Map Graphics Thread part III

[alms66]

Layering:
I'm obviously in favor of this.

Roads:

by Gary:
On the subject of roads, the present roads are merely a marker to show that a square is "roaded". Personally I don't think that roads should be built as a government option. To my knowledge this has never been the way it worked.

Modern Interstate systems should fall under gov't roads.

I support having a separation in local roads (infrastructure) and gov't roads (military & Interstate). It may cause a little confusion for players, but it can only speed movement, not slow it, so I don't think it will be much of a problem.

[alms66]

If we do go with the layered approach, while someone updates that code, I propose we also update the code that reads the images in to be able to detect the width and height of the image from the file itself, rather than hardcode it. I really want to be able to use larger tiles...128x128 (see next paragraph) would be awesome, I could settle for less though.

Also, we need to update the drawing code to work with square images rather than rectangular. This would allow us to center the tile image in the file and draw "above" the tile, whereas currently, the top of tiles tend to have a rounded look, because of this limitation. See the forest tile for an example of how "hideous" this looks - don't get me wrong, the forest itself looks great, it's that rounded top edge that looks off.

[Gary Thomas]

If we do go with the layered approach, while someone updates that code, I propose we also update the code that reads the images in to be able to detect the width and height of the image from the file itself, rather than hardcode it.

I believe that the code does this already. It then converts it to 80 x 40 to display.

I really want to be able to use larger tiles...128x128 (see next paragraph) would be awesome

Do you mean to display at this size?

Also, we need to update the drawing code to work with square images rather than rectangular.

The view used is an isometric one, viewed from an angle of 30 degrees. The decision to display the map in that form predates my joining the project, but I believe that there was some discussion about it.

I am not completely clear what you are suggesting here. Do you want to go to a vertical view looking down on the map?

Cheers

[alms66]

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
Do you mean to display at this size?

128x96 would be the maximum size I'd suggest - and then at maximum zoom in.

I, for some insane reason, was thinking the image needed to be square in order to draw "below" the tile outline, though in reality anything drawn there would be covered by the tile in the next row below, so the image can remain a rectangle.

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
The view used is an isometric one, viewed from an angle of 30 degrees. The decision to display the map in that form predates my joining the project, but I believe that there was some discussion about it.

I am not completely clear what you are suggesting here. Do you want to go to a vertical view looking down on the map?

The example below should illustrate my point of being able to draw above the north point well enough.

[Gary Thomas]

Ah! now I see. I don't see any particular problem in allowing map tiles to project above the northern edge - unit graphics already have that provision. I will check the code.

As far as the 128 x 96 size you suggest, this will substantially reduce the amount of map visible in the map window. I can't help feeling that 80 x 40 is a reasonable compromise.

Cheers

[alms66]

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
As far as the 128 x 96 size you suggest, this will substantially reduce the amount of map visible in the map window. I can't help feeling that 80 x 40 is a reasonable compromise.

I'm not suggesting we make the switch now, mind you, but I'd like the program to support using larger tiles now(i.e. don't hardcode that information in loading routines or zooming algo's). If we do it this way, it will allow some nutty artist to come along later and draw the tileset at the larger resolution. Given two tiles drawn by the same artist, in the same style, and all other variables being equal, the larger of the two tiles will look better because the higher resolution allows more detail compared to the smaller tile. It's that simple. Compare Civ2 screenshots to Civ3 screenshots. Clash currently looks more like Civ2 than Civ3, and considering Clash will be released, at the earliest, when Civ4 comes out (or is out), then I think we should at least strive for that Civ3 level of quality. While you may not agree with the Civ3 art style, you cannot deny that the increased resolution (128 width - same as what I suggest) allows for a higher quality image. My reason, after all, for bringing up these graphical issues has been to help get Clash looking better and more appealing at first glance, which I would hope would draw more interest from artist, programmers and playtesters alike.

And you are absolutely correct that it will reduce the map shown, though I've got a solution to that problem as well. It was supposed to be a part of my interface proposal (interface overhaul to be more accurate), which I've currently shelved, so I don't really want to get into that discussion here. If you want to get into that discussion, email me, we'll talk about it there. For now though, let's just say, if implemented, the overhaul would keep you seeing approx. the same amount of map you currently do, just at a larger resolution.

[Max Sinister]

Just in case you're interested: I once wrote a program in C++ (it was a world generator for RPGs). Its map has got isometric tiles, different height levels and is zoomable and rotatable. It was a helluva work, but if you want, I can send you the code. Just give me a PM with your mail address.

[LDiCesare]

I think the overlays is the best way to go too. It will require more work from the artists and code to handle that, but then what?
About map size, I'd like to be able to zoom the map in and out. This means various resolutions, so the initial tiles would look better if they are bigger on higher resolution. But then that's no big priority for me and I think it can be added at any time without major changes to whatever drawing system we use.

[yellowdaddy]

well i won't be drawing anything more until you decide what you want.

[alms66]

Roads (and other tile improvements):

I hate building them everywhere and I hate looking at them everywhere. They have plagued civ-like games for ages. Clash can finally be rid of them. The only things I want to see on the map are cities, armies, and military facilities (forts, ports, and airfields).

With the way Clash handles infrastructure (see the model for all the gory details), combined with the movement system (keyboard isn't used), there is absolutely no reason to show roads on the map. They should only aid in movement, and since that is automated, the player will never need to know where roads are (though, given the new Map Filters, he can still find out), he simply clicks a destination.

