Civ3 maps should evolve beyond flat

[TETurkhan]

I have been working on a world map this past week, and was thinking that it would make things so much easier if Civ was played on a globe rather than a flat plain. There are lot of programmers here, what do you people think, would it be hard for Firaxis to do this?

The following is an interesting read on the subject - taken from an article online:

The fact that maps distort reality cannot be denied. It is absolutely impossible to depict a round earth on a flat surface without sacrificing at least some accuracy. In fact, a map can only be accurate in one of four domains: shape, area, distance, or direction. And in modifying any of these, our perception of the earth is affected.

There is currently a debate raging over which commonly used map projection is the “best” projection. Among a multitude of options, there are a few that stand out as the most recognized projections; these include the Mercator, the Peters, the Robinson, and the Goode’s, among others. In all fairness, each of these projections has its strong points. The Mercator is used for navigation purposes because great circles appear as straight lines on maps utilizing this projection. In doing so, however, this projection is forced to distort the area of any given landmass relative to other landmasses. The Peters projection combats this area distortion by sacrificing accuracy of shape, distance, and direction. While this projection is less useful than the Mercator in some respects, those who support it say that the Mercator is unfair in that it depicts landmasses in the high latitudes as being much larger than they really are in relation to landmasses in the lower latitudes. They claim that this creates a sense of superiority among people who inhabit North America and Europe, areas that are already among the most powerful in the world. The Robinson and the Goode’s projections, on the other hand, are a compromise between these two extremes and they are commonly used for general reference maps. Both projections sacrifice absolute accuracy in any particular domain in order to be relatively accurate in all domains.

Is this an example of maps “creating reality”? The answer to that question depends on how we choose to define reality. Reality could either be described as the physical actuality of the world, or it could be the perceived truth that exists in peoples’ minds. Despite the concrete, factual basis that can prove the verity or the falsehood of the former, the latter may very well be the more powerful of the two. If it weren’t, those - such as human rights activists and certain religious organizations - who argue in favor of the Peters projection over the Mercator would not be putting up such a fight. They realize that how people understand the truth is often just as important as the truth itself, and they believe that the Peters projection’s areal accuracy is - as the Friendship Press claims - “fair to all peoples.”

Interesting huh? (I am a geek what can I say)
Anyway this got me thinking to change my map to an "Upside down Peters projection map", it would be cool cause we dont think of the world that way, though why not? In Australia they have maps where the World is upside down... its all relative...
here is an image of what it would look like - let me know what you people think:

 

[TETurkhan]

Same map as above except flipped. You will notice with Peters map Africa is longer as well as South America.

 

[Zouave]

Jeez, that upside down map makes me dizzy!

No dis, but I can think of fifty things about Civ 3 I'd worry about before being concerned with map projections.

 

[TETurkhan]

almost shocks ya huh? Hard to break the mental image I have of the world, thats why I think it would be cool to make such a map

its the same map yet I have a feeling people might play it differently... hmm... who knows...

 

[Trabpukcip]

Ok there it is.

I just found someone who think the same! WOW!

Civ map should be on a sphere, not a cylinder. But thought I would still prefer a 2 dimentionnal graphics... so there is the projection problem.

My suggestion... Have the world map on a sphere that we could rotate and have the main screen using a mercator projection so that we could still have a square based tiles map for the game... tricky!

 

[-proletarian-]

CivIV (assuming there IS a civ4) should use 3d maps. I think a sphere would be a little tricky to pull off, but a 3d map, fully rotatable, would be a treat.

 

[cracker]

I'm with Zouave on this one. Implementing 3d maps and giving every race their "fair share" of the world is low enough on the priority list that Firaxis (and all the other competent humans on the planet) should not be wasting their time on these issues.

teturk,

you seem to be posting about 99% of your focus towards racial, ethnic, and social issues that have --zero-- to do with game play functionality.

Do you really want resources to be sucked off from fixing bugs and severe logic flaws just to focus on whose teeth are prettier?

Does it really matter if Ghengis looks like a Ferengi or Bill Clinton or Jackie Chan?

We are still in a mode of needing to focus on basic game play functionality that was not included in the original game and that still has not yet been released in a patch.

Some of this aesthetic and social stuff, you can fix and avoid by using the tools that are already available to you (if that is really your main priority.) The game will look different but it will still play like a brick. Will that make you happy?

 

[Evie]

Originally posted by cracker
I'm with Zouave on this one. Implementing 3d maps and giving every race their "fair share" of the world is low enough on the priority list that Firaxis (and all the other competent humans on the planet) should not be wasting their time on these issues.

teturk,

you seem to be posting about 99% of your focus towards racial, ethnic, and social issues that have --zero-- to do with game play functionality.

