Terrain

[Plutarck]

I would disagree with overlays hiding underlying tiles (they probably do, but they wouldn't have to), and my proposal also solves the movement problem (since the effects/stats of the tile are set per "terrain type", and the overlays are merely a way of generating the tiles, not determining their effects).

However, without artists to actually draw the overlays (which I believe would actually reduce maintenance, but they do have a high overhead cost in creating them in the first place, thus being a bit of a deal-breaker) it's rendered rather moot.


Perhaps later on when the project is much nearer to a "fully playable product" a switch would be possible, or preferable, but I must agree that for now the overlay system seems to be an ill-fitting choice.


EDIT: Btw, the terrain.xml file looks good. One thing though, you have 3 errors:

On Broken, Mountain, and Ocean, the image tag ends up being closed with /broken, /mountain, and /ocean (respectively). Note: The bracketd aren't put here, because they won't be displayed.

Seems IE 6 validates .xml and is helpful enough to actually give you understandable debug data...wow.

Other than that,

[Gary Thomas]

Thanks for the correction on terrain.xml - done late at night...

You can have &lt and &gt, but it is irritating. Ampersand lt and ampersand gt do it. Forgive me if you already knew that!

Cheers

[sas]

Hi !

The overlay system is a good idea. But as Mark points out the number of artists isnt exactly numerous. In fact i'm the only one currently. I agree with Mark that single tiles will work out better for the time being.

The amount of work needed to make a satisfactory overlay system is something that needs some serious amount of work. I'm not saying it cant be done, but you will have to give me some time....

[Gary Thomas]

The code no longer supports overlays except for roads and cities (though actually I haven't built in the overlaid cities yet). I will soon (when the tiles are available) add coasts, and their evil twin, rivers.

I do think that the time has come, if we can find someone to do it, that we have an image manager. This is someone whose responsibility is to pick up all the nice images around and assemble them in one place, and add the images.xml file which currently looks like

&ltxml&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtlogobase&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtlogo_base.jpg&lt/gif&gt
&lt/image&gt

&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtflat&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtplains.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtrolling&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gthills1.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtbroken&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroughhills2.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtmountain&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtmountain2.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtswamp&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtswamp.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtdunes&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtdesert2.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtforest&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtforest1.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtjungle&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtjungle.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gttundra&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gttundra.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtocean&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtwater.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt

&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtcityRoman&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtcity_roman1.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtearlyCity1&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gttown1.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtearlyCity2&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gttown2.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt

&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadN&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadN.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadNE&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadNE.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadE&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadE.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadSE&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadSE.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadS&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadS.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadSW&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadSW.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadW&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadW.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtroadNW&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtroadNW.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &lttile/&gt
&lt/image&gt

&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtWarriorBand&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtwarband.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtPhalanx&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtphalanx.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtArcher&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtarcher.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtHorde&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gthorde.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtLight Cavalry&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gthorse.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtSkirmisher&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtarcher.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtChariot&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtchariot.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtTrireme&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gttrireme.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&ltimage&gt
  &ltname&gtLongboat&lt/name&gt
  &ltgif&gtlongboat.gif&lt/gif&gt
  &ltmilitary/&gt
&lt/image&gt
&lt/xml&gt

This collection could then be zipped up and added to the distribution.

At present I have been trying to do this, but I am way behind.

Cheers

[Lord God Jinnai]

What about overlays for areas with abundant material of some sort like oil or good cotton-growing areas?

[Gary Thomas]

When playing Dawn 1, I get very irritated by having to specify all 20 road segments in the original square and the squares surrounding it. This is more micro-management than Civilization has.

I am increasingly inclined to go for a road system in which a square "has roads" and thus has an implied road to every adjacent square that has a road.

Mark has said that the roads are intended to be long distance strategic roads, along the lines of the Roman military roads. If that is the intent, then the game model should be modified to reflect that, and a lot of local roads made, in some way, unprofitable. One rather realistic way would be to have each road segement in a variable state of repair, and charge upkeep to make it stay in top condition.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

I shall be taking the mantle of urban overlays and roads and waterways, once i've done enough wooden ships to keep Gary happy.
I'll refer my thoughts and gifs to an overlays (that includes roads, rivers and other comms - i dunno about coasts) thread (or should I say, stocks!)

