Map elevation 3D model - does it feel truly scaled for all different map sizes?

[Lazy sweeper]

Civ VII introduced new elevation models into the map generation process, but from what we have been shown untill now, the map and 3D elevation models still looks
overwhelmingly flat, even compared to the old Alpha Centaury, original Popolous kind of 3D modeling that gave a higher perception of terrain irregularity, and verticality.
What are your impressions from the first footage of the game? Do you feel the map is still flat like a sheet of paper with some random mountains tiles here and there, or
does a good job at creating different elevation patterns, doing a better job than Humankind for example?
Do you get a sense of scaling to higher resolutions or is it still like the Earth as seen from the International Space Station???

If you watch the video linked, at the end of the video, there is a 2k resolution map of Alaska.
That looks like the resolution adopted in Civ VII when all zoomed in.
So the scaling looks really off.
ARA maps looks like they are satellite pictures take with a 2K resolution, but when zooming in, there is no elevations, the model is applied to all zoom levels.
Plus cities and units seems to have been designed around the upper scale resolution working from top to bottom, and they don't really worked at max zoom
because they used ants instead of 3D models...

 

[gdr_willter]

I'm just fine with the "visible" representation for strategic things. You really want some massive terrain features which overwhelm and hide other things?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I'm just fine with the "visible" representation for strategic things. You really want some massive terrain features which overwhelm and hide other things?

Zooming in and out, and units and building scaling with zoom levels can work wonders IMO.
It's a virtual world, so everything is possible.
But yes, given the fact all basic non-wheeled units can traverse all types of terrains, as is basically now the case, I'd want to explore different approach to
map representation. Something that visually can help identify different elevations and flood prone terrain other than a number or property applied to every coastal tile,
which is always the same basic flat tile everywhere... struck a balance, without going too hard I think it's possible, but currently is just over and over the same flat piece of paper...
We know there has been changes, so this is good IMO, but do they feel like impressive or not, that is the question.
I don't want literally the Himalayas in the game... no, don't take it too extreme, I don't mean that can be beneficial...

Also, the game has evolved big time from the static view of Civ III, where scaling could go up to 25600 tiles maps, but still only have only two zoom levels (Z).
Maps has decreased in size dramatically, of course if you put a mountain range of 10 tiles elevation within a 100x100 tiles map, is going to hide other features...
If the map was 4 MILLION X 4 MILLION tiles, maybe it would work?
I don't know, I'm just making some assumptions... the fact is that it still looks like the map is using artifacts for representing a 3-4 levels of elevation, and they still looks flat.

If I'm not wrong, tiles were 64x64 pixels in size back to civ 3. Using pixels instead of tiles differs from square to hexagon, I don't even know the pixel count for Civ VII basic tiles, I hope
to give the idea, even if I used completely wrong specs.

Take for example a volcanic island like the Hawaii. Huge vulcano, with hillside slopes, and then some coastal tiles. Yes, the vulcano would look huge in comparison, but I think
it would look cool. Once we get used to it, we would think probably otherwise. I know I would.
And on an otherwise critic your argument would be "Do you want to go back to how things were in the past? Do you not like innovation?"
Same emphasis as "You really want huge feat to hide other things?" .... Rotate map would be standard at that point...

---Civ 3---------Civ 4--------Civ 5--------Civ 6

100x100_____80x48_____80x52_____84x54 | Standard

140x140____100x60____104x64____96x60 | Large

160x160____100x60____128x80____106x66 | Huge

256x256 and up, custom (civ 3 only)

Civ 3 custom maps could go way higher, like 400x400... at this scales, making a +6max peak elevation ranges, could give good results.
On a 1000x1000 tiles probably a +10 elevations could work.
The problem here is the smaller maps, and the consistency of the graphics at all map sizes under a single rule.
I think this is why we had only a +3 elevation map ever since civ was born... at all maps sizes the elevation was modeled under the smallest map size, which was 100x100 originally.
So by this time, map scaling should have evolved with regards of map sizes, but in reality nothing has changed under this aspect.

Finally scaling applies to all sorts of other aspects of the game, like unit movement, tech cost, etc, so downsides of having a bigger environment to work with, can be softened.
Exploration on the other hand would assume new levels of awesomeness.
4+ elevation waterfalls!!! Water Physix!!!
Trees and forests could get a 3D revamp, and get up to +3 elevation, which could actually dwarfs units, functioning as natural fog of war.
Mountains tree line at +7!!!
There 's going to be downsides, but clever tricks could get around any of these.

 

[evonannoredars]

Do you feel the map is still flat like a sheet of paper with some random mountains tiles here and there, or
does a good job at creating different elevation patterns, doing a better job than Humankind for example?

