Flat Space vs. Multi-level sectors.

from GalCiv2 Forums
** WARNING ** This suggestion would be for very high-end PCs only.

Space is multi-directional, isn't it?
Well, then, how come GC2 has a one plane map structure were its stars are layed-out evenly and accessible through straight paths (NSEW, cardinal points) rather than experiencing gameplay within a true 3D interface?

Introducing the X'Y'Z primes where your enemy may come from underneath and right above!!

I know, this sounds quite extensive programming wise and would surely mean incredibly high CPU-cycles... but nothing i would like more than play IN the galaxy instead of just ON it.

Anyone here shares this wish?
8,028 views 7 replies
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree with megajames75. That is, imagine playing on an "Immense" size galaxy with this. It is just too much "over-complicated", well for me at least.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That would be, quite simply, insane (in a bad way). Besides, galaxies are relatively flat, are they not? They would only be about 1-3 units "deep" if you did 3-d, so why bother?
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I understand this idea sounds a little over the top to some, but it holds a certain intrigue.

Say you have the galaxy as it is now, but with a keyboard command or UI button that allows you to go up or down a level like tiers. Basically you would still play on a 2D plane, but a multileveled one. Instead of the distant starfield background as it is now, you would see the next tier behind the one your on from a distance. Not only could you then pick galaxy sizes, but also number of levels the galaxy will have. Moving the ships between levels would be as simple as selecting the ship, switching levels and clicking the destination. Of course there is a lot of things that would have to be considered in addition to this short synopsis, but I think it could work and be fun.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I play in a rather well-developed PBEM 3D 4X moderated game, guys, and its the Bomb!

That's actually the reason I haven't had much time to spare for GalCiv in the last 6 weeks, even with the betas posted.

Over-complicated is compensated for by just lowering the system count. In 3D, with speeds proportional to the distances (~12 turns to cross the pocket galaxy corner to corner at beginning tech), 110 - 160 systems is plenty to keep 7-8 players busy and involved. And I'm sure Stardock would provide some great player tools to help manage. as well.

drrider
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
While space is certainly 3d, the layout of spiral galaxies like ours is essentially planar. Yes, there's a thickness to the disc, but when we're talking about travelling interstellar distances in a week they don't particularly matter. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a 3d star map, but it's not strictly necessary IMO and certainly not implementable in GC2. Maybe in 3...
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks everyone for your opinions and comments.

It would surely be tough to implement, but i'm sure it is (somehow) feasible if only to provide an extensive "gameplay" experience and mostly, a huge interface worth traveling into.

The concept is rather pointless if someone thinks of space as a single plane structure (i DO agree with some thoughts above which makes a flatened galaxy more functional than real).
Although, i was suggesting a three levels option only; above, below and the current middle. One may even think about giving GC (version 3) more than just three, adding to the complexity but giving out huge potential for tactical fleet/ship moves and overall slick planetary strategies. Considering distances and location could be relative inside an XYZ format, it wouldn't take much for any players to adapt. To me, some reality matters.

Anyhow, it was just a thought. I guess i should just let Stardock decide whichever system is best for ITS game. As it is now, it works perfectly and, making GC overly though to navigate could make things worst.

Let's see what comes out of this.