Graphics

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Just three quick comments:

1) I like that you've added 3D graphics. Personally I buy your games because of the gameplay itself and don't care much for graphics ... but ... since you went 3D, might as well do it right.

3D is meant to give atmosphere. A bit more realism. I find it strange that units are always facing/attacking to the bottom right or southwest. This takes away from the atmosphere. Is there any way to have units point/face the last way they moved? Otherwise the campaign for France at the outset must look kind of funny - Germans shooting backwards over their heads! And I suppose the same of the Russians on the eastern front. It will look like they want to run when you attack them!

2) It looks like you have moved to a square system from a hex system? Is this right? I think the hex is the perfect terrain in strategy games and believe squares is a step back. This would be a debate, but I'm surprised at the change.

3) I assume that you can zoom in and out? Ideally through just rolling the mouse wheel? One thing SC1 didn't have was this ability (either you see the whole map or just the same sized section). I didn't mind or think it was even an issue in SC1. But commonly "3D" games have the ability to zoom in and out quickly, which would be neat.

Sorry the comments were on the window dressing rather than the "meat and potatoes", but I thought I'd put them up anyway.

[japinard]

See here to whet your appetite for the hex-tile discussion. Make sure to pack a lunch.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000050

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Wow! That thread is a marathon read. Looks like the juice is flowing.

I find the most compelling tile arguement the addition of 2 more directions to move. More movement = more options = more strategies = more different games.

I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted.

The most compelling hex arguement is really the circle arguement or the "beeshive" arguement . It sounds funny, but hexes best reflect the reality of distances and logistics.

The distance between the center of every hex to the center of every other hex is the same. And the perimeter touching each of the six hexsides is the same. Theoretically, a "unit" can be envisioned with roughly the same formation at whichever hexside it is attacking or defending from. Because distances between hexes and overlapping perimeters of hexes are equal, hexes best reflect the reality of movement distance.

By contrast a square actually only touches 4 other squares, not 8. You could argue that the squares do not have independent borders and therefore the squares that are at a diagonal do share one point with each other.

But the logical problem (at least conceptually in one's mind) is that the distance for 4 of the choices from the center of the square to the center of the adjacent square is one distance and the distance for the other 4 choices is 1.47x that distance. This is not really a problem of course, because movement points can be altered to reflect this, but mentally, many of us would like distance choices or increments to be equal (but then we are likely willing to adjust movement for terrain type anyway).

The other logical problem is that 4 of the choices share a large common square-side, and 4 of the choices (diagonals) share only one point. Its tough to imagine the reality of this game-imposed rule. Are soldiers moving on a diagonal marching single file? And are those moving on a square-side proceeding under a wide formation? And what about supply and zone of control?

For me, hexes create more realistic atmosphere. Movement is equal and hexsides are equal. But then perhaps tiles distort geography, distance and troop formation, but perhaps make for a better game because of more variations? And questions of supply and zone of control and breakthrough can be established by the programmer, and as long as they make some sense and are fun, why quibble?

I think it is our role as customers to put forward our opinion, but Hubert's role to discern which of those views matter. I'll bet he only gets 1 good idea from every 100 ideas put forth by us, but even at those odds, isn't putting forth ideas worth it? And ultimately, I think this forum is more for us (customer) than the programmer anyway - that is we learn more than the developer does.

All the best in game development, and keep up the discussions!

Note: I posted this response there as well. Perhaps this thread could be kept to discussing the direction units point in 3D (real exciting ) and zoom ability, and we will keep the hex marathon discussion in the thread you linked to above.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

No stacking was an abstraction nightmare for me initially. It took me a long time to get willing to live with it.

Hexes as you mention enjoy continuity and consistency.

That is likely the only argument needed in their favour.

Squares allowing more movement options sounds good on the surface, but when you force a person to accept the fact, that only 4 choices enjoy a decent sum of common terrain contact. The arguent in their favour falls through.

4 of the movement choices are forcibly funneled through tiny points of contact, that require additional movement rules, and additional effort.

Hexes stay true to the KISS principle. Squares don't.

The more work you make for a project, the more work you have to do.

[pzgndr]

Hubert has provided a feature where land units within 5 tiles of an enemy and naval units within 10 tiles will automatically face each other, as best as possible. Otherwise a default facing would be used, which could be edited. Essentially a simple mirroring process of the 3-D icons. :cool:

[John DiFool the 2nd]

One disadvantage of hexes which I haven't seen

mentioned yet is the "grain": along one axis you

can have a straight line, but along the other you

have a staggered line.

JD

[ev]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

One disadvantage of hexes which I haven't seen

mentioned yet is the "grain": along one axis you

can have a straight line, but along the other you

have a staggered line.

JD

...or you can look at it the other way: with hexes you have straight lines around three axis. These axis are not perpendicular to each other. They are at 60 degrees from each other.

Hexes in fact provide six full contact movement options, versus only for for squares. We get 8 movement points with squares only because we are allowing for this diagonal moves and combat. ...and, I also feel uncomfortable about diagonal combat.

[SeaMonkey]

Hubert has provided a feature where land units within 5 tiles of an enemy and naval units within 10 tiles will automatically face each other, as best as possible. Otherwise a default facing would be used, which could be edited. Essentially a simple mirroring process of the 3-D icons.

Bill, watch out with this as it could disclose a previously unspotted enemy unit or at least alert the opponent to an unseen unit, removing the element of surprise.

[pzgndr]

Right, I should have clarified "spotted" enemy units with FoW on. Same concern I had, but Hubert's already on top of it.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Hubert has provided a feature where land units within 5 tiles of an enemy and naval units within 10 tiles will automatically face each other, as best as possible. Otherwise a default facing would be used, which could be edited. Essentially a simple mirroring process of the 3-D icons. :cool:

So if someone were to create unit graphics that contain a bit of text (e.g. BB to indicate a battleship), the text would also be flipped along with the unit graphic? And what about the number indicating the upgrade level; is that separate from the unit BMP or does it get flipped as well?

This "feature" could really limit the types of mods people could do.

- Chris

[ev]

Hexes allow three straight axis of movement versus two straight axis of movement allowed by squares (excepting diagonals).

Hexes also allow three different axis along which you can run your front line. Squares only allow for two such axis (NS and EW). We are so used to thinking along North-South and East-West that we don't realize hexes provide three instead of only two axis.

I have read comments in this site indicating that Hexes limit the size of the map. If we need hexes to have a larger map, then be it - it is probably worth the try. However, memory and computer power keeps going up every day... I wish we would be able to keep hexes in a larger map.

[pzgndr]

text would also be flipped

This should be considered. There will probably be a disabling feature so 3-D default facings can be set and not changed. There is already text on the 2-D military icons which I assume won't flip. So one option could be to have flippable icons in the 3-D file and non-flippable ones in the 2-D file.

That thread is a marathon read.

Yeah, please take all hex vs tile comments to the other thread. They don't belong here.

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I'm glad there will be some realism regarding unit facing. Have you heard anything about zoom or scale?

[[Wiking]]

I just have to add; I loved the way you could clearly see the borders in SC1. You would zoom out, and you had a sort of military map, where you could instantly see the border of your realm (you know what I mean, the colors were different). It's not so apparent in the screenies. Could you make them more visible?

cheers

[pzgndr]

The editor so far does not have a zoom feature. That probably isn't a major issue. The game map could really use something since it's so much bigger now, but I haven't seen the game engine yet. I guess a lot depends on how scalable the graphics are. Hopefully we'll have at least one zoom level to be able to see what's going on.