Polygons and microterrain

[wombat42]

A word in defense of the programmers: Both the current and proposed border systems are a lot more fluid than in any of the Civ games, which are the principle basis for Clash... Also, I remember hearing some discussion earlier of being able to claim land, but not having control - someone gave the example of "What if China claimed Chicago as a province?" The Chinese would have no influence over the population, but could claim to own it... Anyway, I don't even know if that will be implemented.

[yellowdaddy]

a game as gary describes with varying polygons which only behave in an all or nothing polygonal way is in my view a backwards step - it reminds me of older games on amiga which were swept aside when Sim City 1 and Civ 1 first arrived with their regular squares.

I would be utterly turned off by Gary's idea, unless there was , as Fosse says, overlays which would give the game a more fair and natural feel.

the idea of a single large desert polygon is anbsolute anathema to me.

there are so many clear reasons why, like if you want to terraform an area, it would take ages for a big polygon, whereas in reality you would start at the edges or at a certain section of your choosing.

and to have only one city in a huge polygon, and then land your units in it and hav them affected or affecting a city a huge distance away, despite being in the same polygon is bollocks, and I really don't like it at all.

----

about the claiming of land - i've brought it up, a couple of times... what I'm talking about is claiming land and negotioating its status and border by trreaty.
It's also a good reason for wars to start between nations - not necessarily your own.

there are loads of multiply claim territories - Antarctica, Kashmir, some islands off the coast of vietnam etc...
and through history.

you could have limits on what you could claim, or provisos- like you need a certain type of unit to be present, or build a certina type of object.

but if china claimed chicago, it would mean little, unless china had territory nearby, a large chinese population or a huge military force approaching.

i think there are ways of making it work, and well.

(my hyands aer freezing!!)

[Gary Thomas]

Where did the idea of huge polygons come from? I have said many times that polygons will be about the size of squares, perhaps somewhat larger for desert or tundra areas (maybe two squares) or oceans (which you cannot claim anyway).

I would also point out, for perhaps the thirtieth time, that squares are polygons. Anything that can be done with squares can be done with polygons.

The real advantage of the polygon system I proposed lies in the fact that point objects have coordinates rather than the vague "in square [17, 12]". In particular,
military units in the same polygon may be 50 km apart - they are not then forced to fight.

Roads will be defined explicitly, not, again, by the vague in square definitions. The same applies to rivers, though I would expect rivers to follow polygon boundaries. In a similar way land and sea would be in different polygons.

Cities also. There is not really any reason why a polygon should not have more than one city, just as there is no reason a square could not have more than one city. The reason they don't is simply to reduce coding complexity. There is always this trade-off. A "feature" that is going to take a week to code, and which then has no observable effect on the game is liable to get a low priority.

I repeat, polygons are small, about the size of squares, or even smaller, about 10,000 km². There are no large polygons.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

OK, Gary

(apologies if seemed snappy before! )

I like the idea of specific coordinates for things, that's an improvement.
I like the detail of roads, I suppose even tiny islands/atolls inside polygons could be feasible if you wanted a Captain Cook scenario!

I'm not really entirely happy about solutions for rivers and borders I would like to see them perhaps inhabiting a separate field on top of the map, and be like waypoints (within certain constraints), though it's not a major issue.

(on a side point - will there be different sizes of rivers and roads? navigable rivers and streams, country lanes and motorways? is ther eany room for Canals?)

So terraforming of land seems fairly similar, and perhaps even a bit more realistic as tundra and sandsea aren't really likely to be easily terraformed anyway.
The ony query left is over watery areas - what if you want to engage in land reclamation (if it's a feature) - I might fancy being the Dutch and have a crack at expanding my territory that way?!

squares of
10,000 km2?!
100km by 100km?

imagining an Earth map of 12,800km by 25600km
256 squares by 128 squa.. oops, sorry polygons?
(so far the biggest map that Mark and co. feel able to offer)
I'd like a truly huge world map, I don't know whether I'm in a minority or majority in that view, I always play Civ with the biggest map and often with the most other civs...

