 |
| |
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
I think that we should make the models flexible enough to handle both cases, if possible. With hexagonal tiles, having rivers run between the squares is a very good way to go. (Of course, that assumes that we will have the option to use hexes.) I always liked the structure of hexagonal wargame maps with rivers between tiles and roads in tiles. That way, natural barriers and the importance of bridges can be modeled much better, and the graphics look good.
But I have been convinced that with square tiles, it would not be as good. All of the bends are 90 degrees and they can flow in only four directions. But if they are in the tile, they can go eight directions and they can be made to look better.
The modeling aspect isn't really too hard. We can simply assume that any tile bordering the river has a river inside it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Maybe we could have a special combat mode, like Master of Magic, Imperialism and (I think) CtP. There we could put the rivers on edges.
On the main map I would rather treat rivers like roads, because people use them as main traffic channels when no roads are present fe middle age Europe. Even then we could place a city relative to rivers in a square by dividing the square in eight quadrants and storing the appr. number.. But that probably is more work than it's worth.
[This message has been edited by Simon Loverix (edited April 20, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
 |
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
In view of the size of a map square, any rivers that appear would be rather major ones. From where I live, crossing a map square, a spread of 65km I understand, would involve crossing about five rivers large enough that you could not wade them.
Hence one would assume that every map square (apart from pathological terrain like desert) would have quite a few rivers in it.
If, in a transect across our map, one square in five (say) had a river, we are effectively selecting the largest 4% of rivers to show on the map.
I suppose a study of physical geography would indicate the expected size of such a river, but I rather suspect that it would fill most of a square, allowing for tributaries, meanderings, and related lagoons.
If that is the case, the problem goes away - rivers fill the square as far as movement and so forth is concerned. So they are in the middle and on the edges. Of course for aesthetic reasons they wouldn't look like that in the actual representation, there would be a bit of land at the edges.
Cheers
[This message has been edited by Gary Thomas (edited April 20, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
As I have mentioned before, I am an advocate of edge rivers. So I am going to have another shot at convincing people.
The following arguments have been presented in favour of in square:
- Looks more natural
- Can go in eight directions
- Simpler to build cities on rivers.
- Rivers can function as roads
Here are some arguments for on edge:
- Clearer on the map
- Drawing doesn't conflict with roads or canals
- Bridges become possible
- Natural barriers
- Defensive barriers
- Political boundaries
One of the problems that arises is that rivers are both barriers and highways, with diametrically opposed requirements.
Highway versus barrier
Having the river in square essentially eliminates the river as barrier option. An important part of the barrier effect depends on which side of the river you are on.
The only way to implement that with the in square option is to remember where each TF came from, and make assumptions accordingly. This is unsatisfactory.
The implementation of river as barrier in the on edge option is immediate and obvious. All the physical, military and political implications of river as barrier as easily implemented.
With the river on edge, using the river as a highway is still possible - any square with a river on its edge, can be reach another square with the same river on its edge using the river. This also allows crossing the river in the process. So the on edge option does not seriously limit the river as highway possibility.
Looks more natural versus clearer on the map
I agree that in square can be made to look more natural, but only at a cost of having the river on top of (or underneath) other terrain such as roads or cities. Rivers on edge are clearly visible and do not obscure or get obscured by other terrain. The square edges are not actually used for anything else - they tend to be open territory on the map.
I am not immediately sure of the gain from being able to go in eight directions, apart from the aesthetic one. It does give eight ways of covering up other terrain features.
Cities on rivers
One must bear in mind that the visible rivers are really big ones. Very few cities straddle such rivers (Budapest, perhaps, but not London or Paris). In any case, any cities will be at some rather undefined location in a 100 km x 100 km square. Why not at the edge, near the river? Alternatively the city could be on some smaller river within the square and too small to be visible.
Summary
In my view the "river as barrier" and "don't conflict with other terrain" argument strongly favour the river on edge option.
The possible visual appeal of the in square option seems to me very minor, and is offset by the possiblity of obscuring other features.
I confess to being inluenced by:
"Crossing the Rubicon!"
"Crossing the Nemen!"
"Crossing the Berezina!"
"Crossing the Rhine!"
Cheers
Last edited by Gary Thomas on 19-07-2001 at 08:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
quote:
1. Can't use rivers to travel quickly. Rivers were often used as perferred modes of transportation, espicially downstream, but with them on edges you couldn't do that. This is espically important as this is how Norsemen raided Europe easily. |
I can't see how this follows. As long as the same river is in adjacent squares (whether in the centre or on the edge) the same coding for movement applies in both cases.
quote:
2. Graphical reasons are important also. While they aren't the most important, having rivers that turn at right-angles is very hard at suspending disbelief. Not everyone will be playing war/strategy-intensive games. |
If suspension of disbelief is a problem we shouldn't be using squares - squares are actually just a hangover from board games. It is perfectly possible to have a terrain map which doesn't requires squares at all. Such a system has the best of all possible worlds - no matter where a river is it is easy to tell which side of the river a unit or city is. In such as system rivers can wind perfectly naturally, gorges are possible, and so forth. If we are going to suspend disbelief to the point where all turns are 45 degrees, we might as well accept right angles. In fact I have seen such maps and they don't look bad at all. The right-angle effect is much reduced if the rivers cut corners somewhat.