If the infrastructure level is of the ‘1-100’ variety, then simply take the currentRoadInfrastructureLevel-10, to determine the % reduction of movement cost to cross the tile. This, of course would cause more effect if movement points were equal to miles (or a distance equal to crossing one flat tile, I'll assume 100 miles for this example). So if an army can travel 200 miles in a turn, it has 200 movement points. It normally costs 100 to cross a flat square, so a road infrastructure level of 20 would reduce the cost by 10% or 10 points, making the cost to cross the tile 90 points. If the army were to traverse two such tiles it would have only used 180 of the 200 movement points, so what do the rest do?

They stay there and store up (each turn 200 more points are added in). Eventually there will be enough 'stored up' to cross some other tile somewhere. These unused points could provide bonuses if attacked as well as other things (or penalties if force-marching).

Irrigation & Mines: The same reasoning behind not showing roads applies to irrigation and mines as well, though since armies don’t use them, they’re even more useless to display.

Cities: If I’m not mistaken, all these are for is to show that a tile is heavily urbanized. If that is the case, we should have several sizes, otherwise the map may quickly look boring.

Forts/Ports/Airfields: These have never (to my knowledge) been discussed specifically as tile improvement graphics, but I think we should show them, unless they fall on a city tile (and in that case I’d show small graphic icons near the city tile to indicate their presence).

[yellowdaddy]

yes but

yes, i'd certainly say that they're lower down the list... and it is a monotonous task sending units to a location to install a road, irrigation, mine or other improvement - it should be just actionable without any icon... but I think people will want to see overlays which indicate human transformation of the terrain - but this could be done quite effectively by a single-colour transparent overlay: colour-shaded areas where relevant, and lines for roads and rail.

As for airports and ports - I think a simply small icon attached to the location - like an ownership flag would be all you'd need: a little anchor for a port; a little runway for an airfield; a little castle for a fort; and so on...

as for cities - I wouldn't like to see fixed-size icons, however pretty.
I'd like to see "urbanisation" displayed so you get different sized and shaped cities: much more organic, and in keeping with the spirit of accuracy in the game.

Coders have hung on for icons too much. I've promised, and haven't delivered; but I'm not even sure whether so many are needed: the real game is in the AI and information, I'm not sure whether it's a useful activity to produce ethnic and historically relevant icons - I'd stick with simple 4 colour sillhouette things: low on memory, high on animation potential.

[vovan]

Related to the graphics, I have a question, how "modifyable" are graphics in the game? I currently don't have the code for Clash, so I can't really check, but it seems to me like with the scenario system that was set - with each scenario having its own folder, it'd be pretty easy to override default game graphics by implementing a system a-la Civ3, where the game first checks the particular scenario folder for art, and if for something the art is not found, then the default art is used. If that is the case, then it seems to me like yellowdaddy has a strong point in that there is no need to provide large visual diversity - like differently looking units for different nations - by default. If the scenario creators can add in all the art they want, then really the default art can be fairly straightforward. Although note that I did not read this whole thread, so I am sorry if I said something stupid.

[vovan]

Re: yes but

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
as for cities - I wouldn't like to see fixed-size icons, however pretty.
I'd like to see "urbanisation" displayed so you get different sized and shaped cities: much more organic, and in keeping with the spirit of accuracy in the game.

Well, it seems to me like this urbanization idea is already in full swing in the backend, and that it wouldn't be too hard to implement this in the view. I mean, you already have provinces where each tile is populated by some number of people. You could have a number of little houses and things drawn for the art, and then on each tile, for each 1000 inhabitants, you display another house selected from the list. That way, you get the visual queue from the map as to the population of your provinces, and also it looks nice and provides plenty of visual diversity. IMO.

[alms66]

Re: Re: yes but

Originally posted by vovan
Related to the graphics, I have a question, how "modifyable" are graphics in the game? I currently don't have the code for Clash, so I can't really check, but it seems to me like with the scenario system that was set - with each scenario having its own folder, it'd be pretty easy to override default game graphics by implementing a system a-la Civ3, where the game first checks the particular scenario folder for art, and if for something the art is not found, then the default art is used. If that is the case, then it seems to me like yellowdaddy has a strong point in that there is no need to provide large visual diversity - like differently looking units for different nations - by default. If the scenario creators can add in all the art they want, then really the default art can be fairly straightforward. Although note that I did not read this whole thread, so I am sorry if I said something stupid.

It seems what happens currently, is that the system loads the ‘standard’ files, then overwrites any part that is redefined in the scenario file, which is a bit of a waste, if it is so. I’d like to go for a Civ3 type system as well, and if Gary hasn’t come back to work on the editor by the time I’m ready to start coding, the editor will be my first order of business.

Originally posted by vovan
Well, it seems to me like this urbanization idea is already in full swing in the backend, and that it wouldn't be too hard to implement this in the view. I mean, you already have provinces where each tile is populated by some number of people. You could have a number of little houses and things drawn for the art, and then on each tile, for each 1000 inhabitants, you display another house selected from the list. That way, you get the visual queue from the map as to the population of your provinces, and also it looks nice and provides plenty of visual diversity. IMO.

I’d prefer to have several (5-10) different city graphics of various size, as a single overlay rather than dozens of house graphics overlain to show urbanization. Only the largest (population) ‘cities’ need be shown, so that even in the modern era, there are still some large tracts of rural (or terrain) tiles showing.

[LDiCesare]

It seems what happens currently, is that the system loads the ‘standard’ files, then overwrites any part that is redefined in the scenario file, which is a bit of a waste, if it is so.

Not really. There's a file saying which logical name coresponds to what actual image, and you can then override that. But the image itself isn't loaded. I'm not sure whether we need to load all images in the image file anyway. I'd rather wait for Gary to have the single scenario file made with scenario editor out of bits of other resources files if needed thing than touch it myself.

About roads, if you find them ugly, I think we could define the set of overlays that you want shown on the map at any time. (Though thinking of coding the dialogue to show that makes me ill.)