Can icecaps be given Zero movement cost to simulate sphere?

Perhaps we can make it so ground units will not be able to use them, but perhaps we can make the polar icecaps zero movement for air units so that they can fly over the the "top" of the world for no cost?

you'd have to make a sort of \/\/\/\/\/ kind of cut into the top of the world with 0 cost tiles to make it globe like and a /\/\/\/\/\ on the bottom. otherwise its not realy realistic that 2 tiles away from the pole you have to move the same distance east/west as on the equater, but the 1 row of tiles on the pole is 0 movement.
this means one of two things, you'd either need prety large amounts of the world be snow/ice covered and prety useless, or you could just make one COMPLETELY USELESS tile that has 0 movement (and even cant be stopped on, have to move off it before turn end), and make the cut ins that way.

just realized that you'd have to make it that east/west movement should be 0 cost, the north/south movement along the cutouts should still cost movement points (to prevent jumping from northpole to like southern canada just by using the 0movement cutout)

Not a bad idea. The US and USSR were VERY close to each other around the pole but you never saw insurgents use that boundry (with the acception of a few explaratory subs). But missiles do cross the poles. Airplanes do not however: U2 planes spying on Russia still went the long way around. I'm not sure if the Blackbird did though.

Does anyone know if there are any planes that do go over the pole regularily? Is the distance from Londopn to Tokyo shorter over the pole or not?

I don't quite understand why you would want to simulate a sphere when the actual map WILL be a sphere ???

you'd have to make a sort of \/\/\/\/\/ kind of cut into the top of the world with 0 cost tiles to make it globe like and a /\/\/\/\/\ on the bottom. ...

just realized that you'd have to make it that east/west movement should be 0 cost, the north/south movement along the cutouts should still cost movement points (to prevent jumping from northpole to like southern canada just by using the 0movement cutout)

I was thinking specifically of using the default polar cap tiles that block top to bottom of the map movement, but allow east/west movement at zero movement. This would allow the missles to be launched from USSR to USA, or strategic bombers... it would really depend on placement of airbases in relation to the cap (assuming that they are not using the horrible air bombardment of civ3 and assuming that planes will have actual movement rates and ranges)

As far as specific planes that cross the poles... don't some japan to usa commercial routes cross close to the northern pole? (not really sure)

I was thinking that this would solve the whole "the map is not a sphere and therefore useless" argument.

But the map will be a sphere !

But the map will be a sphere !

No, it's not. It's the same as previous Civ maps. In the zoomed-out view, the image is distorted to look like a sphere.

But the map will be a sphere !

to the best of my knowledge there are only these options:


Flat planet with edges that cannot be crossed
Tubular planet that allows wrapping of the east and west edges
Donut planet that allows wrapping of both the east and west edges AND the north and south edges



My suggestion would modify the second option - to allow the simulation that the northern and southern edges of the tubular planet would have minimum [zero] movement cost (ie. all points on the northern border would be very close in game terms and all the points on the southern border would be very close in game terms).

Wow. My bad, guys, I apologize. I really thought we would finally have spherical maps... :(

Wow. My bad, guys, I apologize. I really thought we would finally have spherical maps... :(

How about having lower and lower movement costs as you get closer to the top or bottom to simulate a non donut globe

You'd also have to remodel the way airplanes are represented (presently they have a fixed tile movement cost (civ 2) or fixed range of operations (civ3) independant of terrain types. So it would get a bit more difficult.

You'd need two values, a basic movement value dependant on terrain type and a reduction percentage for being closer to the poles. Airplanes would only use the second value. It would get complicated pretty fast.

How about having lower and lower movement costs as you get closer to the top or bottom to simulate a non donut globe

That would be interesting, but I suspect it would get complicated fast...

I don't plan on getting cIV during release week - I am going to wait for reports of AI competence and other things... if someone wants to give the zero cost movement for the poles idea a shot - please feel free.

Does anyone know if there are any planes that do go over the pole regularily? Is the distance from Londopn to Tokyo shorter over the pole or not?

No, because flying near the magnetic north pole (which is not the same as the north pole, but is close to it) makes many aircraft instruments particularly useless and inaccurate... Also the north pole has no safe land -- much of the icebergs and glaciers up there are very unsteady... a russian scientific research camp recently sank on what was previously thought to be totally sturdy ground. This breaks a primary law of aviation - always fly over a (relatively) safe emergency route. Trans-oceanic flights are a minor exception (if done properly, ocean landings are possible and safe, and rescue is not incredibly difficult. Rescue at the north pole is virtually impossible.)

No, because flying near the magnetic north pole (which is not the same as the north pole, but is close to it) makes many aircraft instruments particularly useless and inaccurate... Also the north pole has no safe land -- much of the icebergs and glaciers up there are very unsteady... a russian scientific research camp recently sank on what was previously thought to be totally sturdy ground. This breaks a primary law of aviation - always fly over a (relatively) safe emergency route. Trans-oceanic flights are a minor exception (if done properly, ocean landings are possible and safe, and rescue is not incredibly difficult. Rescue at the north pole is virtually impossible.)
Good point, though with GPS modern aircrafts should be able to know where they are, unless the GPS satellites don't cover the poles of course; I don't know.
As for the ocean landings, I haven't ever heard of a commercial plane landing in the Atlantic with the passengers surviving (it's a different matter for small aircrafts but they don't go very far anyway), so large aircrafts could as well go via the North Pole if that would be shorter.

Actually, I found a possible commercial flight via the North Pole: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/40943.htm
Issues are lower temperatures and the magnetic field as we already suspected. But it appears there is no real show stopper. You do need really big planes with a lot of fuel. If you're going on a large trip you usually stop over to tank some fuel and since there's no major airport at the North Pole, I suspect that that's the main reason the route is not used much.

Wow, well that really clears it up. Thanx Rayanth! ;) I suppose with the new info on ICBMs being unlimmited range, flying over the "pole" is a moot point.

If you want to know about commercial flights that traverse the north pole region, then look at Aeroflot, the Russian airline. They fly 777's from Seattle to moscow, and from chicago to Moscow over the northern Ice caps.

Wow. My bad, guys, I apologize. I really thought we would finally have spherical maps... :(
You will be able to look at the world in a global view. That's probably what you meant.