ooh that really pretty, love it!

But can my crappy computer handle it?

[Bubba]

Those maps are excellent. I have never played RT II, or I for that matter, and was wondering if the whole world is reproduced in the game. My only concern would be that the game would be too complex with that level of detail, if played on a world-wide scale. Perhaps I'm wrong. The enhanced city model was always my main complaint about AOE.

By the way, have any of you seen the (battle?) screen shots from Risk II? When I saw these I immediately thought they might form the basis of Civ III-type map. They might be more amenable to the world-wide scale that I am looking for.

[Victor Galis]

Wonders should be visible on the world map (at most), but most city improvements are too small (city walls and such being the exception.)

Cities should look different, depending on environment and economy and such (a market town and a mining town would look different, though you might not be able distiguish independent structures.)

[The Joker]

I agree with Victor. I would also like the map to be spherical, and without any squares (cities should be managed in some new, revolutionary way, and should concist of people in stead of heads).

[Dr Strangelove]

The map is very nice, but from the size of the squares it belongs to a scenario that obviously involves only England, you couldn't fit more of the world into such a map without exceeding the specifications of most home PCs. Also, it's not obvious what type of terrain each square has. Is the terrain north of London supposed to be hills or (rolling) grasslands?

[don Don]

RRT map squares are supposed to be a couple miles across, but they weren't too consistant on continent maps. Even with squares less than 1/1000 the size of Civ squares individual buildings would be indistinguishable. Shoot, SimCity had scale problems with 200 foot tiles!

OOOOH! Once I had opened a window and viewed the JPEGs so that they were in cache UBB automatically loaded them from cache! I didn't expect that!
[This message has been edited by don Don (edited April 10, 2000).]

[Atahualpa]

Yeah great!!!

Ata

[Diodorus Sicilus]

I used to be a model railroader years ago, so I jumped on Railroad Tycoon II like the proverbial Starvin' Dawg when it came out...
The largest maps in RTII are All of North America (Canada to Mexico), all of China, all of Australia, and the Mediterranean Basin. In other words, continental-sized. Even in them, the details of even the largest cities are not precise; I believe the most I've seen is 2-3 large industrial building icons (Wonders, Improvements?) and less than ten small Housing icons. To make all the possible Wonders and Improvements visible would require a much larger scale, and expanding the map to include a world-sized playing area would require a much larger map grid. Combine those two things and no 166, 200 or similar computer is going to handle it very well.
On the other hand, it does give an example of what can be done above and beyond the current "Civ-norm" graphics and map. At the very least, using a much smaller 'tile' as RTII does could allow much more diversity in city graphics and displays, and more precise modeling of the 'city resource area': instead of a separate display of occupied tiles, the little farms, farmers, mines, roads, etc can go right on the map. On the down side, armies will have to cover several tiles, especially in the modern+ era, and that potentially complicates the Unit Icon problem...
Unless you add something like Miniature wargaming's Command Influence, in which you simply click on the icon of the Army Commander (think of the fun you can have designing those little figure-icons!) and all the units within X tiles automatically move with him in a standard or player-determined formation...
Hummm... this might pave the way towards "stacked" combat without a separate Battle Display: each unit would occupy a separate tile, but the tiles would be much smaller so that a 'battle' might involve several units from several different tiles all attacking enemy units on several tiles, all as one 'battle'...as history and (comunications) technology progress, the Command Influence of a commander would get wider, and the armies, therefore, bigger.
Apply this same idea to the city icons themselves, and the smaller tiled-map could very easily show the vast difference in size between most ancient cities (a few tiles stuffed with houses) and a modern city (many tiles covering central core, industrial and residential suburbs). You could also show on the map cities on unusual terrain - sprawling across hills or straddling rivers, strung along a shore or stuffed into a peninsula: in effect, no two cities on the map would have the same set of icons arranged in quite the same way because of differences in local terrain, which could now be shown on the game map.
Shucks, I've talked myself around to supporting the whole idea - go for the bigger map with lots of little tiles: if we can get all of the above out of it, I'll run out and buy a bigger and faster computer just to play it on!!