Probably because unless some *****-o-matics on this forum he's actually content with gameplay. God know I am. So what right exactly do you have to ***** at him for asking for the fix that *HE* wants ; especially since unlike some of the fix people like Zouave wants (Culture) will affect game elements OTHER people like (by removing them, no less)?

In essense Zouave wants to make my gameplay *LESS* interesting for me. Teturkhan just wants to fix little annoying details in aspect (if I want to puke everytime I see the Genghis leaderhead, that's an annoying detail) that won't really affect anyone if they were changed. Sure some of them (IE this thread) aren't really IMPORTANT, but they won'T reduce anyone's enjoyment of the game, unlike some of the "brilliant" ideas of your friend Zouave.

Do you really want resources to be sucked off from fixing bugs and severe logic flaws

Bug-fixing, no, but logic flaws? Spare me. Civilization is a game with logic flaws, always was. If you want a game without logic flaws, go find another game.

just to focus on whose teeth are prettier?

If he wants a leaderhead not to make him puke, I can agree with him.

Does it really matter if Ghengis looks like a Ferengi or Bill Clinton or Jackie Chan?

In Genghis's particular case - YES.

We are still in a mode of needing to focus on basic game play functionality that was not included in the original game and that still has not yet been released in a patch.

And which YOU (but not all the world) wants. Stop taking your wish for the whole community's wishes. Sure airbase are cool, but they're hardly necessary for the game to be enjoyable.

Some of this aesthetic and social stuff, you can fix and avoid by using the tools that are already available to you (if that is really your main priority.) The game will look different but it will still play like a brick.

So you say. Personally, as I say, I enjoy Civ III just right as it is - only missing thing is the soon-to-be-released scenario editor. The rest's just icing on the cake.

So why don't you just leave Teturkhan alone on his complaining when the complaining of people like Zouave and friends is complaining that may actually lower people's enjoyment of this game, whereas Teturkhan's complaining is not likely to harm anyone?

Will that make you happy?

What would make me happy would be for the self-important people who have nothing better to do than ***** at how bad Civ III is to leave those who actually enjoy it alone instead of *****ing whenever we discuss small issues behind the notice of your "highness".

 

[TETurkhan]

I'm with Zouave on this one. Implementing 3d maps and giving every race their "fair share" of the world is low enough on the priority list that Firaxis (and all the other competent humans on the planet) should not be wasting their time on these issues.

3D map would be a great feature, it is however merely a suggestion, an idea, and ultimately it is up to Firaxis to determine which aspects of the game to focus on first. When working on my world map, I came across possible avenues to go, Mercator and Peters being the two main alternatives. One focuses on shape the other on area, but both are inaccurate. Simple fact is you cannot have an accurate map unless it’s on a sphere. That is why I made the suggestion, if it doesn’t seem realistic at this point - so be it, it is however still a good idea for future consideration.

you seem to be posting about 99% of your focus towards racial, ethnic, and social issues that have --zero-- to do with game play functionality.

There are things I do not care for in the functionality of the game, and I have posted some suggestions about it in the past – but honestly there are so many already in this forum, and unless it hasn’t been mentioned I try not to focus on it.

Do you really want resources to be sucked off from fixing bugs and severe logic flaws just to focus on whose teeth are prettier?

I think it is important for all Civilizations to be represented fairly. Maybe my comments may seem superficial, not impacting the game, I agree, but least they don’t take away from the game play.

Does it really matter if Ghengis looks like a Ferengi or Bill Clinton or Jackie Chan?
We are still in a mode of needing to focus on basic game play functionality that was not included in the original game and that still has not yet been released in a patch.
Some of this aesthetic and social stuff, you can fix and avoid by using the tools that are already available to you (if that is really your main priority.) The game will look different but it will still play like a brick. Will that make you happy?

Of course Game play is important to me, but there are so many knowledgeable people in this forum that have commented on it already, so I thought I would focus on some other simple points. A 3D world in my view is a nice idea, it makes for a perfect map, maybe it will not be practical to implement now but for the future it would be a great addition.

Finally, I don’t mind your criticism but you don’t have be sarcastic about it. I bought the game and I figure that gives me the right to voice my opinion – who are you to tell people here what to want and to talk about? I don’t care for a number of threads either, but you never see me telling people they are incompetent for having this view or that one.

