Visual Displays for Civ5 Ideas

[Gamemaster77]

I started out doing just hex vs square grids but if it easy enough I will make other images. The purpose of this is to allow people to visualize the ideas people are posting. I also have a question. How do I get to the Civ4 World builder in Civ4 complete? That will help me with some images. If you have any requests, post here.

90° River Problem

Who has ever heard of Rivers that turn at 90°? I know I sure haven't. I don't care how fancy the game makes it look but as far as game play and what the computer thinks it is rivers can look like this:

90° River Hex Solution

A Hex grid will solve this problem by making the rivers turn at something closer to 45°.

Crossing sea/land tiles Problem

When there is a point where the corners of two land tiles and the corner of two sea tiles meet in a checkerboard way it is hard to distinguish if only land units can cross or only sea units can cross or both.

___

Crossing sea/land tiles Hex Solution

With the addition of a hex grid it makes it so it is not possible for the four corners to touch.

___

Overall Look Problem

No matter how fancy the graphics make it look when you break it down to just squares and terrain it doesn't look good.

Overall Look Hew Solution

With a Hex grid being used the tiles and terrain look a little better and more natural.

Hex 6 Tile Con

With everything comes their disadvantages and hex grids have theirs. This is not a problem though because this is not currently implemented. This might be a strategic advantage to some but most would say that hex tiles only have 6 surrounding tiles is a disadvantage.

Square 8 Tile Pro

Again this could be seen as a strategic disadvantage to some but I think most would say that this is an advantage. Square grids have 8 tiles surrounding them instead of six.

Zig Zag Hex River (So far disputed)

If a Hex Grid is used it is not possible for rivers to go straight. It must go in a wavy, Zig Zag formation to be the closest to a straight line.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Reserved in case pictures limit space

 

[Camikaze]

Nice representations. It certainly made it a lot clearer for me. One major problem with rivers in a hex system, however, is that it is impossible to have a straight river. It would have to zig-zag, which would be equally, if not more, visually awkward.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not convinced at all by those examples. By the way, I don't understand the crossing sea/land tiles problem. Maybe an example with the actual Civ4 maps would make it.

 

[Tholish]

Where you have a four way corner, with two land tiles diagonal to each other and two sea tiles diagonal to each other, Civ4 always makes this an isthmus rather than a straight. The land tiles are connected, not the sea tiles. In the picture attached, a ship could not move from Northwest to Southeast, but a land unit could move from Northeast to Southwest. Makes it hard to get Gibraltar or Dover right, but hexes wouldn't help anyway. Maybe this could be solved on squares by having a special feature or terrain type that would invisibly designate the intersection as sea dominated.

Not included was a discussion of arrow keys for movement. This is easier on squares, but who uses arrow keys anyway. The mouse drag is so much better and is one of the great things about the Civ interface--one that has grown steadily better until at this point I don't see how it could possibly be improved.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Ah thx. I never noticed it though... maybe because you can't pass, you can't pass, period.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Nice representations. It certainly made it a lot clearer for me. One major problem with rivers in a hex system, however, is that it is impossible to have a straight river. It would have to zig-zag, which would be equally, if not more, visually awkward.

Don't think so. The graphics for the CivIV rivers also "wiggle" a bit to make it look more natural. I think the zig-zagging due to the hexes can easily drown in the natural "wiggling" of the river graphics, especially with some variety for different river tiles.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Where you have a four way corner, with two land tiles diagonal to each other and two sea tiles diagonal to each other, Civ4 always makes this an isthmus rather than a straight. The land tiles are connected, not the sea tiles. In the picture attached, a ship could not move from Northwest to Southeast, but a land unit could move from Northeast to Southwest. Makes it hard to get Gibraltar or Dover right, but hexes wouldn't help anyway. Maybe this could be solved on squares by having a special feature or terrain type that would invisibly designate the intersection as sea dominated.

Not included was a discussion of arrow keys for movement. This is easier on squares, but who uses arrow keys anyway. The mouse drag is so much better and is one of the great things about the Civ interface--one that has grown steadily better until at this point I don't see how it could possibly be improved.

I used your picture if that's okay. Could someone please tell me how to get to the worldbuilder on BTS so I COULD make some visual displays for civ3 and civ4?

 

[Gamemaster77]

One major problem with rivers in a hex system, however, is that it is impossible to have a straight river. It would have to zig-zag, which would be equally, if not more, visually awkward.

I put it in

 

[Tholish]

In the very upper right corner of the screen, there are two buttons. One gets the civilopedia, and the other gets a bunch of options like getting a new map, or different ways of quitting the game. One of those options gets to the World Builder.

 

[PeteAtoms]

The zig-zag river issue doesn't bother me as much as the problem you pointed out in post #5.

 

[Vael]

The zig-zag river issue doesn't bother me as much as the problem you pointed out in post #5.

Even worse than that is mountains. At least with the diagonal land-water it doesn't look like boats can cross. With diagonal Mountains you can cross when it looks like you shouldn't be able to...

 

[Quintillus]

Not included was a discussion of arrow keys for movement. This is easier on squares, but who uses arrow keys anyway. The mouse drag is so much better and is one of the great things about the Civ interface--one that has grown steadily better until at this point I don't see how it could possibly be improved.

I actually used the arrow keys for movement almost all the time when I was using a desktop to play Civ. For short movements, it's just much quicker to press one key than to press G and then click on the square (or even worse, click GoTo and then click on a square). It's also less error-prone in my experience.

For some reason the "drag" never really clicked with me. Maybe it's how I think of the game - giving orders (GoTo here), rather than moving pieces on a board (dragging them around).

 

[Camikaze]

Don't think so. The graphics for the CivIV rivers also "wiggle" a bit to make it look more natural. I think the zig-zagging due to the hexes can easily drown in the natural "wiggling" of the river graphics, especially with some variety for different river tiles.

Cheers, LT.

This is true, although that same 'wiggling' can be used to make the 90 degree turns more realistic.

I put it in

 

[moscaverde]

Please put an image of the mountain chain crossing, for me it even more weird than the land-sea crossing.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Please put an image of the mountain chain crossing, for me it even more weird than the land-sea crossing.

I will. This is probably a civ4 thing and i don't play it that much. What is that?

 

[Gamemaster77]

No answer or any requests?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't have a screenshot available, but the mountain crossing problem similar to the land/sea junction problem is where you have two diagonally attached mountains. In such a case, you can move diagonally between them, without any additional movement penalties, over what appears to be a 'mountain pass' joining the two mountains.

 

[rysmiel]

I don't have a screenshot available, but the mountain crossing problem similar to the land/sea junction problem is where you have two diagonally attached mountains. In such a case, you can move diagonally between them, without any additional movement penalties, over what appears to be a 'mountain pass' joining the two mountains.

OK, I understand what you are talking about, but what i don;t understand is how/why it's a problem ?

 

[Camikaze]

It takes more movement points to move onto a hill than it does to go over a mountain pass, which uses the same movement points as travelling on flat ground.