Real Planet vs Isometric Landscape, what do you think?

[Atahualpa]

I would definetaley find it cool to have a real round planet that I can play on. On the other hand I sure would miss some of the overview.
What do you think? And if you agree how should that look like? Cause I think the foremost problem is that it has to be 3D but then you cant quite have those icons (sprites) for units and cities and whatnot, because that sure would look stupid. Would you call it a civ game then?

Ata

[bagdar]

I would love to play on a real globe, and I don't think it would effect gameplay (civ-ness) that much unless:

1- movement rates on the map, which would turn out to be huge (those animated guys wouldn't look nice with the horizon at their toetips) , aren't arranged accordingly

2- the system requirements go unbelievably high...

3- the new tile shape-arrangement system ruins city management and movement.

This discussion took place previously, and it was suggested that it is not the world that we see during the game, but a map. I don't agree with this since our units actually move on that map, and a cylindirical map takes away much from realism -if we care about realism that much-. In fact, it takes away more than the fact that a caravan takes a hundred years to cross so many tiles, because there we have the restriction of condensing 6000 years in that many turns.

A spherical map would be nice, but I don't think it'll ever happen... (Maybe as an option? -well even if it did, my computer wouldn't handle it!)

[Cannes]

There was a civilization like game called Destiny. It wasn't very succesful and full of bugs. It did, however, employ a spherical map, that despite the bugs seemed to function as it should. My experience with the game is limited quite alot, because of how badly the mechanics work, so others who have tried it might have a different opinion...
[This message has been edited by Cannes (edited January 18, 2001).]

[Atahualpa]

Destiny, hmm never heard of it.
The only game with a real globe that I know of is Populus III but well that hasnt much to do with civilization. And the globus is quite small and quite abstract.

Ata

[- Groucho -]

Sir Shiva started quite a long thread on this topic. Check out: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001493.html?121

[N35t0r]

there were the triangles discussed a while ago...

[Biddles]

I would like a globe. The best idea I have seen is for a system of points instead of actual polygons. Units would move from point to point. Points can be arranged to fit a sphere, it is hard to do the same with polygons.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Cannes on 01-18-2001 10:12 AM There was a civilization like game called Destiny. It wasn't very succesful and full of bugs. It did, however, employ a spherical map, that despite the bugs seemed to function as it should. My experience with the game is limited quite alot, because of how badly the mechanics work, so others who have tried it might have a different opinion...

I have played that game, Cannes, and i agree with your objections completely. It took only a couple of days before i uninstalled it.

I think that a twist-, turn- and zoomable 3D-globe in Civ-3 is very unlikely, because of a multitude of reasons. First, lets take a look at Sid's quote below:

"We've developed a brand new graphics engine that will bring the Civ world alive like never before and we continue to work on an interface that will make Civ III the most intuitive to play in the series."

Below is from the Firaxis Civ-3 FAQ

"The most polished cutting-edge animations, art and sound ever found in the genre."
"New interface and reporting screens to accommodate the most seasoned Civilization players and those who are picking it up for the first time."

Does above quotes promise anything about a zoomable 3D-globe map?

Also, what about the added micro-managing (added mouse-clicking) problem?

With a isometric map-view, you are always max 1-2 mouse-clicks away from any spot on the map. One approximate click one the mini-map, and then a second fine-tuning map-recentering action. 1-2 mouse-actions! Compare with the 3D-globe map.

And what about the processor/graphic card prestanda problem?

Firstly, although a 3D-globe map Populous-3 style was perfectly OK in such a action-oriented realtime terraforma-game like Pop-3, the same can not be said about an Civ-3 equivalent.
Civers more or less demands 100% scalpel-sharp 768x1024 (or more) 32-bit graphics (and rightly so). Add to this all the unit- and tile-animations. Also add the "show enemy moves" option. Finally, add all the new parameters and compexities in Civ-3, that they perhaps didnt had in SMAC. Apply all above on a twist/turn- and zoomable globe-map, and imagine that you are playing late end-games, with most of the map uncovered and diplomatic contacts with every AI-civ.

