Full 3d Maps

Ahhh, that feels sooo good.

I entirely agree on the principles. Space itself IS a multi-directional environment which is why i also suggested another approach with some "3+ layers" for indirect 3D galactic representation... (refer to the initial thread).

Nothing i would like more than to be sneaked upon by invading opponents from above or/and below!!

Intensive CPU-wise, but worth it. Huge strategic/tactical implications to a number of gameplay features; rally-point pathways, trade routes, influence coverages, etc. Complex, but a terrific asset.
Someone even suggested (see other thread) an hexagon-grid-like parsecs subdivision instead of squares which would also be an interesting switch from the actual cardinal/planar system of orientation.

Maybe for GC3, i hope.

- Zyxpsilon.

3D might be easy to implement player wise... the main problem is said this way... "well, how will u see every dimension on a 2D screen?".

the answer is simple... give the player 2 or 3 different views of map... one from each side. one view could be used to determine whcih way your ship will go left right forward or backward... while the other view can be used to go up or down.

in any view... there is likely to have a "square" (as you would see it) with multiple things on or under it. So if you click on that square the bottom of your screen should show every object on or under that square... except seperating with some kind of mark so you know that they are under the "cube" (which is what the new spaces would be) instead of directly in it.

with some advanced super thinking... such a thing can be made possible!

Well, after some advanced super thinking... it can be done, but it just wouldn't work.

Take a look at the Rubik's cube (3x3x3). You have to constantly rotate whole cube to have enough INFORMATION about where is what and "what to do next" and you even don't have to know WHAT IS INSIDE OF IT.

If you could travel only "on the surface" of 3D space in 3D galactic civilizations (like you see only the surface of Rubik's cube), it would be simple. But you can be inside of space; how do you travel inside?

Just imagine 15x15x15 Rubik's cube (15x15 is the space of 1 sector in current game) AND imagine that it is not like you "only" have to know every surface color, you have to know every little cube inside of it, and that's 3375 little cubes; 225 of them are on the top and you can see them easily (1 sector in current game), while 3150 of them are "hidden" beneath those 225. How do you know where is what? You constantly rotate it? And it's only one sector!

Take small galaxy (and who play small galaxy? ). It is something like 4x4 = 16 sectors, 16 * 225 = 3600 possible locations.
In 3D, 4x4x4 sectors would be 64 sectors, 64 * 3375 = 216 000 possible locations, 60 times more than in small 4x4 galaxy in 2D, almost the same amount of positions that 31x31 sectors 2D galaxy would have.
Now, for even better, not only you have 31x31 equivalent 3D galaxy to take care of, you can't see it so clearly as in 2D and on the top of it, the time needed for ship to travel from edge to edge is the same as in standard 4x4 galaxy!
In average of let say 2 habitable planets per sector, in 4x4x4 3D galaxy it's 128 planets, the same amount of planets as in 8x8 2D galaxy. It also have 15 times more possible ship locations to look at, and only one half of the time is needed for a ship to go from edge to edge.
Imagine amount of space covered when a starbase is built. Imagine AI thinking where it wants to go, 4 move ship can now go on 81 different locations (i think), in 3D it could go to 721 different locations...
Jesus, just imagine fog of war in that monstrosity!

All of these calculations prove that the concept is indeed a complex issue. Oh, i agree. The implications are enormous; gameplay, perception of Space, orientation, direction, you name it. But, the whole point of a true 3D galactic model can be summarized in just one simple comment; New features! That's all.

Don't try going beyond the above reasoning and you'll get what is at stake here. Programmers DO what they must to implement such a system (widely used in other games, btw). Is it "adaptable" to GC, i think so.

Numbers? Kay, let's theorize from a different pov - mine... this time.

Every sector has a 15x15 parsecs grid. I'll use a Medium (6x6, 36, 8100p) scale map for the following comments, also. Now, reduce the default parsecs count to a relative number to the map size, SIX by SIX triangulated. Total would be 36x36=1296 for every single plane/layer. Stack only two more, below and above. Result is 1296x3=3888 in total.

8100-3888 would mean 4212 less parsecs for the "same" medium map (but within an entirely new configuration), you'd say?

NOPE and here's exactly why;
Depth.

Forget the cube analogy for a moment (although i found yours quite accurate for the purpose of demonstration, biased - but still accurate) and put your starting planet in a corner on the "Above Layer".

- You'd see two different shades of Fog (with either transparency levels or coded color slices), directly below but shown as two separate planar type grids - lined for clarity.
- Your ships can now use XY'Z'YX primes to target any parsecs within reach (as is with the previous concept). Only difference is that the trajectories are triangulated instead of tracked through the cardinal/points orientation system.
- Your starbases influence(s) ratios can have a sphere instead of a circle.
- Your planets can be seen (or evaluated by "real" locations/distances perception) from multiple angles, including underneath!
- Your empire's territory is represented by cubes instead of squares.
- etc...