+ "Does it feel truly scaled?" + "Map looks better than Humankind in representing elevations"
These are five different questions.
The map certainly feels less flat, from what I've seen humankind uses different terrain elevations more - humankind maybe creates them better, but I think it looks better in civ. They both achieve terrain elevation differences in different ways, so it's hard to compare.
In short; no, yes, no, yes and yes respectively.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

+ "Does it feel truly scaled?" + "Map looks better than Humankind in representing elevations"
These are five different questions.
The map certainly feels less flat, from what I've seen humankind uses different terrain elevations more - humankind maybe creates them better, but I think it looks better in civ. They both achieve terrain elevation differences in different ways, so it's hard to compare.
In short; no, yes, no, yes and yes respectively.

Yeah, sorry for the other questions, I made the pool question with just one, so you think it looks better than HK. That is ok for me.
All else are truly just arguments for discussion.

Less flat and truly scaled do not compute. Yes it looks less flat, even to me, they have done an exceptional work at that!!
But the scaling works subtly...
The scaling perception has to be looked at with respect to different map sizes.
A map the size of England and a map the size of Sicily, on the same 100x100 tiles, England should look half the general scale of Sicily (Etna is 3000mt)
So if a map with Etna volcano at a +10 elevation max peak, on a 100x100 tiles map could work, trying to squeeze anything bigger, in other terms, increasing
satellite map resolution from say 10mts to 10Km... (Hexes-tiles from 1Km scale to 100Km diameter change) should reduce peak range to +1... so even a +1 mountain would look
out of scale. And that is how actually scale works currently, more or less.
What can be done is working with scales and map sizes so increasing map sizes would scale down +10 to +1 visually, but it would be the smaller scale to dictate the scaling and not
the bigger around. Zooming in a bigger map size would retain the +10 elevation of the smaller scale, but zoomed out, you would not feel overwhelmed by the terrain and features.
How this is achieved is the big "?"

 

[Gorbles]

It's a virtual world, so everything is possible.

Strongly, strongly disagree.

Not only is it not possible to do "anything" given technical constraints and available resource, but logically you shouldn't do "anything". Miniaturising the globe to fit on a monitor ruins available detail. Excessive use of LODs (and swapping in textures / preloading textures) will impact performance.

It's a good thought exercise, but it mostly rests on whether or not you like the look of VII as-is. And I quite like what I've seen of it so far (even if I think VI is kinda underrated).

 

[Seek]

Wrt elevation representation and clarity, HK easily takes the cake, there’s really no contest, whereas Civ 7 only implies it. It’s actually “fake” elevation, as I understand the explanation from one of the streams, and is actually just impassable breaks between tiles graphically represented as cliffs.

For scaling, I would prefer something similar to Ara, or maybe older civs like 4/5. Civ 7 does a very poor job in this regard imo, and I’m already planning on increasing settlement spacing to 4 or even 5 with commensurate map size increase.

But for overall aesthetics I prefer Civ 7 to HK by a bit, I really like them both. The worst part about HK’s maps are the odd grayness to them which can be fatiguing after a while.

(As a side note, imo Civ 6 was by far aesthetically the worst of the series, and I only began to enjoy the game after I tried the Civ 5 terrain mods. The “cartoony” graphics removed much of the immersion for me.)

 

[Gorbles]

Wrt elevation representation and clarity, HK easily takes the cake, there’s really no contest, whereas Civ 7 only implies it. It’s actually “fake” elevation, as I understand the explanation from one of the streams, and is actually just impassable breaks between tiles graphically represented as cliffs.

Speaking not as a challenge, but as aⁿ genuine question: what would "real" elevation look like assuming we can't actually model real-world physics with 100% accuracy?

(I have no knowledge of Humankind)

I'm assuming all possible types of elevation in a video game range from "less abstracted" to "more abstracted", so in my opinion it's all "fake".

Real elevation would only matter if everything else relating to it (combat, navigation) was also "real" (in that you'd need more real-time attributes like windup, reload, acceleration, even things like wind speed / direction. Or maybe you could go as simplistic as vision, but would that be enough to make it feel "real"? And does elevation affect vision in VII already? I haven't paid that close attention.

 

[Seek]

Speaking not as a challenge, but as aⁿ genuine question: what would "real" elevation look like assuming we can't actually model real-world physics with 100% accuracy?

(I have no knowledge of Humankind)

I'm assuming all possible types of elevation in a video game range from "less abstracted" to "more abstracted", so in my opinion it's all "fake".

Real elevation would only matter if everything else relating to it (combat, navigation) was also "real" (in that you'd need more real-time attributes like windup, reload, acceleration, even things like wind speed / direction. Or maybe you could go as simplistic as vision, but would that be enough to make it feel "real"? And does elevation affect vision in VII already? I haven't paid that close attention.

For reference, here is an in-game image from HK. The game has multiple tiers of elevation represented very clearly, and elevation has a large effect in terms of vision and combat (ie, bonuses attacking from high ground).