Also, as I stated earlier, rivers in the middle clash with lots of other graphical features which should be in the middle. Mainly roads and towns.
quote:
3. Bridge effect can be done with rivers on center squares also. Without such technolgy, you just couldn't build a road on that square say. |
That is a bit extreme - no roads for 50 km, simply because you can't bridge the river? What about fords and ferries? Both of
these are easily accomodated in the rivers on edge system.
quote:
4. The Border idea, which seems to be the strongest argument, will be hard to implimnet. Oftern countires were forced to stop a these 'natural boundries' such as rivers and mountain ranges. While using rivers for such a purpose is a good idea, the AI and coding required to put these into effect is probably nearly impossible. |
Why on earth should it be difficult? As far as coding is concerned I can see no problems at all.
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
 |
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
[qupte]
If suspension of disbelief is a problem we shouldn't be using squares - squares are actually just a hangover from board games. It is perfectly possible to have a terrain map which doesn't requires squares at all. Such a system has the best of all possible worlds - no matter where a river is it is easy to tell which side of the river a unit or city is. In such as system rivers can wind perfectly naturally, gorges are possible, and so forth. If we are going to suspend disbelief to the point where all turns are 45 degrees, we might as well accept right angles. In fact I have seen such maps and they don't look bad at all. The right-angle effect is much reduced if the rivers cut corners somewhat.
[/quote]
I'd like to see such a terrain map. If we could do that it would really help alot.
quote:
That is a bit extreme - no roads for 50 km, simply because you can't bridge the river? What about fords and ferries? Both of
these are easily accomodated in the rivers on edge system
|
Well if that's the case, simply code it in as to whether there was a bridge on that layer or not. For graphical purposes, the only problem would be with forests and it would actually be harder with roads than with the bridges themselves.
quote:
Why on earth should it be difficult? As far as coding is concerned I can see no problems at all.
|
Here's the reason why. Depending upon the current level or Government Basic Tech and the type of government, you can easily rule lands X squares away. Beyond that it becomes more difficult. The thing is, this usually won't be the case. Say two conties are fighting for terriroy on a continent. and a major river runs through it. In the long run, that river would be considered the natural boundry of both nations unless 1 was completely wiped out or pushed so far back that something else, like a mountain range became its new natural boundry. Can you say that you can program in such things easily?-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
[QUOYE]I'd like to see such a terrain map. If we could do that it would really help alot. [/QUOTE]
I used to own 720 board games, but when I lost interest I gave them away. Several of them had pretty reasonable rivers on the edge of both hexes and squares. At the scale we are talking about (100 km per square), most rivers are more or less straight anyway. So realism is achieved by having several different "straight" sections, which aren't really straight, and wander into the square somewhat. Rather than turns such major rivers tend to have tributaries which join the main river more or less at right angles anyway.
quote:
Here's the reason why. Depending upon the current level or Government Basic Tech and the type of government, you can easily rule lands X squares away. Beyond that it becomes more difficult. The thing is, this usually won't be the case. Say two conties are fighting for terriroy on a continent. and a major river runs through it. In the long run, that river would be considered the natural boundry of both nations unless 1 was completely wiped out or pushed so far back that something else, like a mountain range became its new natural boundry. Can you say that you can program in such things easily?- |
The X squares away rule doesn't take account of barriers other than rivers - mountains or sea.
My preference would be that control becomes more difficult based not on number of squares distant, but on the number of ticks of movement, to that square, for some standard unit such as an imperial courier. That approach comfortably takes care of mountains, seas and rivers.
In any case, rivers are no more difficult to deal with than mountains or seas.
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
following arguments have been presented in favour of in square:
Looks more natural
Can go in eight directions
Simpler to build cities on rivers.
Rivers can function as roads
|
-Since rivers on edges are easier to do on the graphics side, we can make them look more natural more easily. Besides, 90° edges give some kind of a meandering effect.
-Can go in eight directions: If rivers are on-square, you can use the height of the squares to determine how they run. That can be more problematic if they're running in between.
-Cities on rivers: I thought it was easier to determine trade and other benefits of rivers if they were on-square.
-Rivers as roads: With on-square rivers it is possible to put TF's on a river, in a boat. With edge-rivers that would place them not on a coördinate, but in some imaginary void between the already imaginary squares.
There are four possibilities, I believe to place rivers:
- on-square, with the river occupying the whole square.
(100 km broad rivers?)
- on-square, with the river running in the middle
(too confusing: east bank, river and west bank in one square )
- between squares, with no room on the river
(can't put TF's on river )
- between squares, with room on the river
( this has the least disadv., it seems)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I hadn't looked at it that way yet.
So a normal set of squares looks like:
123
456
789
1,4,7 are sea. 5 is a city.
The port would then be square a, with access only to 4 and 5.
1A 2 3
4B 5 6
C D E
7 8 9
All are land squares. The river runs a between 1 and 2, b 4 - 5, c 7-5, d 8-5, e 6-9, each river square giving access only to the pair of squares it is in between.
We can also give each square room aside, but isn't that redundant? unless we're going for a right and a left bank..
And in 4 or 8 directions?
How about the coding?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
Essentially you have it right. The only difference is that a roww looks like:
1L 1 1R, 2L 2 2R, 3L 3 3R, ...
where 1L 1 1R are all in one square, and there are corresponding up and down extra bits.
If 1 is sea, 1L and 1R hold nothing, but 2L holds a "bank" or "coast" strip. If there is a city the port will be "on the coast" in 2L.
If there is a river between 2 and 3, both 2R and 3L are "bank" or "coast" strips. Potentially a city can have four ports.
Boats on 1R are equivalent to being on 2L, and don't have direct access to 2R or 3L. Unless there is a river across the bottom. The exact system for moving around a single square, if the river permits it, will have to be established.
The code is easy.
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
If we have a shore (12 land, 34 sea)
12
34
and the river runs between 1 and 2, where is the river mouth? In 3 and 4 at once? Just to be sure.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-04-2001 09:20
|