The title pretty much says it all. One of the things I want the most for civ5, is the implementation of an actual 3d map. Now, the map is in 2d, without a z axis. Adding the 3rd dimension can greatly alter the game as the map of the game is the 1st layer of gameplay. Everything else builds on top of it. Altitude adds a lot of new strategic elements such as: Altitude dependent resources/terrain, relative position defensive bonuses (units higher than others gain an advantage), on the fly calculated movement penalties, realistic and varied map geography, new types of terrain such as cliffs, environmental elements affecting cities/improvements (micro-climates: two tiles of the same type, yield different bonuses as the climate between them is different), geological bonuses in researching a particular technology (coastal civs get a bonus towards Sailing/Fishing and so on) etc etc. So what do you think?
Civilization 5: From 2d maps to 3d worlds
- Thread starter phoinix
- Start date
A true 3D map would result in problems with movement. It would have to be based more on straight-line distance than on movement simply from tile to tile. Which would be rather annoying. It's better, IMO, to simply have visual changes in altitude in terrain on the current 2D map, like is currently implemented, but just expanded a little to include more types of terrain, like different height hills. It is one of the few aspects of the game where I think arbitrary (being in the movement points between different terrains) is the way to go.
I don't see any problem resulting from using cubes instead of tiles...Ground units would still move on the ground, there isn't any micromanagement included. Movement cost could be calculated by a formula which takes difference in altitude into account, rather easily. By 3d I mean having non constrained variables characterizing altitude. You suggest more types of terrain, but I say that this still is a grossly "discrete" solution trying to approximate reality. I want altitude being a free integer variable, not a 3 levels thing. That makes the game more interesting, as you can have a great variety of basically the same type of situation. For example a standard combat sequence, where the defender is on higher altitude, can give many different defense bonuses depending on the difference in altitude from the attacker. Thus a perfectly fortified city can still have a back door.
Also the micro-climate of the region and the altitude could be used to calculate different fertility values for the same type of terrain. Basically you still have a fixed amount of terrain types, but with a lot more flexibility added to them.
Hail
Satan's minion
some of what you wish to achieve by a 3d map was in SMAC.
i think it's a waste of time, the devs should concentrate on gameplay issues, but game won't sell without eye-candy. so a 3d map is a GREAT idea!
the concept of environment influenced research is a cool idea, but i have no clue how to make it work.
But a 3d map is a gameplay issue. That is if the 3rd dimension is used, not just to add nice graphics.
counting the coastal cities/sea tiles of a civ could give a bonus of x beakers towards researching sea techs. It goes without saying that certain techs aren't influenced by the environment.
counting the coastal cities/sea tiles of a civ could give a bonus of x beakers towards researching sea techs. It goes without saying that certain techs aren't influenced by the environment.
Hail
Satan's minion
what else goes by without saying?
Civ already uses a 3D map and there is already a defensive bonus when your defending on a hill. Terrain dependent resources are there too!
What you want is a more detailed map. Personally I like to be able to know what a tile will yield, what the movement cost is and what the defensive value is with only a brief look. If the map gets very complex it will take a lot of time to figure out city placement and what improvements will do. If the research is also affected (more than "plains hills hive +25%
when researching iron working") then it becomes impossible to keep track of everything. It will also be hard to balance improvements if there is a nearly unlimited number of terrain.
I belive Firaxis have limited the number of terrain types and features for a very good reason.
What you want is a more detailed map. Personally I like to be able to know what a tile will yield, what the movement cost is and what the defensive value is with only a brief look. If the map gets very complex it will take a lot of time to figure out city placement and what improvements will do. If the research is also affected (more than "plains hills hive +25%
when researching iron working") then it becomes impossible to keep track of everything. It will also be hard to balance improvements if there is a nearly unlimited number of terrain.I belive Firaxis have limited the number of terrain types and features for a very good reason.
Techs like "Constitution" and "Democracy" aren't affected by the environment don't you think?