 

[Civilizator]

I definitely agree with you that a great step forward in the game design would be to make the map really spherical, it is something I already pointed out in the past in this forum without attracting too much attention. The whole map would be a sphere but in normal play the screen should just show a portion of it, that you would see almost flat. The improvement in the game aspect would be simply tremendous. Distances would be more natural than now and the sensation of playing in a real world would increase. When the polar areas would be oceans, it should be possible to navigate underneath the ice with submarines, and land units should have a higher risk to perish every turn after a certain latitude, being this risk extremely high near the poles.... In my opinion, the squares should be substituted by hexagons (also in the game as it is now, with cylindrical worlds). Hexagons are the best way to divide a surface into equal tiles in order to better represent distances between points.

Well, I suppose some of you will argue that it is not possible to cover a spherical surface with hexagons, but what is true is that almost the whole spherical surface can be covered with hexagons, being just a few of them close to the poles of slightly different size than the rest close. For geometrical reasons, one or two of the tiles would need to have one more or one less side (I don´t remember now), but these particular tiles could be assigned to the poles.

I would love to hear your comments and ideas on this.

 

[TETurkhan]

there is no doubt from a realism point of view this would be a great new feature, the question is how hard is this for the programmers to do, and as some others here have pointed out - where will it fall on their list of priorities...

 

[UofAzKid]

Calm down! The grass is green, the sun is warm.

Also, I've noticed that there seems to be an overlap of Star Trek fans with Civ fans... Just an observation.

Oh yeah, calm down! It's a game.

Peace

 

[Masquerouge]

Originally posted by Civilizator
I definitely agree with you that a great step forward in the game design would be to make the map really spherical, it is something I already pointed out in the past in this forum without attracting too much attention.

Too bad I wasn't there at the time ! I think you and Teturkhan are right. A 2-d, cylinder map is not the best you could get.

Well, I suppose some of you will argue that it is not possible to cover a spherical surface with hexagons,

I won't...

I would love to hear your comments and ideas on this.

Well I think that a rotating sphere would be TREMENDOUS. Both in terms of gameplay and programming
Maybe some kind of zoom in/zoom out, zoom out you've got the sphere and zoom in a flatter map ?
However, I would understand if it's not of Firaxis Top ten priorities...

 

[Masquerouge]

Originally posted by teturkhan
Interesting huh? (I am a geek what can I say)
Anyway this got me thinking to change my map to an "Upside down Peters projection map", it would be cool cause we dont think of the world that way, though why not? In Australia they have maps where the World is upside down... its all relative...
here is an image of what it would look like - let me know what you people think:

Yes and in fact in the US they've got maps showing the american continent in the middle... A map is a very ideological tool, in my view. Now because of the Greenwich meridian and the North pole, there is an up and a center... blaaah.
I've read somewhere that the magnetic pole switches sides every now and then... Australians, be prepared

 

['Copter Pilot]

Hexagons - no way! You want your mighty armies to march in 8 directions, not 6. That's how we think of our world, and I think a spherical world cut into hexagons is worse than the cylindrical world we have now. Triangles would be the easiest way to aproximate the sphere with, but again you'll have counterintuitive marching directions.

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Masquerouge


Yes and in fact in the US they've got maps showing the american continent in the middle...

I hear that in Europe they even have maps that show Europe in the middle...

 

[Masquerouge]

Originally posted by warpstorm

I hear that in Europe they even have maps that show Europe in the middle...

Yes, that's just plain crazy isn't it ?

 

[pompeynunn]

I have a copy of a 3D Atlas that seems to cope well enough with rotating the globe as a sphere and then zooming in and out. It wouldn't take a great leap in programming to improve it to make it practical for use with Civ. The only trouble would be getting the squares (hexagons, triangles etc etc) tesselated onto the sphere.

Well, why not do away with the squares altogether? Now that Civ is starting to move away from the 'thou shalt take all moves in turns' commandment for multiplayer, who believes that the idea of squares will remain sacred?

The only trouble with this is that Civ will start to look and feel more like Age of Empires.

 

[TETurkhan]

I recall XCOM had a sphere shaped map, and that was many years ago - sure something along those lines would be great.

So the main problem is to get the squares on the sphere-3D technology has come so far, you would think it wouldn't be too difficult... I tell you one thing for sure, IF anyone could turn Civ3 map into a sphere shaped one, it would be the hottest download around, period.

 

[Trabpukcip]

Originally posted by UofAzKid

Also, I've noticed that there seems to be an overlap of Star Trek fans with Civ fans... Just an observation.
Peace

what makes you say that