multimaps and other questions

[Dancing Hoskuld]

@Hydro On the Galaxy map yes but on the solar system map not so. Sometimes the planets are between the stars orbiting one or the other as well as those that orbit both as well as the exceptionally rare case where the two stars orbit a planet (very unstable).

@primem0ver We have a nebula feature already

 

[Civ Fuehrer]

With my setup, it wouldn't work this way. You would go to a city with a "space port" portal, click the mission for going to the planetary (solar) system map, then move to the moon (very short distance), then click the "lander" mission and select the city you choose to land in (from the list of friendly space port portals).

I'm thinking for all space maps (galactic and solar) all orbital bodies should be in the same tile as the orbited body seeing that the distance between the star and its planets or a planet and its moon(s) is too short of a distance to be able to be put on separate tiles.

 

[primem0ver]

I'm thinking for all space maps (galactic and solar) all orbital bodies should be in the same tile as the orbited body seeing that the distance between the star and its planets or a planet and its moon(s) is too short of a distance to be able to be put on separate tiles.

I don't completely agree (If I understand you correctly). On the galaxy map, this would be true since the scale is much, much larger and it only makes sense to put the stars. But in the Planetary system map, moons and planets can be put on the same map and the distances can be made fairly relative without any losing too much realism (since cities are technically much smaller than they are on a civ map anyway).

Also, I know this may seem a bit strange but I think we can cut down on memory use by making system maps very long and skinny (not very tall at all). That may be strange for the mini-map but I think it would work fine.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I don't completely agree (If I understand you correctly). On the galaxy map, this would be true since the scale is much, much larger and it only makes sense to put the stars. But in the Planetary system map, moons and planets can be put on the same map and the distances can be made fairly relative without any losing too much realism (since cities are technically much smaller than they are on a civ map anyway).

Also, I know this may seem a bit strange but I think we can cut down on memory use by making system maps very long and skinny (not very tall at all). That may be strange for the mini-map but I think it would work fine.

I do not think long and skinny maps would be good due to the asteroid belt. An elliptical map maybe but it should be fairly round.

@Civ Fuehrer

I think we have to suspend some realism for practicality on the Solar System map. where obviously the inter solar system would be close to each other and the outer solar system would be spread farther apart. However it would not be anywhere near real life scale. If we had say a 100 wide map from the sun to the edge of the solar system. Where 1 Tile = 0.5 AU. So something like ..

Sun = Tile 1
Mercury/Venus = Tile 2
Earth/Moon = Tile 3
Mars = Tile 4
Asteroid Belt = Tile 5
Jupiter = Tile 10
Saturn = Tile 20
Uranus = Tile 40
Neptune = Tile 60
Pluto (and kin) = 80

Note that the inner solar system is still off scale but has to do without making the map extremely huge.

Alternately we might want to make the inner solar system even more spread apart like Earth maps do to Europe make it bigger than it actually is. Or we might not want to have the outer solar system at all such as the Sun to Jupiter on the map. Anything beyond that we were not planning on colonizing anyways. So something like ...

Sun = Tile 1
Mercury = Tile 4
Venus = Tile 7
Earth/Moon = Tile 10
Mars = Tile 15
Asteroid Belt = Tile 27
Jupiter = Tile 52
Saturn = Tile 95
---- Edge of 100 Wide Map ----
Uranus = Tile 200
Neptune = Tile 300
Pluto (and Kin) = Tile 394

10 Tiles = about 1 AU

 

[Civ Fuehrer]

I do not think long and skinny maps would be good due to the asteroid belt. An elliptical map maybe but it should be fairly round.

@Civ Fuehrer

I think we have to suspend some realism for practicality on the Solar System map. where obviously the inter solar system would be close to each other and the outer solar system would be spread farther apart. However it would not be anywhere near real life scale. If we had say a 100 wide map from the sun to the edge of the solar system. Where 1 Tile = 0.5 AU. So something like ..

Sun = Tile 1
Mercury/Venus = Tile 2
Earth/Moon = Tile 3
Mars = Tile 4
Asteroid Belt = Tile 5
Jupiter = Tile 10
Saturn = Tile 20
Uranus = Tile 40
Neptune = Tile 60
Pluto (and kin) = 80

Note that the inner solar system is still off scale but has to do without making the map extremely huge.

Alternately we might want to make the inner solar system even more spread apart like Earth maps do to Europe make it bigger than it actually is. Or we might not want to have the outer solar system at all such as the Sun to Jupiter on the map. Anything beyond that we were not planning on colonizing anyways. So something like ...

Sun = Tile 1
Mercury = Tile 4
Venus = Tile 7
Earth/Moon = Tile 10
Mars = Tile 15
Asteroid Belt = Tile 27
Jupiter = Tile 52
Saturn = Tile 95
---- Edge of 100 Wide Map ----
Uranus = Tile 200
Neptune = Tile 300
Pluto (and Kin) = Tile 394

10 Tiles = about 1 AU

That sounds about right, and like I said, moon(s) would most likely have to be on the same tile as the body it's orbiting - which you appear to concur with.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I believe we may also still have the limitation of map sizes all being based on the initial map size but I'm not sure if that's still a factor.

 

[ls612]

I believe we may also still have the limitation of map sizes all being based on the initial map size but I'm not sure if that's still a factor.

No that is not a factor anymore. That issue shows up in the fact that we cannot change the size of a viewport. But we can now have map sizes be independent from one another.

 

[Thunderbrd]

No that is not a factor anymore. That issue shows up in the fact that we cannot change the size of a viewport. But we can now have map sizes be independent from one another.