As a matter of fact, only the techs that are directly connected with the environment are safe to get bonuses from it.You can hardly say that civ's map is 3d. The defensive bonus is a fixed 25% as if every hill in the world is the same. Anyway, i never complained about the lack of a defensive bonus and i didn't say anything about terrain dependent resources (altitude dependent). I never said unlimited types of terrain either (the existing types are enough to cover altitude zones as well). I said existing types yield varied bonuses of the same type. You could still build cottages, mines, whatever. And I think it's safe to say that the people who actually calculate food/hammers/commerce in order to find the best city placement, are hardcore at least. I always do that intuitively and that wont change with a more detailed map.
I also think that the best way to see the benefits of 3d, is to combine it with quantitative resources.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,267
That would be really cool.
That, would be cool too.
I don't get you there.
hmmm, miam.
I always thought that Civ series was a great occasion to simulate geography in a fun way (with a serious and detailled map generator that, for example, simulate tectonic plates - that would lead to earthquakes and volcanos), so this appeals to me.Seems redundant with the first example, or I do not get it fully.
This can be done with a 2D map.
CarlGustaffa
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 41
Yes I'd want this, but only if we had bigger sized maps to begin with. Less movement cost, greater distance between cities. In fact, there should be a pollution penalty to building cities too close that would show up in the later game as a problem. Some civs would be prone to density, others would be prone to spreading their city distance.
Railroading a single tile should mean nothing, except add pollution. To get the bonus, you would have to railroad all the way to a city.
I like altitude based resources and terrain, but I'm not sure yet what to put where But I'm not sure about altitude based defensive bonuses. If anything, less defensive bonus from elevated terrain than from defending a hill. Altitude should be completely separated from hill and mountain which should still be terrain features. You should be able to have both hilly and flat lowlands and highlands.
But I'd want movement bonuses and penalties depending on going uphill or downhill (from one altitude to another), but less so than when crossing hilly terrain.
Railroading a single tile should mean nothing, except add pollution. To get the bonus, you would have to railroad all the way to a city.
I like altitude based resources and terrain, but I'm not sure yet what to put where
But I'm not sure about altitude based defensive bonuses. If anything, less defensive bonus from elevated terrain than from defending a hill. Altitude should be completely separated from hill and mountain which should still be terrain features. You should be able to have both hilly and flat lowlands and highlands.But I'd want movement bonuses and penalties depending on going uphill or downhill (from one altitude to another), but less so than when crossing hilly terrain.
Fair enough. What a 3D map alter how movement is conducted by the player, or implemented in the game?
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I wouldn't mind Firaxis Game do take an initiative to at least experiment with the 3d environment with maybe a small spin-off game of some sort.
Ok maybe "on the fly" calculated movement costs was a bit too much, adding just complexion. A simple movement cost upwards>movement cost downwards would do fine. I still would like an adaptive defensive bonus though. Of course such a thing would have an upper limit, and could be rounded.
I can see mountains being used as peaks, but hills...
The way units move will remain the same, if that's your question. I can see how 3d is a bit confusing, suggesting movement in 3 dimensions, but that's not what I meant. It still is movement in a 2d map. I'm suggesting an actual implementation of height, more than just hills/mountains, that would have the benefit of adding new interesting gameplay and pretty graphics.
edit: To summarize, it's a way to bring into the equation the fact that certain tiles of a specific type are more productive than others due to rains, nearby volcanoes, rivers etc and do that without adding more terrain types.
I can see mountains being used as peaks, but hills...
The way units move will remain the same, if that's your question. I can see how 3d is a bit confusing, suggesting movement in 3 dimensions, but that's not what I meant. It still is movement in a 2d map. I'm suggesting an actual implementation of height, more than just hills/mountains, that would have the benefit of adding new interesting gameplay and pretty graphics.
I'll get back to you once I have decided what I meant
edit: To summarize, it's a way to bring into the equation the fact that certain tiles of a specific type are more productive than others due to rains, nearby volcanoes, rivers etc and do that without adding more terrain types.
Similar threads
