Announcement

**GaryGuanine** · February 23, 2001, 17:48

Slingshot,

You're right, it should DEFINATELY be on a globe. That's the main change I would make. These distorted Mercator projections are no good anymore.

Gary

**VetLegion** · February 25, 2001, 10:34

Nonsense. Civ2 already is a fuly 3D game, and its happening on a globe. Mercator (and other cylindrical) projections are here for us, players, to better visualise the whole thing.

**Kuciwalker** · February 25, 2001, 11:55

VetLegion, shut up

**VetLegion** · February 25, 2001, 19:26

skywalker, you can send me private messages via email.

As for the 3D world, it has already been made pretty clear (not really confirmed as far as I know) that civ3 will have square tiles.

Tiles made the game what it is, and as far as I know, they will be there. Now, to make a 3D map of squares, you may do it SMAC way or the Zoom way. (lets forget for a second that 3D globe can not be shaped of squares)

SMAC way obviously wont work for earth map, because of inability of the system to show very steep slopes (other problems too).

Zoom way is another thing...
If you take a world map, and then render it in 3D, and then zoom out alot, and finally, tile it (abstract it a little) - you effectively get civ2 map. That is why civ2 is a 3D game already. Simply, at that zoom-out level, things like mountain shadows, terrain "volumeness" and other 3D things do not make sense.

Any attempt to force 3D in civ map is going to affect the zoom level (map scale) in a way that player will be playing "closer" to the map. Civ 1/2 zoom level is its important property and if it is changed, gameplay and the "feeling" of the game will be altered. For better or worse, I dont know.

(I concluded that the tiles will be left in by a Firaxis statement that zones of control have been altered (but stay!) and I seriousely doubt they will make them hexes or another shape)

My guess is that we will be seeing only a little improved civ1/2 map (which perspective?) and that other areas will get more improvements. We will see about that, but I am pretty sure.

About oceans, I agree with original poster

**Roman** · February 25, 2001, 19:56

quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion on 02-25-2001 06:26 PM
skywalker, you can send me private messages via email.
My guess is that we will be seeing only a little improved civ1/2 map and that other areas will get more improvements. We will see about that, but I am pretty sure.

This is just the way I would like it to be.

**Roman** · February 26, 2001, 01:20

quote:

Originally posted by skywalker on 02-25-2001 10:55 AM
VetLegion, shut up

But VetLegion is right! There is no need for a pointlessly confusing to work with global map. Mercosur does the job well enough and I vote to keep it.

**VetLegion** · February 26, 2001, 17:10

Well, if do not make it so, ie if they make game more different from civ2 then civ2 was from civ1 in those aspects, then there will be still space (and market space) for civ2. Because, such as it is, it is a classic.

Many players have said that they only want civ2 with detachable AI, so it can be worked on and improved. I agree with that

**Slingshot** · February 26, 2001, 19:42

I understand your point, Vetlegion.

Certainly CivII is a classic, and one that could be built upon in exciting ways. The release of CivII code could be a good thing!

But I'm thinking more about what Raingoon said in Column #152.

Here's a picture of a river in a valley. Imagine seeing your cities develop in something like this:
http://education.lanl.gov/RESOURCES/...nyon-BIG-X.GIF

Then imagine being able to zoom out, move over to the right and send some settlers to here:
http://cybercruise.microtech.com/koolau.range.jpg

New perspective, new feeling of exploration.

**tniem** · February 27, 2001, 16:34

Skywalker -
As an American you should understand that everyone should and will get a chance to express their opinion. There is absolutely no need to tell anyone to shut up (unless your Ming in the OT ). Everyone can and will express their opinion here on Apolyton, especially some one that has been around much longer than you have. If you don't like this, I suggest finding another place to post.

VetLegion -
Makes sense. One question, why can't if Civ II is a globe zoomed way out can't we go north over the pole and circle the Earth?

Regardless of what type of map is used in Civ III I would like to be able to go around the poles. To really be able to go around the world in multiple ways.

Slingshot-
I am not against having a new map type nor am I against 3d Maps or more detailed maps. But while your pictures are nice, I can't see them being a part of a map that shows the entire world. The detail that would have to go into the game. The zoom would have to be so far in that it would take a million turns to move your legion around the globe. It just does not seem very practical.

**VetLegion** · February 27, 2001, 17:35

Well, playing at the zoom levels of these screenshots would (for me) take something from game, not give to it. It would start to be a province building, not empire building game.

Yes zoom in/out is very possible and easy to make. I would probably end up playing on the highest zoom out available once I have seen enough cities from closeup and they start to look alike. Same is in zoomable 3D RTSes - you end up playing at zoom level that has gameplay value, and barely using other levels.

I do not dislike 3D however I always keep saying that we should make a map where building dams on rivers is possible (my obsession). I also want to have water cycling (civ1 feature I miss). I would like to have a civ map like one in Railroad Tycoon 2. I dont know where to find screenshots, but should be easy. If you have the game, then zoom out to the max - thats what I would like in civ (and no zoom ability really needed, but no problem with it).

So I am as much dreamer as the average guy, but given the tiled nature of civ3 (not confirmed, my oppinion!), and zoom level civ games have in their family tree - I estimate a rather conservative civ3 map from firaxis.

