 |
|  |
 |
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999 time: 23:29
|
|
What do people here think of the idea of province-based maps, where the map is divided into territories instead of tiles?
It seems to me that a province-based map would have very interesting advantages compared to a tile-based map.
1) simpler path-finding.
a map divided into territories means less paths to choose from than with tiles. So path-finding would be easier. Easier path-finding would make it easier for the AI to launch better invasions.
2) Better economics.
You only need to worry about the ressources of the territory instead of the ressources of each tile in the city radius. You don't need to manage workers building tile improvements everywhere.
2) Better looking maps.
Tiles give the terrain a "square" look, with squares of desert in the middle of squares of grassland. It can make maps look a bit unnatural.
Province-based maps can look much more natural, as you can have much more fluid lines and much smoother transitions between different terrain types.
3) faster wars.
If it takes 5 or 6 turns just getting the units to the enemy city, a short skirmish war can take a long time. With province-based maps, wars can be quicker since you can attack another province in 1 turn and if you win, you have already seized an entire area.
Faster wars means you can have more wars during a game. More wars means more excitement.
4) more strategic options.
With province-based maps, you could set the size of territories, small, medium, large, mixed. This could allow more strategic variety. With a map with lots of small territories, you would have a longer game approximating a tile based map. If you play with super large territories (like 1 territory = half of north america), you could have short games where each battle would have a lot at stake.
As a result, being able to set the size of territories, would give players an extra set of variety in the type of maps they could play on.
In conclusion, I definitely think that future civ games should consider switching to province-based maps instead of tiles.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002 time: 23:29
|
|
Tiles and provinces, maybe? Tiles for mangement of resources; provinces for movement? Sounds like a whole new game. Could be fun.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999 time: 23:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by geeslaka
In 3) you say that an entire province is gained with one battle. This implies that troops move across the province in a single turn regardless of terrain. |
Well, it could require more than 1 turn to conquer a single province, depending on the outcome of the battle. If the battle were a stalemate, then both sides could fight another battle on the next turn for the same province. So, it could take several turns to win a province.
But you are right, that units would always reach an adjacent province in a single turn regardless of terrain. This seems only fair to me, considering that a turn can represent several years.
But as I mentionned, terrain would affect units in other ways, like hit points etc...
So, units would be affected by terrain, just not in movement.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:29
|
|
We've talked about that in Clash, in 2 ways: Tiles are grouped into provinces to provide less micro-management than cities (implemented), and then we have a discussion about replacing square tiles by polygons, which is more like what you were talking about (like Risk, Diplomacy and such).
quote: simpler path-finding. |
This is true only if each region costs the same to travel, which is unrealistic, and leads to strange side effects, if the regions are of vastly varying sizes.
You don't really need regions or that. In Clash, you can manage a square all by itself, so you don't have to worry about the neighbouring squares. However, when you build a region, you may be interested in having food and production squares lumped together.
quote: Better looking maps. |
This point is hard to argue with, but if you don't have underlying squares or triangles (or hexagons), it will be extremely hard to make random maps, so they'll end up being either square-like or a repetition of the same bits of maps.
What you say is simply that with smaller maps, you have faster and more wars. I don't think the 'more' part is true, nor do I think that more wars is necessarily more fun.
quote: more strategic options. |
Except for mixed categories, what you say is basically playing a small or big maps in a tile-based game. Mixed categories makes for weird moves, giving huge importance to big regions. This can be in fact interesting.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
I'd like to see a hex map rather than tile or province.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
I can see that being done with fractals.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|