21-08-2001 07:35									#31
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

so you mean the world isnt shaped like a dont, Damn it i feel so mis informed..

	21-08-2001 20:43									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Visit this old thread, it treats a similar theme:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=23573

	21-08-2001 23:17									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If you really want to represent a spherical map. Have the left and right side connect. (obvious) and have each row of of rectangles acquire more width are you progress north and south from the middle of the map. (E.g. A belt of 60 squares in the middle of the map. Then a belt of 58 slightly wider rectangles above and below that, and then 56 more rectangles above and below that slightly wider than the last batch. etc. until you have just one or two really elongated rectangles at the poles.)

P.S. I hope the Earth map they include will be an area accurate Peters projection instead of the standard Mercator projection.

	22-08-2001 00:36									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

There was *another* thread in which a triangular-tiled spherical map was proposed.

IMHO, it is the best alternative for a tiled round world of homogeneous tiles. (having more than one shape of tiles would really be hell)

	22-08-2001 00:56									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by HsFB There was *another* thread in which a triangular-tiled spherical map was proposed. IMHO, it is the best alternative for a tiled round world of homogeneous tiles. (having more than one shape of tiles would really be hell)

YES! A link to the other thread is in my other post that you can see near the top of thas page.

	22-08-2001 00:58									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: area accurate Peters projection

Please no. Peters was very good in selling the very old and very awful equal area cylindrical as a new politcal correct idea. There do exist tons of equal area projections, they simply are not cylindrical.

IMHO it is much more important that a map looks good than that it is exactly equal area. If you would accept a flat map you could go for a nice sinusoidal projection. Or half the earth and take some polar projection.

That distances are too much different at different latitudes is really a problem with the too much used Mercator projection.

Using hexagons with just 12 pentagons is enough to get a nice computerized map, but in game terms that means that there are 12 special points with less neighbours, these artifical problems will play a mayor role in tactics so that is not the way to go.

A way with squares would be to make a nice projection of the earth on a cube (I saw once the formula's in some book in our library) and glue them programmatically to each other. When there will be the eight corners of the cube who will have some special role, but everything else can stay the same. and all squares will have the same number of neighbours.
Only real problem for a company like firaxis would be to redo the shortest path routines.

	25-08-2001 18:45									#37
	Increase the size of your Attachments

La la

	25-08-2001 19:48									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Using hexagons with just 12 pentagons is enough to get a nice computerized map, but in game terms that means that there are 12 special points with less neighbours, these artifical problems will play a mayor role in tactics so that is not the way to go

I have always been in favour of hexagon tiles for spheres, but gameplay doesn't really require a spherical globe, its just an added extra IMHO.

A way round the 12 pentagons is place two at the poles and force the other 10 to be ocean squares (or other square with no tactical value).

Another problem that I think was raised was that not all the hexagons will necessarily be the same shape, or will they?

	25-08-2001 21:51									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE, your all wrong wrong wrong, what ae you talking about

YOU IDIOT ! ! !

Everyone knows the world is flat.