And that's for THREE layers only.
3D rocks, better believe it.


- Zyxpsilon.

hmm... strange... medium shows up as 5x5 on my computer... :p 

anyway, let me think...

Tiny map = (3x15)^3 = 91,125
Small map = (4x15)^3 = 216,000
Medium = (6x15)^3 = 729,000
Large = (9x15)^3 = 2,460,375  :SURPRISED: 
Huge = (12x15)^3 = 5,832,000
Gigantic = (16x15)^3 = 13,824,000

Ok, u guys were confusing me with your equations so I wrote my own... just as a reference I guess.

now to the real conversation... our friend goldie Zlac was basically saying that there are too many squares/cubes/parsecs and that humans can only see two demensions at a time on a computer screen.

My analogy is... how the heck did they make 3D chess but can't make this?!?!?!

but seriously... as with the rubix cube, the solution will be to let the player see the galaxy from every side, or maybe even from the inside.

Think, in one view, you can set the (X,Y) position that you want your ship to move to, and then by going to another view you can set the (Z) position.

And if you can't see through a fog of war from one side... why not try the other side of the "cube"?

The possibilities are endless (sort of) if the player can see the board from every possible angle.

Personally, I think that 2D is fine as it is... and I don't want to be staring at a rubix cube shaped galaxy. Also, I really think all 2D maps should use hexagons because they just work better.

My main concern would be selection. Right now you click a tile and it's pretty black and white where the player wants the ship to go.

The moment you're working in 3d space, mostly with the grid solution proposed here, the game no longer knows for certain where the player is clicking, and would result in so much frustration, the feature would kill any fun gained by the added flexability of movement.

Take, for instance, some of the jewelry peices that have TONS of hard points on them. How many times have you been frustrated trying to place a component on a specific point when the computer thinks that you're tryign to place it elsewhere.

Now spread that frustration across the ENTIRE GAME!

If we ever did '3d' space, I'd prefer take the sins route where each system is a flat plane (think 1 sector in GC world), but there are tons of them sprinkled throughout the map. By mixing star-lanes and tile based movement, you'd allow for choke-points and the epic feel of the first, but keep the accessability of the second.

No, please no 3D.

While the idea sounds nice (and being a scientist working in space engineering I am the first to say that realistically and atmospherically 3D space is needed... along with gravity and a whole bunch of other stuff ;)), it is a horrible nightmare when done on a 2D computer screen. All games that I know of that are true 3D are nearly unplayable. You constantly have to readjust your point of view and zoom level to get an idea of what is going on and to select stuff (having different planes doesn't change this problem, it just makes you constantly shuffle the planes instead).

Making 3D with space lanes is completely pointless, btw. If you connect stars by lanes, there is absolutely no tactical/strategical reason to not simply project them on a flat surface. Unlike true 3D you couldn't use the third dimension anyway. You could encircle a star only through the lanes, so it's irrelevant in which direction they actually go (if you want different distances/flight times, you can use other game mechanics for this). Admittedly, in an abstract sense this also applies to true 3D. But much less so.
Not to mention that space lane choke points are a boring game mechanic, but that's a completely different topic.
Basically, this way you'd combine the confusing property of a true 3D map (look at MoO3, it's not that much distorted in the third dimension (and uses space lanes) but you still easily misjudge a distance unless you constantly dolly around) with the limitations imposed by star lane travel, basically taking the worst of both worlds and making them into a feature.

3 (sets) of games that do 3-D and have been playable spring to mind.

Decent series.
Ascendancy
Homeworld series.

Also rather than a cube, why not play the game on/in a 3-d surface/volume of a hypersphere.
That is to say that the game area would appear as a sphere which wraps at the edges.

Or, give the cat another canary, a more complex topography (can anyone say wormholes and spacial anomalies?) ^^

However doing even a "basic" cube and keeping the game fun would, I fear, not be an easy task.

only playable games in 3D are somewhat "first person", if you expand them too much beyond that (and for galciv to remain galciv you would have to do that) it becomes too time consuming / incomprihensible

I've said it before, probably for at least 10 years. Adding 3D adds nothing to gameplay, but adds terribly to complexity and frustration. As has been said before, the only way to make 3d a do-able thing is to use 'space lanes'...and then what is the point of the 3d again?

Look at it this way...there have been 3d interfaces for windows machines for a decade now....how many of you use one.

Every single post has been great and made me rethink the of a 3D map quite a bit. I think Unit Selection could be a problem, but in a turn based game, should not pose a real problem if the camera rotation was well executed.

Unit Movement would be no problem at all and could even 'borrow' Homeworld's style for this. Or once again, with smart pathing AI and good camera controls, would be easy.

