22-01-2002 11:04									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Since we now have a couple of new and active posters, I thought I would stir the pot by bumpimg my favourite thread...

Cheers

	23-01-2002 19:15									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why not just use b-splines method used in quake 3?

	23-01-2002 23:52									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

That is part of my secret and diabolical long range plan (nurbs, actually).

Cheers

	24-01-2002 02:51									#34
	Suffering from ads?

Hmm gary...you never responded to my first post (way need the beggining of this thread) cuz i think that would calm alot of the qualms there are now about switching the system.

	24-01-2002 20:20									#35
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Well i'm wondering if you can code up a model using polygons using current model data structure...i think that would prob be the only way to convince a lot of people.

Is this the one you meant?

I think I did answer it, but my reply isn't visible in this response page, so I will have another attempt.

The current model structure is completely compatible with the polygon approach, more so than it is with the use of squares, actually.

This is particularly true of the military model in which positional coordinates are important. There is a bizarre "race for the border" rule implemented (by me) in the present code for the situation which occurs when a number of civs are trying to move from one square to another, and the same or other civs are trying to move in the reverse direction at the same time. The civ that reaches the border first, and all its allies, get to move as ordered. All enemies of that winning civ get their move cancelled. This sort of nonsense would not occur in a system in which true positional coordinbates were used.

Cheers

	16-02-2002 11:50									#36
	Remove this text

I refuse to let my favourite thread fade away.

I have just seen on the screen, my first cut at a Delenda scenario using a real map of the Western Mediterranean. This has really made me yearn for polygons. The map is quite rough, although recognizable. It will look better with Stian's coastlines, but still pretty coarse. I may redo it with a larger scale, that is with 50km squares rather than 100km.

On the other hand, if we had polygons...

Cheers

	23-03-2002 08:50									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Naturally the greatest reason I have for liking the region system is that it will fit in very well with the polygon system, which some people may think is my favourite subject.

Cheers

	23-03-2002 22:05									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

so what's holding up your debut of your propsal?

	23-03-2002 22:56									#39
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai so what's holding up your debut of your propsal?

I realize you probably meant this as a friendly barb, but what the h*ll kind of comment is that? Gary is "holding up" this because in a display of Great teamwork he is willing to attack first the things we've agreed should be done soonest, like the stuff in the current Expansion thread. I'm sure he would much rather be doing the polygons stuff than what he is doing now to get Demo 7 going, and I greatly respect that he is putting aside his own pet project to push forward Clash as a whole.

	24-03-2002 01:11									#40
	Put an end to popups!

Well i figured as he bumped this thread up, he must be working on it somewhat. Anyways like he said earlier most of the model would need only a very little tweaking when/if we do you use this method so i can see why'd he help and i have no problems waiting.

	24-03-2002 02:49									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I just don't want it to get buried in history, in a way that has happened to some other good proposals. I have some ideas on progressing the development, but as Mark says, I have more immediate and mundane things to get working.

Cheers

	23-07-2002 06:52									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Let "Polygons for D9" be the battlecry!

Cheers

	24-07-2002 16:03									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas Let "Polygons for D9" be the battlecry! Cheers

That would be nice, but unfortunatly i don't think it will happen...course i could be wrong.

	27-08-2002 15:06									#44
	Suffering from ads?

All polygonal games i've seen so far use either squares, triangles or hexes as base unit with which to compose polygons (Imperialism, Deadlock). What would be the base unit of our polygons, and what would be the difference with the current provinces?

	28-08-2002 03:10									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Essentially, a polygon would correspond to a square. Provinces would cover a number of polygons.

Any polygon can be decomposed into a number of non-overlapping triangles, but I do not see any reason for doing so. On the other hand, the geometry of deciding whether a line (a movement path) crosses a triangle is much simpler than that required for a polygon. It might be better to do it in terms of triangles. However it ould still appear on the screen as a polygon rather than a series of triangles.

However that is just an implementation issue and has no impact on game design.

Cheers

	10-01-2004 23:39									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Bump

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

Cheers and PF

	11-01-2004 08:38									#47
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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:

quote: 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:

quote: 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:

quote: 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...

	11-01-2004 23:07									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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

	13-01-2004 01:06									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	13-01-2004 04:44									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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

	13-01-2004 23:11									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Glad to stoke the fire.

	14-01-2004 11:51									#52
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

	17-01-2004 01:30									#53
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	17-01-2004 04:03									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	17-01-2004 14:05									#55
	Got spare money?

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).

	25-01-2004 20:23									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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!

Last edited by yellowdaddy on 25-01-2004 at 20:28

	26-01-2004 06:44									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	26-01-2004 20:07									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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!

	27-01-2004 04:00									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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

	27-01-2004 04:33									#60
	Got spare money?

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.