Cool... good to know. Not that I think the long skinny map idea is better anyhow but yes, planetary map sizes should certainly differ.

However, the size of the other maps should still at least 'scale' according to the setting on the initial map size and be at least setup in an equivalent ratio.

 

[ls612]

Cool... good to know. Not that I think the long skinny map idea is better anyhow but yes, planetary map sizes should certainly differ.

However, the size of the other maps should still at least 'scale' according to the setting on the initial map size and be at least setup in an equivalent ratio.

Certainly. However, one should have options for each map independent of options chosen for other maps. In practice this with most likely mean that you would have a map generation screen for each tech that unlocks a new map. For instance, you should be able to choose from multiple map scripts for different maps.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That's a good idea and could be easily done by a series of ingame selection popups like the developing leaders get to use to choose traits. We'd have to popup for each option but it wouldn't take long to go through those motions and could help a player to select even faster since each question is focused on individually. I'd prefer another way but my skills could take us as far as the above suggestion at the moment. I'm willing to bet AI Andy could get a more complete map script selection popup routine put in place when he returns (though he has a lot on his plate...)

 

[primem0ver]

I do not think long and skinny maps would be good due to the asteroid belt. An elliptical map maybe but it should be fairly round.

But asteroids are almost useless as colonies except for large ones like Ceres and one or two others. We could easily put 2-4 asteroids in a space for an asteroid belt on a long skinny map.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'd prefer to see the solar system planets actually move turn by turn and have to account for that in any unit movements throughout the solar system map. The Galactic map probably would move too slowly for that to be much of a factor but we'd get a much more alive feeling game with planets in motion in the Solar System.

With the long-skinny approach, you wouldn't really have that as an active effect.

 

[primem0ver]

I'd prefer to see the solar system planets actually move turn by turn and have to account for that in any unit movements throughout the solar system map. The Galactic map probably would move too slowly for that to be much of a factor but we'd get a much more alive feeling game with planets in motion in the Solar System.

With the long-skinny approach, you wouldn't really have that as an active effect.

Unfortunately this really isn't practical. That would require a map where the plots and cities actually changed position. With 4+ maps to deal with, it will already be a nightmare in turn time. Having to redo map plots and redrawing the map every turn will just add a crazy amount of time to each turn.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There would be no cities on the solar system map, only on the maps of the planets therein. The globes themselves would be portals to their own planetary maps. And the plots aren't changing positions, the features (planets) ON those plots would be changing positions - not much different than storms except there's no processing to determine when and where they appear and when they might disappear and where they will be randomly moving onto etc... its all static definition to the movement paths.

When units move to the planet, they must select a landing site. When they launch from the planets they must select a plot adjacent to the planet to arrive at.

 

[primem0ver]

There would be no cities on the solar system map, only on the maps of the planets therein. The globes themselves would be portals to their own planetary maps. And the plots aren't changing positions, the features (planets) ON those plots would be changing positions - not much different than storms except there's no processing to determine when and where they appear and when they might disappear and where they will be randomly moving onto etc... its all static definition to the movement paths.

When units move to the planet, they must select a landing site. When they launch from the planets they must select a plot adjacent to the planet to arrive at.

Hmmm... not sure I like that much. No difference in sizes and it seems counter intuitive. However... I guess making plots that look like planets would be rather impossible since beaches don't round off in simple shapes. At least not without changing the height maps.

Either way though, using moving targets will be a REAL pain in the butt for the AI predicting where to go and how long it will take to get there. I really don't think moving planets is a good idea.

 

[Thunderbrd]

hmm... AI issues huh? I suppose that could be a pain. I figure we should at least get the rest of the system up and running before worrying too much about that orbital stuff and if we get the orbital stuff in it'd be later on... but paving the way for its eventuality could be nice anyhow.

 

[Hydromancerx]

There would be no cities on the solar system map, only on the maps of the planets therein. The globes themselves would be portals to their own planetary maps. And the plots aren't changing positions, the features (planets) ON those plots would be changing positions - not much different than storms except there's no processing to determine when and where they appear and when they might disappear and where they will be randomly moving onto etc... its all static definition to the movement paths.

When units move to the planet, they must select a landing site. When they launch from the planets they must select a plot adjacent to the planet to arrive at.

What about artificial planets or space stations in a planet or even sun orbit?

 

[Thunderbrd]

More good arguments for making planetary bodies features I'd say. If you're suggesting those would be city forms, that could be achieved but I'm thinking that such features would largely be more useful for galactic map level play as added elements to the Galactic level star colonies. Space stations would act like forts more than cities and would maintain their position relative to the planet they are adjacent to (as would any units around the planet - they'd move in step with the planets themselves, remaining adjacent as the planet moves along.

If we did allow for artificial planet creations in our own solar system, then we'd be opening up a can of worms in that we'd need another map for each artificial planet. So IMO, it would be better as a 'building' at the galactic level star colony.

I mean, the best solution would ultimately mean every star system has a solar system map and every planet has its own planetary map but that's just impossible for the game to manage. So since we'll only have our own solar system (not every planet within even requiring its own map) then once we can exit the solar system, we should be operating on a star colony basis for everywhere else.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

It was always intended to have planetary and stellar bodies as features same as nebulae are now . I just have not added them yet.

 

[ls612]

It was always intended to have planetary and stellar bodies as features same as nebulae are now . I just have not added them yet.

If I were you I'd recommend against making more terrain features and instead focus on the stuff you actually want to do (and maybe the Multi-Maps UI too, that is needed before all of these features).

If you want I could make those Terraformer units Hydro asked for in the other thread.