Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Which type of game board do you prefer?

Author
Message
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 16:30 Edited at: 31st Oct 2009 16:33
I'm thinking about a new project. This one is a two part 'World Map' strategy pls 'In Battle' strategy game, similar to XCOM, or Total War games. i.e. You move units around on a massive world map, and then zoom into a close map for the actual battle.

What I need to decide on right now, is how to confine movement and position on the world map. The choices are:
- Squares. Simply a square grid that you move units about on.
- Hexagons. As above, but a grid of hexagons. This is good because it allows 6 directions of movement with the same distance, but it can look weird. Example that won't linkify:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/mj12commando/Cyberstorm%20LP/Update%204/Cyberstorm05Jan101814.jpg
- Free movement. Not constrained by a grid.

Bear in mind the actual battle part of the game will be unrestrained. This is just for the world map. What do people prefer?

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 17:20
What about triangles?

What occurs to me is that world maps are always rectangular images - why not make a geosphere, then use the triangles on that as locations - each location is a single polygon, can be numbered depending on the polygon number. I think it could look quite cool, especially considering you'd have a round planet, with markers on it, rotating around. I think it would be novel to be able to loop around the planet, unlike the normal layout - you could start from any location and spread out from that, expanding your area rather than a cut-down version of risk.

A geosphere provides the most realistic shape - whereas a DBPro sphere works in rows and columns, a geosphere is made from equi-sized triangles. It's a similar grid to hexagons, however I personally think hexagon grids look dated. I would make a standard sphere map and normal map for the planet, then make maps for each battle location - then zoom in on the planet and load up the terrain and stuff for the battle. This would allow you to set however many polygons, or locations are on a planet, maybe even have moons with capturable zones. Having a good old fashioned planet take over scenario would be cool I think, and a real planet is a good way to represent the big picture.

If you want to give it a go, and need some geosphere models, I'd be happy to make some for you, not all modelling packages can do it.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!

Attachments

Login to view attachments
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 17:24
I agree with Van B I'd really like to see a map which worked like that.

"The fools may crash down upon us in thunderous waves, but we shall Jeku slap them back from whence they came"
-BiggAdd Oct 28th 2009
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 18:33 Edited at: 31st Oct 2009 18:34
Hmmm. I hate to say it, but I think I agree. I just spent an hour playing around with hexagon code. While I know it looks a bit dated, this game is supposed to have a board game feel to it. It's all turn based, as is the combat when you zoom in. Quite WarHammerish. So I think the hexagon approach gives it a feel of strategy ...

HOWEVER ... it is about planetary domination, which would lend itself well to a globe. Hmmm. But the problem I also have is, each 'grid square' can contain a building, or army, or rail track. With a geosphere, a MAHOOSIVE area of land would be occupied purely by a rail road. The scale might look off. But it is a really good idea!

Damn you Van. Damn you and your suggestions!!!!

I shall have to think about it.



Attachments

Login to view attachments
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 19:00
Why not meet both methods in the middle? - I mean, if you use a centre vertex on those hexes, well that's pretty much a geosphere, you could change the 'heights' instead of having the sharp edges. I think the hex looks pretty cool right now, but maybe the individual polygons in each could represent the forces, like if each hex was split into 6 zones. You could simply change the vertex diffuse colour to show different factors. It would be like a hex grid, but using polygons instead, but each cluster making up a hex is a sector.

I would stylize the graphics in this case though, like the planet could be done with a standard 2D heightmap, as a sphere map if you like, then each vertex on a geosphere adjusted to suit the height using X and Y on the heightmap as the Y and X angle from centre. Would give a neat, strategic looking planet map. I'd have a set height for water, then vertex colour each vertex to suit, so relying on a detail texture and vertex colouring, but it would follow the polygon edges. A second geosphere could be used for water, and the vertex colours of the planet sphere could go darker and bluer depending on depth. Would look pretty sweet I think. Each sectors 2D heightmap could be calculated from the planets heightmap, to give you a start - smooth it all out and carve in some tracks and stuff, level out some areas for structures... could make level creation a lot less time consuming.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 19:12
Van, I actually think your idea sounds pretty sweet too. I can visualise what you're suggesting, and I think it'd look a lot better than this plain hexagon approach ... but there's one problem with it. It's the complexity. It's definitely doable, but I decided a while back that complexity is my worst enemy. Whenever I spend more than a few hours on a particular part of a game, I start to lose motivation. So my new approach to getting stuff done is to rattle through it, taking easier options along the way.

Speaking of that, I just started implementing frame-rate independant movement speeds (for camera scrolling). I think I will delete that right now, and stick with a set frame rate, else I'll be breaking my self imposed complexity rule! Yes, set frame rates = bad, but complexity = zero!

I'll take on board the stylization though. I need to stylize it to complement the clearly unrealistic angular edges. Maybe I should computerfy it? Make it feel like you're in a war room, standing around a 3D projection model, discussing strategy. Hmmmm.

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 19:35
Yeah, a war room sounds pretty cool, It's not a god game after all, so having a hologram thing is a neat option. You could have as much detail as you want in the actual texture though, like contour lines and stuff.

Was just thinking though, maybe limiting the battleground to a set size is counter-strategic. I mean, if you can use different sized battlegrounds then the player can pick their battles, maybe deciding on smaller battlegrounds first before taking on some big battles. If you grouped the polygons then each group could be a seperate limb and battleground. With that, it's easy to select areas as theres a plugin that can return the limb from a 2D position (cursor), I don't think it would be too complex, not in terms of code at least. With that, you could have hex shapes most of the time, but smaller objectives, shore lines etc, and bigger areas for main objectives.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 20:17
Hexagons don't make a sphere, you have to include some pentagons as well, and that would be very difficult to code!

demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 20:27 Edited at: 31st Oct 2009 20:27
Diggsey's right - Simple example attached shows the polygons which can be incorporated into a hexagon in red and those that can't in grey (it's just from Wings3D stock shapes so obviously it has less polygons than yours will, but the principle still applies)



"The fools may crash down upon us in thunderous waves, but we shall Jeku slap them back from whence they came"
-BiggAdd Oct 28th 2009

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 31st Oct 2009 20:30
Ahh, I guess it would have to be the specific grouping then, like any shape could be used then.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 1st Nov 2009 00:21
Quote: "With a geosphere, a MAHOOSIVE area of land would be occupied purely by a rail road."


Triangles... have... edges... right?

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 1st Nov 2009 12:14
Yes .... they .... do.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-25 15:11:52
Your offset time is: 2025-05-25 15:11:52