Globeshaped map with hexagons for Civ IV

[hr_oskar]

Generally speaking, I support a round globe - eventually. - I'm not optimistic about it in Civ4 though.

I think what we need to have before it's feasible are some mechanisms to limit the movement of armies and fleets - so that you can't send your galley or warrior on a centuries-long trip around the globe, across desolate mountains and tundras or arctic seas, because in real-life that wasn't possible until a certain level of technology and organization was reached. With such limitations, our map wouldn't actually be completely explored before we get the explorer, and the whole world wouldn't be settled so easily. The civilized world expands too easily as it is.

 

[Pembroke]

Flat maps are simple and they work.

If you want the civ map to be a true globe and still view it as a flat screen divided into sectors (squares or hexagons or actually any polygon you like) you will have the same problem as the cartographers. Something has to break or be distorted.

From the practical point of view, turning civ maps into true 3D globes means a lot of work so I am not holding my breath.

However, this doesn't mean you couldn't have globe-like behaviour with flat maps. With appropriate edge-wrapping you can get more interesting maps, and wrapping isn't any big issue to implement with computers.

My vote would thus be: leave the maps flat but include different wrap-options for them settable in the editor. For example:

1) Pancake: No wrapping. Flat-Earth society is right and Ol' Cristobal would have dropped of the edge.

2) Vertical Cylinder: East-West wrapping. This is the current civ map.

3) Horizontal Cylinder: North-South wrapping. Like 2 but rotated 90 degrees.

4) Donut: East-West wrap plus North-South wrap. This isn't a globe although many games use it as such. The actual topology is more like a donut.

5) Flattened Balloon: This object has the same topology as a globe and would be a better approximation of Earth than a donut. Except it produces a weird-looking map. Imagine it like this: Start with a square disk. In the midpoint of the topside draw a dot and label it North Pole. Same with the downside except that's the South Pole. With this image in mind the wrap algorithm should now be obvious: Start from the North Pole and travel to the edge of the square disk. This is the equator. Cross the edge to the downside and travel to the downside midpoint. You are now in the South Pole. Continue in the same direction (except it isn't the same direction anymore because you are now heading North ) until you again come to the edge. Cross it to the topside and travel to the midpoint (North Pole) and you have succesfully gone round the world. Nice, but as I said, the map will look weird...

6) Polar Displacement: As mentioned Earth is not a donut and you shouldn't get to the South Pole going North when in the North Pole. However, if you look at an actual globe Earth Map and what happens when you cross the Poles, you should easily figure out what ought to happen in a similar situation with a flat map: going north when you are in the top (northernmost) row of the map should move you one-half map width to East/West. Of course, as the civ map does not take into account that squares near the poles are smaller than those near the equator this again produces a weird result. But it could be fun or at least sometimes surprising.

 

[Ribannah]

A real globe, which is what I prefer, would require either the dynamic creation of tiles (hexagons or otherwise) or to abandon tiles entirely, except maybe in the city screen.

Both is doable, but it's quite a leap from Civ3. I fear we should be happy with the addition of a hemisphere map (pole in the centre, equator is the edge).

As an alternative (or addition) to the donut there is the 7-hexes map (the H7) which actually looks like a perfect globe from all 7 (!) directions, as long as you don't think about the dark side of the globe which can't quite be visualized until you get there.

 

[Four Four Seven]

How about this idea?

Why not make one huge space for the poles, the width of the map? If, say, you go to the North Pole space, you can then in your next move go to ANY space one row down.

I realize this is not exactly what it's like near the poles, but it's a close approximation without getting things too complex mapwise.

 

[robehans]

I think it would be nifty with the dodekaedron (spelled right???), just a bit expanded, so it would have several squares... ...I believe that in the future, games in one package can hold several "different" games, that would mean that we could choose on squares or pentagons... But i think that if they are going to give the "square" more corners, and thus sides, then they should also ake it possible to clarify the terrain a bit, I.E. with a top view, (that i have longed for so long to civ 3) that would give you a "sattelite image" of the area...
I am not going to bother my tiny brain with complex 3D stuff right now, but is it possible to to fit the pentagons on the north and south poles and make these areas impossible to inhabit? That would solve the problem with the cities having a pentagon in theyre radius...
Then again... Why could they not just make a land mass of tundra on both the poles, and just give us a possibility to have troops there or something... i'd also like the possibility of sailing "over" the planet as in sailing trough the north pole and then emerging on the other side...