As for roads, well, I can see the sense in both ideas - polygons should have an assigned level of "roadage", and more significant arteries - roman roads, railways, motorways, (and dare I say it, canals) can demand a slightly different set of gfx.

(i mention motorways and railways, as i can't help but imagine the game as it would be in more contemporary scenarios, rather than just contemplating it as an ancient era only thing.)

[alms66]

Below I’ve attached an example template for terrain graphic sets that I have designed. It contains every possible tile transition needed for each individual terrain type (it also includes a bunch of extra room for additional graphical ‘varieties’ of the same tile – five more varieties to be exact). For purposes of this discussion, a ‘terrain type’ is defined as a unique combination of Landform, Moisture and Climate Zone (check ecology model). I don’t include Biomass and temperature in this definition because biomass is so interrelated with moisture and temperature with climate zone that it would be redundant to use all four variables (plus landform) when only two are needed IMO. These are just the base terrains, not roads or any other overlay such as that. (Gary, I know how to fix the rivers without having to separate mountains from the base terrain, it does involve creating a separate set of “mountain” rivers though – but it’s the best approach IMO – at least far better than having overlaid mountains and hills. Let me know if you want to go over it before I post it, as there is always the possibility that there are holes in my logic.)

The tiles are drawn in 128x96 blocks to allow room for extending beyond the north point of the tile. The chosen size is equal to those used in Civ3, allows for a greater degree of detail, and should be displayed at actual size on the closest zoom level (for most playing conditions you will be looking at them at three-quarter (75%) to half size (50%). This template was made for ease of use by me, as the “artist.” It can be broken down into its constituent parts (even resized), if needed, though the number of individual tile graphics would be huge. Also, if we use the idea of having multiple varieties of each tile type, it will be exceedingly cumbersome not to use the templates as they are.

The example template is ugly. It includes “monochrome” terrain, black tile outlines, green guide lines, it’s blocky, and other general ‘ugly’ things. Under ‘normal’ circumstances there will only be the tiles, as would be visible in the game, over a magenta background. Keep this in mind while critiquing the template.

The following tiles are going to be produced unless someone objects or has anything to add/change:

Land Tile Types
Flat
Flat, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Plain
Plain, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Tundra
Tundra, Wooded
Rolling Hills (Desert & Arctic versions also)
Rolling Hills, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Rugged Hills (Desert & Arctic versions also)
Rugged Hills, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Rolling Mountains (Desert & Arctic versions also)
Rolling Mountains, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Rugged Mountains (Desert & Arctic versions also)
Rugged Mountains, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Volcano
Volcano, Wooded (Forests & Jungle)
Dunes
Desert
Swamp
Glacier

Water Tile Types
Lake (freshwater)
Coastal (always adjacent to land)
Sea
Ocean

That’s a total of 39 terrain types (35 land, 4 water). By having a separate ‘unique’ coastal tile we are able to avoid having to draw coastal transitions for every one of the other land tile types. It features a transparent area which, when the coastal tile is drawn over the "coastal transition" from the terrain set, allows it to appear as though the adjacent tile is bleeding through. I’ll also assume that coastline (land) transitions into coastal tiles (land extends into water). I won’t have anything to do with it going the other way (coastal water going onto land). It’s much too difficult to make the tiles look good when doing it that way.

As you can see in the template, there is enough room for six of the ‘block groups” that define a tile, or six varieties of the tile set. This should not be a set number. It should be coded to allow for indefinite expansion of tile varieties (by getting the height and width of the template and dividing by known tile sizes*).
*How to know the tile size is probably best left to a variable in a ‘settings.xml’ file or some such mechanism, thus allowing for larger or smaller tiles, as an artist sees fit.

Also, as can be seen in the template, each block group has 2 empty spaces. I’m not sure what to use these for, if anything. Any suggestions would be welcome, as I’d hate to waste the space, and I really don’t want to change the layout.