...In my dream game, I'd like a world map where each polygon was about 4km by 4km, so in real terms about 3metres by 1.5m i think - so i could really feel the epicness of voyages and battles and have a nice detailed map of my nation - obviously that's not going to happen in the forseeable future, but what's the biggest world map that you can concieve of as feasible with your polygon idea?

[Gary Thomas]

I'm not really entirely happy about solutions for rivers and borders I would like to see them perhaps inhabiting a separate field on top of the map, and be like waypoints (within certain constraints), though it's not a major issue.

The idea is that, for our purposes, a river is a permanent feature. So, split the underlying polygon so that the parts on opposite sides of the river are separate polgons. The reason, essentially, is that a river is likely to be a political boundary. So the parts of the polygon need to be separately controlled.

Bear in mind (constantly!) that the ultimate constraint is coding the system. If any suggestion puts any sort of extra load on coding then it needs a strong supporting argument, not merely inclusion in a wish list.

I am personally very keen on canals and bridges (and even a Channel Tunnel).

squares of
10,000 km2?!
100km by 100km?
...
what's the biggest world map that you can concieve of as feasible with your polygon idea?

As I understand it 100km by 100km is the size of squares in the present game. This gives around 53,000 squares for Earth. However it is more likely to be around 20,000 polygons because of oceans and uninhabitable areas.

The map (if I have anything to do with it) will not be rectangular, but spherical, representing the actual shape of the Earth. However, projecting onto a rectangle, we have around 200 by 300. This is likely to be the largest map. Unless you want to explore the civilizations of Jupiter.

Nothing is gained by making the polygons smaller. The microterrain concept allows any level of detailed mapping that you want. My own plans involved a lower limit of about 1 metre. However it is not necessary to have polygons of that size. The polygons are a convenient aggregating device, related to coding limitations.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

well, it's sounding more attractive now... and I suppose it could lead to more attractive and realistic land shapes.

I wonder though - if you build a canal, does that automatically split a polygon or is it an intrapolygonal object? (i can't think of the word!)

rivers for borders is not entirely great, epecially if you wan to hog a deep fertile valley and stick a border aling a mountain-range.. I imagine rivers changing their course won't happen (it happened to the Yellow River in China with major impacts).

It seems that if yuo count the sea as one polygon, you could have a much bigger Earth than if you stick to the grid map.

However, you didn't answer the idea about land reclamaition?
are you interested in land reclamation, atolls, reefs, sandbanks, shipwrecks, large beaches/mudflats (like the Wash in England), and if so, how would you moddle them?


I thnik most people are sold by the idea of a Spherical map now.

200 by 300...

what's the current largest Civ3 map?

as for Jovian epic maps..
Basically, I would just like to play on a map of the Earth where the British Isles, Madagascar, Japan, New Zealand are big enough to build a few cities on, and divide up into provinces. And where you could have a decent representation of the caribbean and south pacific island chains.
It's so irritating having Ireland as one or two squares, it makes playing the Earth map in Civ utterly pointless really.

So, I guess, if the UK (and NZ) are about 1000km long (I think?)
and you want to at least be able to fit Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen on as seperate Cities in Scotland (or Auckland, Wellington, Gisbourne and Hamilton on the North Is NZ in your case);
Then I suppose I'm talking about a Britain or NZ of about 20 squares from north to south ideally.
that being about a twelfth of a world map from north to south, so an earth map of somewhere in the region of 240 by 480 squares, about 50km by 50km a square is what I'm gunning for as an ideal (minimum!).

hows about that then boys and girls?

