Unit Graphics 2

[yellowdaddy]

you mean this?

Well this is very similar to what I mean; you could have urban squares along a river or coast, or two or more cities merging, but it's still on the whole square scale.
the limitations with that is that it's still one city one square.

What I'm trying to describe has a different and more realistic scale, than the above Ctp2 mod.
I'm talking about a different approach where you display all habitiation on all tiles...
...including nomadic camps which could pop up one turn and then change to a caravan unit the next, and...

...a range of (maybe 4) population densities:
"scattered villages" (including single village or outpost)
"towns and villages" (a town with some nearby villages)
"city and villages (a city with villages and/or towns around it)
up to big "metropolises" (as big and sprawly as you like)
any merging of "cities" and "metropolises" called "conurbation."

The object is to create a map which bears more resemblance to what you might see in an Atlas of the world.

This needs a new thread... "Cities and Settlement Thread"

[yellowdaddy]

FAO GATTSUDEN!

Gattsuden, here's a great link for you to help you in making units...
Tutorial - Creating Units from Photographs of Miniatures

you might also be interested in
this long list of links if you want to "model" your units and overlays on others - let's face it, we need to churn them out...

let me know how you get on

[Gary Thomas]

It is important that unit graphics be in the correct format for Clash. They must be gif files with a transparent background, more or less facing ESE, and the correct size. I forget what the exact size is (I am at work just now) but it can be got from the existing unit gifs. I believe that the height of the gif can be variable, depending on the height of the unit (horses are higher, for example)

They should be in separate, appropriately named, gif files, with the name not conflicting with any existing gif names.

The unit graphics have to be put in this form to be used, and it is not a productive use of my time for me to do it. So, in effect, if this is not done by the person producing the graphic, then the graphic will not be used in the game.

Once the graphics are done, in this form, email them to me as attachments, and I will ensure that they are included in the resources release, and included in the list of unit graphics.

Even this does not make them appear in the game - the names of these new unit types must be included in the military part of a scenario file for the pictures to actually be used.

Incredibly enough, it is actually possible to get graphics into the game with this system. Changing the picture for a unit that is already in the game is, however, very easy.

Similar comments apply to terrain tiles, city pictures, and any special effects (such as those for horses and wheat in the Dawn scenario).

Rivers are a special case.

Cheers

[alms66]

Just re-reading this old thread here.

Whatever happened to this concept of using Army graphics rather than the individual Unit graphics as we are doing now? To me, army graphics are the better way to go. Not only does it mean there are less tiles to draw, but also less to learn from a player's perspective.

[Gary Thomas]

What are army graphics?

Cheers

[alms66]

um...
From the linked thread...


Since the graphical units actually represent MIXED armies, we should stick to a few images representing all the army groups on the map. We could maybe have for each age/region of the world an infantry army counter (used for garrisons too) and a combined army counter. We would then give the different sides distinct shield or flag colors using alpha-channeled techniques. We should flesh it out by drawing several alternatives for different cultures / epochs. The armies would have to have numbers on them since we don't want to need to do 35 distinct army graphics.

[Gary Thomas]

What are alpha-channeled techniques?

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

I bet alpha channells means replace one color of the palette by a 'flag' color. Civ2 shields worked by replacing a certain area of the image by a specified colour. I feel the current way of doing things is right because the power circles give a lot of area about colour already. If we want more details on units, I'd rather have different graphics for each unit the way it's done in most civ2 scenarios (some units have same stats but different graphics).

[yellowdaddy]

less is definitely more.

[alms66]

I never got a definitive answer to the question URL=http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3027812#post3027812]here[/URL], (just a few posts up) so I'll bump this again.

I think we'd be better off, given limited artistic resources, to implement a system that does away with the current 'middle-man' we call a 'unit', and compose TFs directly of elements. We don't need images of the elements (though we could add them later if desired), just names will do.

On land we have Armies, on sea we have Navies, and in the air we have Squadrons (?). Thus we only need 3 graphics. Now, multiply that by the number of 'sizes' (strengths) you want. Let's assume we have, Small, Medium, and Large, for a total of 9 graphics. Multiply that by the number of cultures we have, (European, Mediterranean, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.). I don't know the number of actual cultures we want to show, but I'll assume it's Civ's 5 + African + Nomadic for a total of 7*9 = 63. And, finally, multiply by the number of "technology levels" we want to show. 4 is the minimum (Ancient, Middle, Renaissance, Modern), IMO. So at the minimum, we'll need only 252 graphics, many of which are variations on the same image, which are much easier to create than if it were from scratch.

Since we don't have a complete unit list, I'll use civ3 Conquest's in its place, which has 59 units, and should be close, if not a low estimate of Clash's final element count. Multiply that by the number of cultures (7*59 = 413).

This has the benefit of hiding the exact composition of the enemy from the player (he only knows if it's small, medium or large from the graphic). Then the scouting ability of his side can be taken into account when he attempts to check just how large the enemy's force is (by selecting the enemy - I assume).

Another benefit, IMO, would be getting rid of power circles (blasphemy!). I've always disliked power circles, since they were first brought up years ago, and I even pushed for this back then.

[LDiCesare]

I actually like power circles.
Having elements to be built individually could be more of a nightmare than it's be worth. Units include things like scouts, skirmishers, etc. If you had to build the corresponding task force, you'd need to build many more elements and group them together. Anyway, this should wait for the military moel to be updated, as right now some of us (Gary mostly, but me too) aren't satisfied with the model, as it doesn't favor combned arms enough, lacks realism and randomness.

[alms66]

So, you guys want a new military model? Or is someone working on this already? I actually have a copy of the model I used for EIT around - one of the few things that I still have. In many ways it's simpler than the current model, but that's because it's also more of a strategic model, which is a good thing, IMO. The current model focuses on tactical level details too much, IMO. Another good thing about EIT's combat model, is that it's scalable. It could apply to a siege on part of a square, or to combat in the entire square. It's also got a built-in unit design model.

All this time I've been back, and I just sat on the model assuming you guys wouldn't want to change it because it's been coded so far along now... sigh...

[Mark_Everson]

Certainly the mil model needs some work. However, I think we should look at the things we don't like about it, and see if these are fixable without huge changes. The last thing we need is a yearlong revision of a major model. IMO we should dredge up the latest mil thread to have this discussion, or start a new one.