I thought of using them as ‘random bonuses’ sort of like the bonus grassland in civ, though without any ‘in-game’ effect. On a desert tile you might put a cactus, or bleached skull. On a glacier tile you could put crevasses. Plains could have small lakes or copses. It could add a little more uniqueness to various tiles on the map.

*Edit - one of the empty spaces will contain the "coastal transition" tile. This tile is colored at the edges with a transparent hole in the center. It is drawn first, then the coastal tile to give the effect of the adjacent tile extending or bleeding into the coastal tile.



Since this post is all about adding variety to Clash:
Adding variety to terrain in non-graphical ways:

For each type of terrain, add a range of values, rather than a fixed number, for farm, production & service sites. For example:

Tundra = Farm 1-2, Production 2-4, etc.

The same can be done with specials:

Iron = 5,000-35,000, 0 renew*
*the renew value is added in each turn to represent renewable resources.

[alms66]

The Example Template (at half size):

[alms66]

I know some of you (Gary) oppose coastline extending into the water, but I’m of the opinion that it is the only way to do it right, and I’ll give an example here, showing why I know it will work, and how you can ‘live’ with it, and like it as well.

In the first tile we can see a unit in the northernmost quadrant of the tile (magenta dots represent the center of the quadrant – or tile). The reason for using such ‘small’ units (and this stickman mock-up is a bit smaller than it really should be) is due to the fact that Clash can have multiple combatants fighting over multiple turns in a single tile. As you can see from the second tile, you can have a maximum of nine combatants (each centered on a magenta dot) in a single tile (I suggest we artificially limit it for aesthetic reasons as well as the fact that 9+ combatants in a single battle is a bit much). This works for all tiles – land and water. It will appear a bit ‘weird’ to see 3 out of 9 combatants “beached” graphically in coastal battles, but it’s a small price to pay, considering the rarity of such massive battles occurring in these specific squares, for such aesthetic quality.

The good news is that we can use this graphical “problem” that appears with 9 naval combatants in coastal tiles to great effect when naval combatants join in land battles, by extending the 9 combatant limit to 12 (and graphically using the 3 innermost points of the coastal tile). Thus in a coastal battle, you could have up to 9 land armies and 3 supporting naval fleets. When these three supporting naval units join the battle, they will appear “beached” to the player.

I mention a hard limit (9 and 12) on units involved in battles, but this isn’t entirely correct. What that limit should be is 9 in the actual ‘battle’ tile, and one for each point adjacent to this battle tile, which would be 1 for each of the 4 cardinal (N,S,E,W) directions of the battle tile, and 3 for the other four directions (NE,NW,SE,SW), giving a grand total limit of 25 participating combatants in any given battle. This limit of 25 should apply to land and water battles equally, allowing support to come from outside the actual battle site itself.

Comments, questions and/or opinions, anyone?

[alms66]

Here's the image discussed in the previous post (at 200% actual size):

[LDiCesare]

I don't get your point about units in tile. There is only ever one unit per civ shown in a tile. Having battles with 9 or 12 civilizations in the same coastal square is probably uncommon indeed. Since there is no limitation on the number of civs present in one square, there might by 48 of them and, as you say, we should limit the number shown to something reasonable. Without using a details panel, anything more than 5 is probably too much for a human to apprehend in a single glance. So I'd probably limit that to 5 anyway for everyone.
I don't car about lands going into sea or the contrary, but I wonder how you make rivers.
In order to extract the in-game images from the template, we'll have to do some coding. I think we'll need a small program to transform the original template into a set of individual tile images which are used internally by the program. The individual files wouldn't be seen by the player but put in a temporary directory used by the software. Do you need magenta and another color for alphablending of the coasts, or can the blending be done by using magenta too?
The guidelines are for use only by the artist, I think their width should be specified too, so the xml format file would be something like:
width of a tile, height of a tile, width between tiles, height between tiles.
I'd rather have a name for the indiviual tiles in the resources file too.