So this is more "real" elevation in my mind, whereas Civ 7 is more "fake" in that it only indicates elevation with occasional cliffs that do not represent actual elevation levels. The cliffs do have minor various gameplay effects, the most important of which (as far as I understand at this point) is that they're impassible.

 

[Gorbles]

Ah, so it's a visual scale kind of thing. Civ is definitely more compact than that; arguably always has been. While to me that looks very pleasing at a glance, it's a very different aesthetic scale overall.

Do we know if VII has any combat modifiers r.e. attacking from cliffs? I figure that'd be something to expect given how we've had river combat modifiers for multiple games (I think).

 

[AriochIV]

The map elevation in Civ7 is largely cosmetic... it doesn't really affect gameplay except for where there are cliffs.

 

[Taefin]

I scanned through the three age live streams and couldn’t even find any cliffs for comparison. I see a few screenshots on Reddit, and I can’t even tell if cliffs can occur with northern tiles at the base of the cliff or if they must align with the games from-the-south perspective.

I suspect cliffs were added to create tactical variety without needing to spend entire tiles on mountains, especially given the more compressed scale of the maps.

I prefer the Civ7 approach to HK since it makes the map feel larger. It doesn’t feel global in scale by any means, but HK maps felt very regional because of the cliffs and elevation being so pronounced. It also felt more like playing in a fantasy (and pretty) tabletop setting vs a natural environment.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Alpha Centauri still looks more 3D than every Civ that ever existed, and to some, it might be also superior to HK.
To me, this was a time of experimentation that produced timeless games, and it's a pity, that this road has found a dead end.

This is 'Real' 3D, for what it concerns me, it is about the feeling...

 

[Gorbles]

I still love SMAC but to pretend that that elevation looks in any way realistic (in a way that would support the visuals later Civ games use) is, uh. Well, it's an opinion for sure. I respect that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

First, any elevation decreases map readability, because it distorts and hides some objects. The bigger and rougher it is, the worse the effect is. Purely flat map is the most readable one.

So, it's kind of compromise. IMHO, Civ7 shows enough elevation to make map look alive without breaking visibility too much.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Yes, readibility is a thing, that is why strategic view was introduced. But experimentation and innovation should have brought us both choices.
A pseudo-3D map, would then allow for more realistic fluids physics.
River direction of flow is a possible simulation oddity that currently could be possible to implement by cheating, but adding sub-tile-square based elevations, would
allow fluids and rivers to flow naturally.
And then there is map rotation... SMAC POV was fixed, one angle, two at best.
By now there is no excuse for restricting POV to a fixed angle and zoom level.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, readibility is a thing, that is why strategic view was introduced. But experimentation and innovation should have brought us both choices.
A pseudo-3D map, would then allow for more realistic fluids physics.
River direction of flow is a possible simulation oddity that currently could be possible to implement by cheating, but adding sub-tile-square based elevations, would
allow fluids and rivers to flow naturally.
And then there is map rotation... SMAC POV was fixed, one angle, two at best.
By now there is no excuse for restricting POV to a fixed angle and zoom level.

Relying on map rotation is really a bad idea. A lot of game developers went that route, ignoring visibility and it always was awful. I believe, I first met this in HoMM series after they moved to 3D and it made playing the game so much worse.

The map should be readable without dancing around or switching to strategic view.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

IIRC (it was a long time ago and i was quite a young gamer back then, not paying as much attention to intricate mechanisms), elevation in SMAC had some real in-game effects (like solar plants producing more energy), but the visualization wasn't that great. It was still a slightly distorted flat land, and even the simple mountains of Civ5 and 6 gave me more of an altitude feel than the terrain in SMAC.

Rotate map would be standard at that point...

Please no, the last thing i want is to constantly rotate my map each time i want to move a unit or place an improvement! Map rotation is fine in some games, but i don't think it belongs in a Civ game.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Relying on map rotation is really a bad idea. A lot of game developers went that route, ignoring visibility and it always was awful. I believe, I first met this in HoMM series after they moved to 3D and it made playing the game so much worse.

The map should be readable without dancing around or switching to strategic view.

There is always the possibility of switching to a bird-view, like Civ IV outta space zoom, it worked marvels...
Then there are other tricks that can be used to identify units behind obstacles, like pillars of light, or wired contours-pseudo transparency etc..
There sure are bad examples but at the same time there's good one.

Think of VR also, how would Civ be in VR?

 

[stealth_nsk]

There is always the possibility of switching to a bird-view, like Civ IV outta space zoom, it worked marvels...
Then there are other tricks that can be used to identify units behind obstacles, like pillars of light, or wired contours-pseudo transparency etc..
There sure are bad examples but at the same time there's good one.

Think of VR also, how would Civ be in VR?

It works the same as strategic view. Meaning it works ok, but if it allows seeing something you don't see in default view, that's pretty bad design of the default view.