I don't entirely follow this bit Gary:

Nothing is gained by making the polygons smaller. The microterrain concept allows any level of detailed mapping that you want. My own plans involved a lower limit of about 1 metre. However it is not necessary to have polygons of that size. The polygons are a convenient aggregating device, related to coding limitations.

what do you mean 1 metre?! what are you going to display or represent at that scale?!


and a few quetions about water areas:

are lakes (from Caspian Sea sized down to Loch Ness) going to work the same as the ocean?
how will nautical units behave? Submarines? Oil Rigs?!
I don't suppose undersea cities are on the cards are t hey?
Jack

[Lord God Jinnai]

Yea....i always feel too constained in size on even the largest Civ earth maps, but maybe that's cuz i don't do the cheeze thing and build sities every other square.

As to climate change effects, there was never as far as i remember anything that said climate change wouldn't occur nor affect the surroundings, just that it would be gradual and not random (like civ games when you warm the planet up). In fact using too much timber was suppose to be represented by thinning forest until there was none and global warming/cooling was suppose to affect ice sheets, desets...etc.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy

I wonder though - if you build a canal, does that automatically split a polygon or is it an intrapolygonal object? (i can't think of the word!)

"Polygons never split."

rivers for borders is not entirely great, epecially if you wan to hog a deep fertile valley and stick a border aling a mountain-range.. I imagine rivers changing their course won't happen (it happened to the Yellow River in China with major impacts).

Rivers don't have to be borders, but in Gary's system them can be borders.

However, you didn't answer the idea about land reclamaition?

Yes he did. I understood that the model wouldn't worry about small scale changes to the climate and terrain of polygons, thus polygons never change.





I'm just hoping to lift Gary's spirits by showing that someone understood him (this time). Let me know if I failed.

[yellowdaddy]

HI Fosse - no I'm with him, I just want to pin the tail on the donkey... all his hard campaigning will pay off I'm sure!

----------------------

Yea....i always feel too constained in size on even the largest Civ earth maps, but maybe that's cuz i don't do the cheeze thing and build sities every other square.

Aye - we're not all playing purely to win, some of us like to create a nation and watch how it behaves. (at least I do.)

as to LGJ's climate things...

As I said, I'm thinking mostly about the Dutch land reclamation issue - huge parts of Holland were created only a few hundred years ago... is there any room for that in the game?

but, yea, I'll say it - weather? seasons? any scope for it?
-----------------
well, I thought that there was a good dollop of keenness to have 'istorical accuracy for those who want it.

I've heard why coders and some gamers don't like massive maps like i do, but I can think of a few specific reasons whay in they might enhance the "game experience"

if you're playing the British Empire (can we have mutinationals like the East India Company I wonder?!), then having a large world map and decent sized national map within the same scale are critical I would say.

Chinese 3 kingdoms, Vikings, Arab conquests, Ghenghis Khan Scenario, WW2 scenario, and Cold War scenarios too... in fact any scenario from the Dark ages onwards, a global map of huge scale would really be deeply satisfying, and offer something Civ perhaps never will.

despite empires and migrations before the Arab conquests and Viking sagas, I can see how coders would asking, why do we need to code for a huge world when you probably won't come into contact with most of it until the colonial period and industrial revoluiton.

IS there a way of generating civs like backward tribes etc and their histories for the point when the world becomes more evloved? so you only have to have the computer running the wold you're in contact with, and then it just generates the rest as and when it comes into your game, or have like a trigger, such as the industrial ervolution, where the PC sets to work generating the detail of all those "ghost" civs which have been pretending to exist since the start of the game?

(does anyone know what I'm talking about?!)
------------------------

MULTINATINIONALS:

The HAnseatic League,
East India Company(s)
modern Oil companies

is there any scope for things like this in the game?
after all, they play a role ni cultural, economic and sometiems political domination...
--------------------

Movement on/in Gary's polyganal Oceans? can anyone fill me in?
what about lakes? how will they be done?

[Fosse]

Movement on/in Gary's polyganal Oceans? can anyone fill me in?
what about lakes? how will they be done?

All movement would be by latitude and longitude. Gary's system doesn't require movement to be tied to the polygons, unlike the square tile system (which is really just a VERY low resolution lat/long system) in other games of the genre.

As far as I can tell, a lake would simply be one polygon of water that is landlocked. The lake could be huge or small, and still just one polygon.