Adding depth to the game... The more I think about it, it would just add more time to getting to a planet, as unit facing is not relevent in this game, and also as the planets have the ships orbit them, there would be no advantage to which direction you enter from.

But then again... I did not think the game could get any better with the changed made in Dark Avatar... I bet the dev's could make it work some how! I think about how the first time I played a FPS with the mouse and keyboard how friggin crazy it was after playing with just the keyboard for some time. Now I am so used to it I have a hard time playing a FPS on a console with a controller.

Hit the nail sharp and square with the above.

Now, what is the first thing you see when you stare at a simple oncoming car at night? May sound a bit funny... but do try thinking real hard about this specific situation, please.

Two headlights beaming through the distance! Speeding towards you. Human vision has a peripheral sense, it evaluates from split seconds delays. Thus, you'd know how fast it can reach your location. Relativity helps, but my point really is this;

If you zoom from a FIXED location outbounds, you are continually 180 degrees straight away from being able to pinpoint at the exact origin/speed/angle of the car!

Secondly, a GC planet IS right beside you. It can perceive space as a surrounding area, also. Does it need to zoom in any directions to gain focus on a single beam? Not for me. Since, it simply is static.

That's why 3D (as exposed through graphical means) may seem complex to anyone, even myself. As soon as you add some movements, the circus of orientation begins... but if the scope of vision remains strictly stable, there's no reason to deny instantaneous correlation between two objects can easily be made. Even if "projected" on a flat computer screen by whatever system of representation.

I may be biased a bit. Although, i'm almost 99% sure the process has proven to be reliable in thousands of applications, including the ISS robotics. Human intuition and/or logic within such arguments, too.

- Zyxpsilon.

Exactly! No 3D, please! I have seen some games with 3D. They sucked! Unless you have a really good user interface, you cannot make a good game. 3D may be good, if you have a holographic display, but displaying 3D on normal screens is bad. In 3D you will have to do a flight control. This would be very difficult and so you will have little space for some strategy itself.

Some very nice posts.

I tend to agree with the 'pro posts' that 3D games are entirely plausible and acheivable.

The majority of the ideas and views offered by those that think it impractical seem fixed on a 'cubic' representation of the Galciv Universe. (That is to say, several layers of 2D to simulate a 3D version of todays interface.)

This would not seem logical for a 3D representation.

Rather than having to micro-manage every possible move/location, you could simply select a destination (Star) within a 3D Galaxy.

This may seem a little restrictive, in terms of application to GalCiv in that space, would becomes only a means to travel from destination A, to destination B. But, would this be such a bad idea?

Imagine the following....

Examining the 3D 'Galaxy map' a player spots a Drengin Fleet heading towards the Mizar system. After zooming in/rotating, the player is not sure but the Drengin fleet has only just entered scanner range and is just 7 weeks away. There is another possible destination for the fleet as the Casper system is only 5 parsecs from Mizar in the same general direction, and it is currently unoccupied.

To be safe, the player looks around and sees one of their own fleets in the vicinity.

(This fleet will almost certainly contain the 'Starship Enterprise' [TM] as that ship is the only one that is ever in the vicinity of anything that ever happens, the nearest help will inevitably be several weeks away, or, undergoing a refit in the nearest starbase.)

Computer: 'Fleet 105, en-route to Rigel system, ETA 11 weeks.'
Player: 'Calculate eta to Mizar'
Computer: 'ETA at Mizar from current fleet location 6 weeks'

So, do you divert the fleet or not?
Do you wait 1 more week to verify that the fleet is going to Casper?(Fleet 105 will have moved out of range to intercept in 1 more week)

Whatever you decide to do, there is no need to clik on anything for movement in the Galaxy view except the destination system for the fleet. i.e to divert it to Mizar, or let it continue to Rigel.

The point here, is that all the tactical stuff, will take place at Mizar, and not in deep space. Nor is there any need for it to take place in deep space if you think about it. What takes place in the Galaxy is now purely Grand Strategy.

Now, if the Grand Strategic 3D representation was of systems within the Galaxy, all that would need to be represented in the user interface at the Strategic level would be a single Star system.

Imagine the possibilities now... Thousands upon thousands of possible systems in a true 3D Galaxy.

The Star system (Strategic map) could be represented as a 3x3x3 cubic display giving 27 possible sectors each of which could conatin a feature, or not.

Once at the system, all you would need to do is select a sector as the destination.

Finally, at the 'Tactical level' all that needs to be represented is a single sector, with any feature contained in it.

It would also save on memory, as you only need to ever view
a) the Galaxy, beautifully rendered in true 3D or,
b) A single star system.
c) A sector within a star system

I know this needs a lot more thought, but, well... it's a start.

What do you think?

Descent was a flight sim/FPS hybrid. 3D is par for the course.