[alms66]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I don't get your point about units in tile. There is only ever one unit per civ shown in a tile. Having battles with 9 or 12 civilizations in the same coastal square is probably uncommon indeed. Since there is no limitation on the number of civs present in one square, there might by 48 of them and, as you say, we should limit the number shown to something reasonable. Without using a details panel, anything more than 5 is probably too much for a human to apprehend in a single glance. So I'd probably limit that to 5 anyway for everyone.

I was suggesting that we put an artificial limit of 9 civs on the primary tile, with the possible addition of 16 'supporting' units from adjacent tiles joining the battle. A five unit limit would work just as well for me.

I have a secret desire (shhhh!) of wanting to get rid of that 'unit detai'l panel altogether. I'd also rather move 'armies' around the map, rather than 'unit groups,' but that's a whole other discussion.

Originally posted by LDiCesare I don't car about lands going into sea or the contrary, but I wonder how you make rivers.

What do you mean here, about rivers?

Originally posted by LDiCesare In order to extract the in-game images from the template, we'll have to do some coding. I think we'll need a small program to transform the original template into a set of individual tile images which are used internally by the program. The individual files wouldn't be seen by the player but put in a temporary directory used by the software.

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear on this, but these templates are for my use only (as well as any other artist that follows) - unless - everyone agrees it would be better to use them for the game. I can extract the individual tiles easily enough by hand (in fact, I think there are programs available that automate the process for you - so we don't have to write one), if we prefer to keep using the individual tiles. My intention wasn't to pile on more coding jobs, but to make it easier to draw the tiles, by making all components visible in one file.

Also, if Clash isn't ready for the larger tile size, I'll simply resize them to the current size while extracting the individual tiles.

Originally posted by LDiCesare Do you need magenta and another color for alphablending of the coasts, or can the blending be done by using magenta too?

I believe the correct term is 'dithering' not 'alphablending'. I'll use magenta to create 'holes' in the land portion of the coastal tile. I'll also create a 'coastal transition' tile. The coastal transition will be drawn first, then the coastal tile. The effect will be that the coastal transition will appear through the 'holes' in the land portion of the coastal tile.

*suggestions for a more efficent way are welcome.

Originally posted by LDiCesare The guidelines are for use only by the artist, I think their width should be specified too, so the xml format file would be something like:
width of a tile, height of a tile, width between tiles, height between tiles.

Yes. Unit and Terrain tiles should be specified in some xml file (I believe I mentioned that somewhere). BTW, I left no distance between the tiles. The empty space (seemingly) above the tiles is for extending mountains, trees and such above the northern point of the tile.

Originally posted by LDiCesare I'd rather have a name for the indiviual tiles in the resources file too.

So that's a vote for keeping tiles in their individual files, correct?

[LDiCesare]

What do you mean here, about rivers?

I mean currently we could reuse the coast tiles for rivers, we'll definitely need different graphics for rivers.

I believe the correct term is 'dithering' not 'alphablending'. I'll use magenta to create 'holes' in the land portion of the coastal tile. I'll also create a 'coastal transition' tile. The coastal transition will be drawn first, then the coastal tile. The effect will be that the coastal transition will appear through the 'holes' in the land portion of the coastal tile.

I thought of using semitransparent tiles to make transitions, but thinking more about it, it just doesn't make sense for coasts, though it could for transitions between e.g. deserts and plains.

So that's a vote for keeping tiles in their individual files, correct?

Yes. But then I am not adamant about it either.

[alms66]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I mean currently we could reuse the coast tiles for rivers, we'll definitely need different graphics for rivers.

I'll draw a new set of rivers. I had created a set, and sent it to Gary, I don't know if you ever saw it. I hadn't finished them because I needed to be able to see what they looked like in-game to do so. The new template will allow me to rely on in-game looks less than working with individual tiles.

Originally posted by LDiCesare I thought of using semitransparent tiles to make transitions, but thinking more about it, it just doesn't make sense for coasts, though it could for transitions between e.g. deserts and plains.

By semitransparent, do you mean alpha channels or dithering? As far as I know, apha channels aren't supported by gifs, so I was planning on drawing the transitions for each tile with a little dithering, as you can see in the template.