And count me as one more who hates cheese building cities one tile apart!

[Gary Thomas]

Thanks, Fosse. I no longer feel quite so lonely. On occasion I have progressed from a lone voice crying in the wilderness to one howling in the wilderness.

As you point out, by implication, a lot of these questions have already been answered in the earlier posts to this and related threads. In particular, I don't know how many times I have said that polygons never split. Those who want to know why should read the earlier posts. I don't feel the need to explain yet again. I don't have quite the crusading zeal I had then.

On the question of land changes, we have to remember that we are dealing with a strategic level game. Adding the possibility of large scale land change is asking some programmer to spend perhaps 1000 hours to gratify someone's desire to watch the Sahara get dryer. Is this a reasonable demand?

On the other hand, the polygon system does allow a whole polygon to change. In the case of the Netherlands, from shallow coastal sea, to reclaimed land. In passing, a lake would likely be a number of polygons, reflecting depth, and perhaps fishing characteristics.

In some of the comments there seems to be a confusion between the game (that is, the coded system) and particular scenarios. In a scenario devoted to the development of agriculture in the New Guinea Highlands, there is not a whole lot of point in spending time deciding whether Pomona in the Orkney Islands should be 8 or 12 polygons. However the game system could handle it.

The advantage of the polygon system is that scale can be arbitrarily changed, from scenario to scenario, or even within the same map.

It is certainly possible to allow considerably more detail in areas where that is important - the area of north-west Europe, for example, as opposed to the steppes of Asia, or the dead heart in Australia.

It may be that, ultimately, there may be one huge and detailed map of the world, with perhaps 200,000 polygons, which particular scenarios abstract for their purposes.

The one metre limit merely allows individual farms or houses to be displayed in recognizable detail if the maximum zoom in is used. It doesn't mean that you have any control over those objects. Just that you can admire them.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

well, I'm very sold so far...

perhaps, Gary, for the benefit of those who need to be sold on the idea, you might consider an FAQ thread for your idea, with a link to it on your signature?

--------------------------

1.so undersea cities are a possibility?

2.what do people think about a Moon (and eventually Solar System) addon, so you could indulge in a bit of Space Racing in the latter stages of the game?
I don't just mean another smaller map that you click to, but a model of two spheres in the correct orbit etc...

---off topic---

3. What (do people think) about (the idea of) multinationals? from the Hanseatic League, through the East India Companies to odern conglomerates? Is this a game which would incorporate them somehow?

4. Is there a thread on battles? I'm hoping that this game will move away from "square on square action" to a more precise "radar style" animated battle map, with "soccer game style" tactics... is there any discussion on that?

--even more off topic--

5. How many Civs, Tribes, Nations, whateve you choose to call them could there be? Has any of you heard my ethnoliguistic evolution/splitting thoughts - long long ago, before I knew about this game, I researched the peoples of the world, and using proper sources, boiled the world dwon into about 72 etholinguistic "peoples" (for convenience), with basic vocabularies for generating names for places, each being able to split into 6 Tribes, then 6 Nations, giving about 2,600 permutations, with the capacity for ethnic mergers to allow for more...

[LDiCesare]

Gary, what do you think about showing what a map of (Earth, Europe, the Mediterranean, Alexander's Empire, whatever) could look like under your ideal system? Like finding a map from somewhere and painting polygons on top?.

[Gary Thomas]

You can get the effect by opening any atlas. That is what the map will look like. The smaller the area covered, the less distortion on the map. One of the zoom out options I would like is to view the Earth as a globe, with the option of turning it (in any direction, not just East-West).

Since there seem to be persistent misapprehensions about the size of the polygons, I will have a go at redoing the Delenda map in polygons.

Of course that might tempt me to code it too...

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

it'd be good to actually produce something to look at - where to people mostly stand on the map issue? are they mostly for Gary's map or against? (i know they had a poll, but it's not that specific).

how "big" would/could the map be (in feet and inches! or 14" screens)?