Ascendancy used starlanes on the galaxy map (makes 3d little more than a decoration), and the system views didn't have a lot going on--a couple of planets and warp nodes and wahtever ships are present, in a cyndrilical space.

Homeworld is an RTS, but the scope and number of objects is limited and as such 3D is a lot easier to represent at the largest scale (map view with icons and lines up/down to the central plane).



None of these really compares to GalCiv, where you can have hundreds of stars and planets and literally thousands of ships flying about. Just to give you an idea of the sort of scale you'd have to deal with, even the new immense map in TA is equivalent to less than an 8 sector cube, and that's if you keep the same systems-per-sector. I certainly wouldn't want to have to try dealing with viewing and tracking all the goings on in a 3d cube like that.

Besides, it is worth noting that most galaxies are probably planar rather than globular anyway.

plus if you add rally points (which I rarely use anyway) you can add extra destinations and further make it easier on the player and his/her inability to concieve of the third dimension.

Sword of the Stars is in 3d and not all of the races use Star Lanes to travel between stars (in fact i think only the Humans do) - the rest r pretty much free roaming.

Thus the 3rd map is relevant - but its a nightmare playing on.

Having to adjust the camera all the time to figure out where you are and what ships you selected and where you are going. Its a pain - its the reason i dont like Sword of the Stars.

Neither would i (as of THIS moment of thought in a single chaotic mindspace of mine!)... but with the real techno advancements in 3D-engine hard-coding, i wouldn't be the least surprised somebody will (or already IS) attempt this. If only to grab and drag the market of some "RTS" gamers back to the basics in TB-3D, somehow.



I guess i should INSIST about my own approach to this theory; three levels, above/middle/below layers *only* are programmatically plenty enough to provide an excellent framework, sufficiently "variable" to represent full 3D scales, and would surely stand the test of MicMan in as fast as anyone can use it.

Thus, the controversial issue continues to boggle even just me.

The destination/origin clicks "solution" (suggested above by Bradford) is, indeed, a valid hypothesis, also -- IMHO.

- Zyxpsilon.

What about the current 2D type map, but have the planets at different altitudes just for a little visual snap?

It would not make the gameplay any better.

That's something I could live with. Just a little variation to make it look even more interesting.

Also, wasn't the galaxy map in MoO3 in 3D as well? Of course, you could only travel from star to star, but still. I found it pretty easy to use.

What about donut shape? The surface of it has a nice property. Preserves right angles and can be divided into a grid that wraps in every direction.

Now take it to the third dimension. A cube would be boring. But playing on the 3d-surface of a 4-dimensional hyperdonut, that would be sweet ^^

Any one ever play the old Elite space game?
Had a Great 3D "radar" for the space ship when you flev 3D.

A "sticks" from a plane to show elevation - human brain easily made a 3D image
I'll try some ascii art, don't know how to descibe it well
EDIT - lousy courier font still proportianl space, I'll try fixing using "."

...@
...|______
...|_/_/_/_/ O = ship/planet/star above plane (1,1,5)
../|/_/|/_/ * = ship/planet/star under plane (3,3,-2)
./_|_/_|_/ | = "stick" from 3D to 2D plane, showing elevation
/_/_/_/*/


I would love a simple 3D galaxy with stars at different elevations
I am sick of boring "front" lines in 2D

For the ones who think 3D cube is hard - even if you don't change view, click on "star" of if "obscured" click on base of stick (in plane).
To move to "empty" space, use mouse to move "in plane" base of stick, wheel to change elevation (. or * in draving)

Lets get a real 3D strategy with good game play - heres how:
Use GalCiv engine / model, but allow 3D coordinates and "elevate" stars and ships from a 3D perspective - that is just like grid now, but with "sticks" to show elevation from grid. I'd buy that - but then I bought GalCivII in 2D...
(Ok, AI might have fits...)

Add choice for "corner" viewing orthgraphic projeection fronm - bonus
Add rotation / tilt of plane bonus X 10
but not really needed IMO

Orion Steel

I think the greatest difficulty is the selecting the destination. A 2D screen cannot represent a 3D destination selection. Imagine a transparent cube at an arbitrary angle, imaging clicking the mouse on the cube (your destination) this gives you x,y co-ordinates, but no way to define the z plane location. (alhough just thinking maybe use the scroll wheel on the mouse) ... anyway a tricky business.

For those that want 3D.

You'll probably need a 64 bit processor cos you'll need tonnes of ram over 2GB for definate maybe 16GB who knows. Fast graphics card for FOW transparencies etc. Some awesome rig make no mistake.

Dual screens with one taken up by the navigation controls alone.

Until we get VR and can actually get inside the map so to speak 3D won't happen. wouldn't it be cool to be like obi-wan-kenobi in the jedi library, place the small sphere on the tee (reader) and the galaxy appears all around you.

true 3D is a pipe dream IMHO