[Comparison with CIV?]

I've been hesitant to toss in this comparison, for various reasons, but after seeing the above posts I'll do so anyway. The convoy routes thing depicted above is very similar to how SC2 does it. Sadly, SC2 almost completely lacks any flexibility (esp. with respect to the AI) if you just want to toss together a quick scenario-you can't, because of all the scripting you must do to even make it remotely playable. But that's an argument for a different BF sub-forum.

However the ability to "script" using a system like xml offers allot more flexibility in the long run. I would suggest looking into having a system like that in place you could even have generic scripts available in an editor.

[Comparison with CIV?]

I really think that having some type of "supply" route being required to supply armies when they are not on their main continent or island would add a level of strategy to gameplay that cannot be overlooked. If a resource creates X number of Iron, oil or whatever each turn some of that would be consumed in producing new units and different improvements like naval shipyards steal mills factories etc. Then having an army away from the resources would require X number of food, oil, gasoline, etc that could be deducted from the initial supply and having that be required to cross by a sea route adds the very important naval and logistic aspect. You could also have a more limited supply by on transport aircraft which cannot carry as many supplies and that would make controlling the air routes also important. I feel that logistics is far too often overlooked and although it does add some more "book keeping" for the player it also effects how you wage war strategically so it is a level of complexity I urge you to include.

It might even be a good idea at looking at the resources requiring an available route to and between cities because once again it makes them a strategic factor for the human or AI player to capture or block the availability.

[Comparison with CIV?]

Well, if the original artist has released them into the public, that sounds like a good idea. (I assume you're talking about images/animations originally created by modders for Civ3. Images created by Firaxis for Civ3 - well, there might be some legal problems with using that stuff.)

Yes there are literally thousands of "fan" based created units and more being added every week.

I'm actually using PNG files. They're 32-bit (24-bit RGB + 8-bit Alpha). So, yes, it allows for semi-transparent areas in the image.

OK png works for me are you actually making APNG then? I was disappointed when Adobe did not include APNG to photoshop CS3 although the 3D functionality was useful.

Yes. That's easy enough to do, but I also have to make sure user1 doesn't overwrite the files created by user2.

Maybe you could have the users upload a folder containing the changes then each download would have a unique name so it should not overwrite any existing downloads. I wish I had more programming in my background but I focused on the graphics with programming restricted to HTML and CSS.

I do have to say that I am excited over the progress of this game however and look forward to finding out more.

[Comparison with CIV?]

It uses a sprite system (24-bit RGB + 8-bit Alpha). The sprites are rendered from 3d models*. Units have 16 rotations, some have movement animations (like infantry walking), and combat animations. I thought about opening up the graphics system so other people can add new unit images/animations. That could be done through the same system that I use for downloading/uploading maps/scenarios/rules. I had done some initial work on this, but there are no plans to have this available at release. (I could potentially open it up post-release.) There are some image/sound management issues involved that I have to get resolved. (Presumably users would want to add sounds as well as images, since units make sounds.)

Some of the complications: if someone added an image/animation to the game, it would be used in a new ruleset. The ruleset would have to remember what images/animations it uses. Then, whenever users downloaded a ruleset, it would have to download the associated images/animations/sounds as well. The system would have to avoid overwriting existing images, and would need to remember its dependencies. The whole thing can get rather complicated in terms of remembering dependencies. So, what I'm saying is that opening up the image/sound system in the game isn't quite as easy as simply "opening it up" - which is why that functionality won't be included in the initial release.

* I found that I could pack a lot more detail into sprites than using full 3d. With sprites, I could do 8-bit Alpha and sub-pixel details (admittedly, this is approximated by using 3D anti-aliasing). I could also put subtle outlines around units that made them more visible, and add some "increase sharpness" post-processing to the rendered images that made the images better defined.

I am surprised you did not use Windows XP supported 32-bit bitmaps with 8 bit alpha. Some of the benefits of using 32-bit glyphs. It's possible to create special effects such as semi-transparent regions that partially show the background behind. It also improves the look of inactive or "Grayed" toolbar buttons as these can be given a degree of transparency to mix them with the color of the toolbar. However I am glad you decided to use a sprite system since I feel for a strategy game there is no real benefit of using 3D graphics unless you need extreme zoom functions and rendering each 3D model taxes the processor. Also as you stated the level of detail is better and you can use high polygon count models to render the static images used rather than relying upon textures to hide flaws in low poly models.

On the rules set's wouldn't it make more sense to have a separate folder contained in the main program folders for added content to be stored so that there could be no possibility of overwriting the original files? I really think allowing the functionality of being able to create and add new units would be a huge selling point for the game. Modding games is extremely popular and hard core gamers look for as much function in that area as they can find.

[Comparison with CIV?]

user created content is encouraged not only for maps but for complete unit sets, and there is an in-game mod download facility where people can share (upload/download/rate) their stuff without even leaving the game.

Is it possible to explain what system you are using for unit graphics? Are they 3D graphics or is it a sprite system? Will it be possible to upgrade any graphic used in the game including the interface?

I do allot of work with Photoshop and Illustrator and am just starting to delve into the 3D realm.

There are many "homeless" Civ 3 players frustrated with Civ 4.

I think these people will be interested in Empires of Steel.

Rocoteh

Another disgruntled Civ player looking for a good alternative here also.