Polygons and microterrain

[Gary Thomas]

Bump

Don't forget the other advantage of polygons - microterrain. It will allow indefinite zooming of the map.

Cheers and PF

[Mark_Everson]

This post is just for bookkeeping purposes, to put discussion on polygons that happened in another thread in the right place.

Mark said to Gary:

BTW when we (and by "we" I mean "you" ) do the polygons, will we need new tile art? Do you think that we can we create the 'gons images from the square-based iso ones that already exist? I guess that wouldn't work for things like the mountain tiles. . .

Gary replied:

I envisage a textured underlay, with small (very small) randomly placed icons on top. These elements could be extracted from the existing tiles without much trouble.

The biggest problem would be with the military model - deciding when troops are close enough to fight.

Laurent replied:

As for distance for military units, it (polygons) could actually be used to enhance the military model a bit, by enticing players to use units with a scouting radius which allows them to engage/disengage farther...

[Gary Thomas]

Just a quick summary for those who have not encountered the polygon system before.

The polygon concept was based on the notion that the polygon was an area (with perhaps 10-50 sides) of homogeneous terrain. Each polygon has a (different) random number seed assigned. This seed is then used to generate any microterrain for that polygon (so that it is consistent from move to move). The microterrain would be modified by any overlaid features such as rivers, or possibly mountain passes, and any built artifacts such as roads, canals or habitations (farms or urban areas).

The polygon coordinates would be lattitude and longitude values, hence the mapping onto a sphere would be automatic. Map display on a small scale would not be a problem. For display of large sections (or all) of the globe, the normal map projetions would be used - Mercator, equal area, stereographic, Winkel's Tripel projection or even the rather ugly segmented projections. Since they would be re-projected for each centre of view, they would work very well for the purpose.

Cheers

[Fosse]

I think it has been literally years since I posted on this forum... when the discussion moves towards the meat and potatoes of actualy programming and algorithims and such I just have no real way (or desire) to input.
But since this thread has huge gameplay consequences, and I really want to play this game one day (and the demos in the meantime)...

I'm a huge fan of Gary's polygon push, speaking strictly from the perspective of a gamer.

Regardless of what goes on, I'll be patiently awaiting your next demo, and following your discussions to the best of my understanding.

Keep up the good work.

[Gary Thomas]

Although, as a Justice of the Peace, I am, of course, completely unbiased and open minded, I am nevertheless inclined to get emotionally enthusiastic when someone agrees with me. And Fosse has done that.

A couple more on my side and I might actually code the polygons.

The reason for squares (or hexagons or triangles) dates back to non-computerized board games, and this has been a dark shadow over all strategy games since. My aim is to break that evil tradition.

In spite of the arguments advanced by the traditionalists.

We will triumph!

One day.

Cheers

[Fosse]

Glad to stoke the fire.

[Gary Thomas]

At present it is more like blowing on the ember. It still takes great concentration to detect the heat. Being essentially deranged, I believe that this ember will become a mighty forest fire that will consume all the gaming world with its unstoppable brilliance!!!

Oops, time to take my medication and go to bed.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

The reason for squares (or hexagons or triangles) dates back to non-computerized board games, and this has been a dark shadow over all strategy games since. My aim is to break that evil tradition.

Note that games like Diplomacy didn't have squares or hexes. But then they didn't concern themselves with tactical maneuvers, only strategy and backstabbing (errr... diplomacy).

About map generation and polygons: Note that the method I used, which is based on plate tectonics (VERY loosely), could be a good start to generate polygons. It starts by dividing the map in broad areas (plates) and then adds variations for movement of plate and random altitude variations. This approach would be well-suited to polygon map generation.

[Gary Thomas]

I would expect that a polygon based on a tectonic plate would be too large for our purposes. I actually envisage most polygons as being not terribly different from a square in size, unless it is tundra, desert, mountains or sea.

I haven't sorted out the exact details, but one of the options is to have a series of superimposed or overlapping polygons representing different vegetation or water regimes. The political divisions could overlay these. When deforestation occurs, the forest overlay could be reduced. This is only a thought at this point.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

I was in fact thinking of generating polygons for seas. The land polygons could be further divided during map generation to yield usable tiles.
Using overlays to show vegetation would be good for forest, but I don't know if you can show desert in the same way.
Either we have altitude/vegetation, in which case desert would rather change the color of the tile (texture) than add an overlay:
You could have -underlying colour (sand desert/vegetation/ice desert) -altitude overlay (plains/hills/mountains) -vegetation overlay (grass(includes farms)/forest/jungle/barren).

[yellowdaddy]

I like the bumpy grid in AlphaCentauri - I don't like "hill squares" and "mountain squares".

I wonder, Is it ONLY a choice between Squares, Hexes/Triangles and random polygons?
Are there any other kinds of polygons that will fit together to everyone's satisfaction?!

Can I put forward a suggestion on Cities?

I HATE CITY SQUARES!

I'm not too keen on settlers either! i wonder what could be done to replace them - have a scout stick a flag down and instruct citizens to migrate.... lots of little dots for buildings so that Cities can be varying sizes and shapes, and merge into each other or be partially destroyed by natural disasters

NO MORE CITY SQUARES!

[Gary Thomas]

This thread is dedicated to the elimination of all kinds of "grid".

The Polygon Plan will not have city squares. A city will have an area (derived from population and population density) and a location. A generated seed will then draw the city appropriately, and consistently. This concept will coordinate with in-polygon rivers.

I believe that people are misunderstanding the concept of polygons in the present context. I am not talking about regular polygons, or even polygons with a small number of sides. The idea is to use polygons to represent irregular areas, and an apprimation to a smooth curve.

Cheers

[yellowdaddy]

hi Gary,

does that mean that Cities could be varying shapes and sizes, and even become sprawling conurbations of several "squares"?

i'd like to see a graphical example of what you mean...

there are some issues i have with it though - like what about climate change, desertification, floods and swampification?

will you have a different "field" for putting national borders on... I'd like to be able to set my border by dragging or clicking a mouse over an area I want to lay claim to, and set a border using waypoints, and perhaps agree a border with a neighbour by treaty this way - I don't like the way your borders are determined by city influence - it may be true in ancient "religious capital" states, but once you get into the middle ages you might want to have squiggly borders and lay claims to vast unpopulated areas like the Russians did in Siberia, and Chinese in Turkestan... catch my drift?

and then of course there's internal provincial borders!

[Gary Thomas]

A polygon in indivisible. This means that any overall change (desertification or flooding, for example) affects the whole polygon. However, the general feeling, in earlier discussions, was that such effects have little or no impact on the main thrust of the game - introducing major and random climate or terrain changes would merely annoy players.

Borders can only include complete polygons - you cannot lay claim to part of a polygon (just as you cannot lay claim to part of a square in the present game).

Cities will be limited to a single polygon, but may eventually fill the whole polygon. As I rememebr, currently squares are supposed to be around 100 km by 100 km. I envisage polygons as being a similar area. So a city filling a polygon is a pretty big one.

From the point of view of graphics, a nice looking city is relatively easy to arrange.

Cheers

[Fosse]

The only thing I'm not fond of is the idea that borders can't go between polygons. I understand your reasons, but that would make for some extremely weird borders, and it would be nice to be able to negotiate them in diplomacy, if such a thing is possible.

Why can't borders be overlays like rivers?
I understand that current squares cannot be subdivided, but what if "owning" 60% of a gigantic polygon gave you 60% of its output? It's pretty straightforward, and borders could be much nicer (run alongside rivers, down the middle of mountain ranges, etc).

My caevet: I know nothing of the structure of the game's code, only what I would like as a gamer.