 

[Padma]

I support a round globe structure, for Civ5, or maybe 6.

Flat maps work and the computational side effects of using a globe system are more than I would want to inflict on low-end-system users at present. But someday, it would be nice.

 

[DaDoo]

I think flat maps works great for now. Round globe is going to slow down games so much I doubt it will be implimented until 2-3 generation of civ games at least.

Just think.. round 3D globe? Just how many tiles do you plan to stuff inside? One even suggeste do away with the tiles, if so, how is the improvements within city radius going to be handled? Do away with the worker too then? Besides, I think there is still no meaningful transportation/vehicle to travel the poles even now. Sure planes can fly over but not very many do. Missiles can and that's being represented as ICBM's in the game already. We've only been able to put up small colonies at the poles due to the overly harsh environment. Submarines are the only transportation over the north pole and that's true only because there's no land mass underneath.

Some have argued that bombers can fly over the poles and such. With the limited range the bombers we have in the game, I don't think it can fly over the poles and bomb any cities even if you CAN travel over it. So I think the flat map we have now is a relatively good approximation of the traversed world as it is.

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by Barker
Why would anyone want Civ IV to be globe-shaped? Everybody knows that the Earth is flat. Sheesh.

Yes that is true, everyone knows the world is flat and the continents are Pangua. Everyone also knows that you can't get from here (USA) to Moscow by going over the North Pole, THere are road blocks on the North and South pole that won't let you go any further. You have to get to Moscow via the equator.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Yes, globe without tiles. Let workers build roads at a rate of a certain length per turn. Or clear a certain square mileage of forest per turn, etc. Let the city radius truly be a radius! Let military units have a center and an effective range from that center to which they block enemy movement. (Uh-oh: the next logical step is to allow different formations: circular when surrounded, flattened-rectangle when holding a line, ...)

The terrain could then be arbitrarily shaped, although you'd still want the boundaries of any given forest or landmass to be simple, to save bytes.

All this would probably increase the data storage and processing demands of the program. On the other hand it might actually make programming simpler for the Firaxians (after some initial learning phase getting used to the new ideas).

 

[MSGT John Drew]

But just imagine the marketing ploy that Firaxis (or Infogames whoever) could make if they make a round map:

"Features 3D Map of the World with complete functionality!"

(Ok so it's not really 3D but still 2D but it's the mktg statement that counts and not what you think brainiac.)

If I'll have to think of a better plan to further boost this game in the mktg department then this is it.

I always liked X-Com's use of the globe. Just being able to turn the globe at a whim is enough for me to give my.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by robehans
I am not going to bother my tiny brain with complex 3D stuff right now, but is it possible to to fit the pentagons on the north and south poles and make these areas impossible to inhabit?

No, that is not possible. It is either 12 or 6 corners that will display distortions.
What IS possible is to reduce the size of the pentagons at will, but that doesn't solve the problem. Centralizing on a spot which brings the tiny pentagon (or two, or an elongated hexagon) into view will always show a gap on the 2D screen because there is no land at the missing side(s), where there is curvature in 3D space.
One could disallow bringing the view closer to the pentagons but that makes scrolling rather awkward. That is the only solution, but not a comfortable one.

 

[Anders JJ]

Maybe you can make a globe that only exists as a structure in the game engine. It would be used in all game aspects of the AI or pathfinding. But the human player would always see the game through a mercator projection translater, so the world would seem as flat as in civ3.
I know it would require changes in my original vision. The UFO navigation aspect would have to be removed, and the pentagon problem wouldnt be solved, but is it possible?
Another thought: Would the AI have a desicive advantage because of it´s globe perspective?
Thanks.
Anders

 

[kb2tvl]

I would love to see a glob map but I think it would be a difficult adjustment for me as a player...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Anders JJ: excellent idea! then it wouldn't have to be true hexagons after all.....

 

[CamDawg]

How about one more option- hexagon tiles, flat map. I much prefer the hexagon tiles rather than the isometric diamonds they have now. One thing I've never liked about the diamonds is that they distort movement-- moving a tile to the north, south, east or west is actually 1.4 times the size of a move to the SE, NE, SW, or NW. Moving from a hex would be the same amount to the next hex in any direction.

I believe that pathfiding would be faster with hexes (6 options from any tile, rather than 8) and any radius-- city, cultural, zone of control-- would be closer to an actual circular shape. You could finally lay out your cities with no overlapping tiles!