Now, take into account the unwritten law of doubling chip-prestanda every 18:th month, and compare SMAC release 1999, with Civ-3 - late 2001/early 2002 (I agree that the recent Intel/AMD-combat have speeded up the pace somewhat - but, only somewhat).
And now to the second side of the prestanda issue: Most TBS-civers just dont belong to the always-the-latest-PC category as, lets say most dedicated 3D Action-gamers are (and even developers of those games pretty much ensure themselves to create something that can work also on far below 100% top-PC prestanda).

Check out this topic: Poll: whats youre system specs?

Sure, some of these Civers are likely to upgrade their systems within a year. But, so much that the recommended Civ-3 system specs can be set beyond, lets say 400-500Mhz? I doubt that very much!

The bottom line is:

Animated units and map-tiles can be (and must be) an turn-off option for those with lower PC-specs. But what if the whole damn map is a 768x1024 displayed 3D-globe? And does that 3D-globe actually ADD something that valuable to the "just-on-more-turn" Civ-enigma? Or anything to the creative side of the player? Does overview-able map-feedback going to be easier with an 3D globe-map?

What? How?

Isnt it a risk that the "just-one-more-turn" suspence-factor, easily transforms into added turn-waiting frustration? Is it really worth it? Also, after 25-50 game-sessions?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 20, 2001).]

[bagdar]

Ralf put it perfectly; why there won't be a 3D map. still, I would say, it would be nice if it wasn't impossible

[zyxpsilon]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-19-2001 02:47 PM Isnt it a risk that the "just-one-more-turn" suspence-factor, easily transforms into added turn-waiting frustration? Is it really worth it? Also, after 25-50 game-sessions? [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 19, 2001).]

NOT worth it! Specially for low-end PC's.
Thinking "forward" tough, upgrades to system (etc)... adds -replayability- to a >new< version that aims at retaining market value for as long as possible.
It is a matter of timing VS design.

[Biddles]

Should Firaxis plan for systems that are going to be grossly outdated by the time of release? Anything less than 400-500 MHz and your falling way behind (a year from now), (not that I'm saying 400-500 MHz should be the minimum sys req's).

I doubt there will be a spherical map in CivIII (although it would be nice), but unless we want civ2 rehashed, Firaxis is going to have to make the game so that some lower end PC's miss out, no matter how dedicated they are to low system requirements.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited January 19, 2001).]

[- Groucho -]

What makes you think playing on a globe and having an isometric projection are incompatible? I've suggested this in another thread, but basically all you need is a mini-map that shows a globe and a main map that shows a mercator projection of some part of that globe as an isometirc projection from a fixed camera height (i.e. no zooming). As you move your point of view around the globe the screen refreshes by giving you a new mercator projection of the part you're looking at.

The math for the mercator projection doesn't need to be that computationally intensive, and there is no need to run this all through a 3d card - no polygons are required. So no "super-systems" should be required.

And the reason for doing this is to ditch the unrealistic movement that comes from having a map made up of squares. The world isn't a tube, and I don't want to play Civ on one.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Echinda on 01-19-2001 11:04 PM And the reason for doing this is to ditch the unrealistic movement that comes from having a map made up of squares. The world isn't a tube, and I don't want to play Civ on one.

I think your gonna both buy and play Civ-3 anyway, even if those map-squares is still there.

Personally, i really dont like the idea of civ-unique benefits ala SMAC. But that doesnt mean that i am planning to ditch the game, just because of one lousy potential design-mistake alone.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 20, 2001).]

[bagdar]

Take a Log, (as in Ren & Stimpy) label it CIVILIZATION III and I'll buy, and install it.

[- Groucho -]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-20-2001 05:38 AM I think your gonna both buy and play Civ-3 anyway, even if those map-squares is still there.

Ok, Ok, you've got me there - but if you take away my ability to make meaningless threats because I have to play on a tube, what does that leave me?

Damn you, Firaxis! You know I'm an addict and yet you toy with me .



------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you, will likely try again."