I can not speak for the entire GGS team (drop us a visit!) but I have high standards for next generation map, both its beauty and playability.

**Bender** · February 27, 2001, 18:08

Railroad Tycoon II maps can be found here:
http://www.strategygames.net/games/R...oon2frames.htm

**tmarcl** · February 28, 2001, 00:39

How about this:

A small, first person window with a 3D view of what the selected unit is seeing (or even the selected square). For the overview map, we see the standard Civ map, and for the world map, a globe (as in SMAC). This may be a little difficult, of course, given the scale of the game.

Marc

**Pingu:** · February 28, 2001, 14:41

The idea of having a Civ type game set on a sphere is a good one... The present Mercator projections are not speherical, but cylindrical, as you can't travel over the poles. Also the 'real' size of a square is varying in the East-West direction as you travel towards the pole...

The problem of implementing a spherical map in a game like CivII is that there are not just Units on the map, but cities aswell, and these have resource SQUARES. You can't make squares fold around into a sphere, and any attempt of imposing squares onto a system with spherical geometry would have either overlaps.... which would be a nightmare to resolve in terms of graphics and resource allocation, or the 'squares' would shrink in size as you approached the poles like the lines of Longitude do on a map of Earth, again this would be crap for both movement and resource allocation(as is teh case with the Mercator projection).

I'd say the only way to get around this is with a semi-hexagonal grid, as with if you get a grid made up of hopwever many hexagons, with pentagons spaced regularly across teh grid, then the whole thing folds up neatly into a sphere, where units can ,move and cities get their resources without encountering geometric problems..... Of course it does mean that settling on a Pentagon would mean that you get one less resource square adjacent to you than if you settle on a hexagon, but then if teh cities grow like in CTP2, then that wouldn't be a problem.

If you're thinking what such a grid would look like, go and have a look at a football (soccer for all you Americans out there), a proper leather one has just this arrangement. Also Bucky-Balls and Carbon Nano-tubes that Chemistry students often talk about with such delight.....

Pingu:

**quinns** · February 28, 2001, 20:24

You know, I think Pingu has a great idea about using the "bucky ball" concept for a Civ Type game. There are some really great minds on this forum. It's a real shame that neither Firaxis nor Activision nor Hasbro nor any other team really have the collective ideas that this Apolyton Forum has. They take a whole bunch of our fantastic ideas, lump them together in a list, and dump it out on a computer print out ... and maybe, if we are real lucky the programmer might take a look at those wonderful ideas and if we bow down to them enough... they just MIGHT put one of your great ideas to work (if they think THEY might profit from it). And if you are real lucky... they might write you an email that says, "...Thank you for your idea ... we used it in our game... you should feel honored..."

Back to the Bucky Ball world (and or worlds). Bucky balls are the best representation of a sphere (in two dimensions) that we have. No such thing as the polar regions having ridiculously exagerated Mercator projections, and no ludicrous "donut" worlds, (yeah... that's realistic!), just to make the wrapping work in the program. Pingu mentioned that the pentagon of the bucky ball would have less area than the hexagons, and also less adjacent regions (5) compared to the hexagons (6). I think this could be handled in the programming without too much trouble. Your movement ability and capacities would have to be scaled differently for the two types of regions. It would be a lot more tricky than programming "squares" but it would be way more realistic.

Alright... this is a real stretch, but I'm going to put it out here anyway and let it get shot down.

LET'S DO IT OURSELVES

I know, I know... it takes thousands of hours of programming to create a real game for the market. And then you will probably lose your shirt on the investment. But look at the games that we like... they are all using exactly the same engine. CIV 1,2,3 CTP 1,2 SMAC/X are all the same game with different story lines and units. Interfaces are a little different. But they are really the same game, with "squares tiles" and the unrealistic population growth patterns in all of them, (which, as you all know, is the key to winning in ALL the civ type games.)

We could create a game development corporation (without a building). The internet is getting to the point where we could all be legal partners around the globe without leaving our homes. We could all work on pieces of the game (or games) ourselves and be subsidised when the game releases and starts to generate a profit (depending upon the ratio of the hours spent by each of us on the game released). I think we could work out some legal monetary arrangement so that one person who worked 200 hours on the game would get his fair share and so would another person who only worked 5 hours on the game. I don't think the money part of it would be as big a deal as the satisfaction of creating something of our own.

We can do it. I'm sure there are many of you out there with plenty of skills -- artists, writers, project managers, programmers, graphics artists, editors, mathemeticians, historians, soldiers, doctors, politicians, accountants, lawyers, city planners, ... and on and on. We just need to come up with a fair and organized way to put our skills to work together to make a great game. Someone could work one hour a week on it, and another could work 80 hours a week on it (I doubt it, but it is possible).

Comments and construction (or destructive) criticisms welcome. I think I'll create a new post called "Let's Make Our Own Game".

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 28, 2001).]

Announcement

POLL 291,732,940,460: Live in the Past, or Live in the Past?

POLL 291,732,940,460: Live in the Past, or Live in the Past?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

LET'S DO IT OURSELVES

Comment