 |
|
|
I wish you could delete posts from a topic.. Those underground level posts by me are pretty stupid... Maybe I wasn't totally awake when I posted them  .
Anyway, another idea :-
Missiles shouldn't be moved around like units. They should be given a target and launched, and then they should attempt to hit it on their own... Accuracy would depend on guidance systems tech, distance etc.
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
|
|
As for going over the poles, I agree, only flying objects should be able to.. Or icebreakers.. So instead of trying to fit poles on the map, there could be some way of getting flying objects across.. perhaps some sort of calculations as to where they would emerge and how many moves it would take...
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
airdrik
|
 |
Nampa, ID, USA
Oct 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
At first, I didn't like the idea of pixilized maps, but now seeing some of the ideas presented here, I've changed my mind.
New ideas of discussion: It takes longer to climb a mountain, because gravity is against you, than it does to run down it, because gravity is with you. They should implement this with the new pixilized map, have it take more movement points to move to higher elivations than to lower ones.
Also, they could have mountains be made of more 'pixils' per area because a pixil would be an area perpendicular to the surface it represents, and mountains have more surface area than do plains.
Comments, suggestions?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
airdrik
|
|
Nampa, ID, USA
Oct 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
Hexagons have the same problems as squares do because they tile into a flat surface, unless you are thinking about having them be stretched to fit the terrain/map, in which it would still have the same problems as squares, you still couldn't tile them into a sphere. triangles are another story because they actually tile into 3D figures and can be stretched to fit the terrain/map.
But we are no longer talking about tiles, we are talking about having the map be made of points, if you had read the last 5-10 or so posts on this thread. It would make things much more realistic and, if programed right, might not take up as much memory as would have been anticipated. As for HOW to program it right, that's for Firaxis .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf, do you have Chris Pine's email address?
Or better still, is anyone out there from Firaxis. I don't like 100-post topics just disappearing like this, u know ..
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Those unit pics show that we really do need a larger map... For those new to this thread, a larger map would mean a much more zoomed in view, and correspondingly increased movement points... These units would look really cool on a large map.
And another thing. How about incorporating city view onto the map itself. It would be really cool to be able to see city improvements, roads, cars, smokestacks and smoke etc. on the map. Not too big, just big enough to make out. For example, if you build a nuclear plant, you should be able to see its characteristic smokestack.
And, if tiles are done away with and the pixel/co-ordinate idea is used instead, it would make for good city expansion. The only problem I foresee is, at which point on the maps would cities be attacked. Three solutions - Any movement onto a city-containing region; The 'city centre' only; or, you could garrison forces all over the city and each would have to be picked off one by one... Which would make for partially captured cities and urban warfare and stuff.. Not Civ-ish, but cool anyway...
I wish I could make a screenshot to illustrate my point. RT2 screenshots could give a rough idea.
And another thing. Unit sprites should be easily editable. Also, the thing I don't like about the sprites in CTP2 is that they stop on each square. In civ3 they should move continuously and at uniform speed to their destination or till they run out of movement points. Not in a series of one-square movements.
Just imagine - A lush, detailed landscape, large smoothly moving phalanxes and panzers and riflemen moving between proportionately large, bustling, distinct cities. It makes me feel warm all over...
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kumiorava
|
|
As Firaxis has informed us, those unit pics supplied so far will NOT be seen on the map. The actual in-game units will look different, 'tho nobody knows how much. We'll have to wait for the first screenshots to find that out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OK, I see what you mean. But won't this not allow the whole map to be shown at once?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I was just wondering..
If the map is expanded as has been proposed in this thread, then it will be possible to disallow two units to occupy exactly the same spot on the map. This could simplify stacking, and could in some way involve an expansion of the battle map concept.
I haven't given it any thought yet... Maybe someone could develop on this?
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
My vote is for the map actually being a gridless sphere but the main window should display a mercator projection of the area of the sphere you're looking at. (Something like some of the previous suggestions by Shiva (I think it was Shiva)).
The main window would look much like it does now, the world window would show a globe with a rectangle outlining the view of the main window.
Units would have movement points. When you clicked on a unit, its possible move area would darken (imagine a blob around your unit - circular if you're on a plain, long fingers heading down roads, shortened when it gets up against mountains, stopping at impassable terrain.)
The POV or "camera" would be fixed in the main window at roughly the same height and angle it is for CivII. You could side scroll on the main window and it wouldn't act much different than it does now. Only watching the world window would demonstrate how the globe was actually rotating under your main window's rectangle. The main window of course would contain a slightly distorted view of the section of the world you were looking at (it would be stretched the further you got from the centre of the screen). But balancing terrain design and the actual size of the territory displayed should be able to keep us from getting too queasy - remember, with a dynamically generated mercator projection, the centre of the screen you're looking at is always on the "equator". Look at a classic mercator map of equatorial Africa, there is very little distortion needed.
Unrealistic movement (like the CivII pole problem) would be eliminated. The calculation of each units "movement blob" would be based upon a spherical world, and just displayed with the same distortion as is inherent in the main window. That way there is no unrealistic movement possible.
This method gets you the feel of the classic side scrolling map, without the unrealistic movement near the poles. Dispensing with a grid (be it hex or square) also helps, because vector movement gives more realistic movement and doesn't result in a picture with a bunch of weirdly distorted squares or hexes on it.
Whadda ya think?
(I've got to vote against the Shogun map though - not because it isn't utterly cool, but it is far more suited for a more tactical game. Civ, for me, is about long-term strategy - not unit based tactics)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
Yeah, I realised it was probably far too late to actually influence game design, but I just had to get my two bits in.
As for how the mercator projection would work, think of it like this: the actual map is a sphere and the computer does all of its movement and range computations based upon units moving on the surface of a sphere. The main movement map however, contains a mercator projection of the portion of the sphere you're looking at. Essentially, you would spin the little globe in the corner of the screen (or hold your pointer near the edge of the screen) until the rectangle projected on the centre of the globe screen surrounded the area of the globe you wanted to look at. The computer would then "cut" that area out of the sphere and compute a mercator projection (one way to do it that is is easy to visualise is to cut the sphere section into a bunch of horizontal strips. The centre strip in the section would be longest and the strips above and below it would get progressively shorter. The computer would then stretch each strip so they were all the same length as the centre strip, and then stitch them all back together and display them as a map. Voila, a mercator projection).
As for vector movement, yeah it could lead to overlap problems, but one solution would be to just have a footprint around the base of a unit that constituted a "no stop" area for other units. In other words, units could pass through each other, but only if they had enough movement points to get all the way through.
or ...
You could allow overlap of friendly forces and then let the player drag a rectangle around units to select them. Once you dragged a rectangle, all the units in it would be displayed in a box you could select on (much like the stack selection boxes now).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, when Civ3 is finally released, P4's with 1 GB RAM may be obsolete
Echinda, great idea about the blob thing. And regarding stacking, you could group units which are close to each other and then move them preserving their grouping and relative positions... eg. Phalanx on the outside, catapults on the inside, knights on the flanks...
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-10-2000 09:42
|