Three dimensional universe vs 2D board game map...

It is nice and requires you to check all axises.

In the end I do not feel game play is enhanced.

I actually feel more constrained in a SOTS style map than in the 2d Galciv map.

Ugh, please no 3D maps, sure it is realistic, but the added axis just serves to make things ugly. I've yet to see any game pull off a 3D map that looks as coherent as a 2D map. The thing that gets in the way of looking at the map is the map itself.

.

Looking at the center of a fully explored large spiral galaxy in Sword of the Stars at 2 am while sleep deprived is a sure way to fire some brain synapses you didnt know you had

Problem with 3 dimensional map in terms of usefulness is that it is really not that useful in the end.

It's cool to have axis Z, but in the end all the action is going to be centered near solar systems which reduces the usefulness of third dimension strategically. Sensors built into solar system most likely form a ball, so no matter what edge of the ball you come from you are practically going to be always equally close  to the good stuff (the planets). On tactical level, it could matter but since we do not handle tactical level combat there really is no real benefit beyond it looking real.

Just makes the whole thing more difficult to comprehend with single glance.

3D maps are interesting, depending on which game, but difficult to design. They take quite a bit of time; time which could be spent working on and perfecting other parts of the game. I can choose 1 3D, or over a dozen drop your jaw amazing things in a game. I choose the latter. One day, 3D will be easier, more common, and have better quality, but till that time arrives, I believe we should keep the excellent 2D that Stardock can provide.

3D maps are more realistic but often have little gameplay value and can sometimes reduce it. Homeworld series pulled it off best and even then it was more gimicky then useful unless the obstacles were placed in a certain way.

Homeworld on other hand was tactical level game. And even there it really made little to no difference if my memory does not fail me.

What is this?  It's harder to design?  So hard that doing one good 3D map will be as hard as making a dozen awesome 2D maps?  Please.  I'm not buying that for a second.

It doesn't add anything?  Yes, actually, it does.  I just got done with a SotS2 game on a map with a center area and SIX spokes coming in at 90 degree angles with an empire starting at the end of each one.  Doing that in 2D means you just get four coming in or you get spokes coming close to each other instead of just meeting in the middle.  What 3D add is simple - it adds more space.

Setting up a perimeter isn't too bad in 2D but in 3D?  You're going to need a far more ships and satellites to pull something like that off.  You simply can't do it in space without having either very cheap satellites or pulling the perimeter way into the solar system.  So having 3D is giving you more realistic strategy choices, too.

But honestly, it's far too late in the process to do this in GalCiv3.  Maybe in GalCiv4....

Well why not? Have you designed one yourself?

It's too bad the one and only game you bothered to mention was a flop. Why it was a flop will be irrelevant to most. As in, it doesn't matter if it was because of the 3D maps or not. Don't pretend that adding more space is always a good thing.

To reply to both quotes, there is a reason why most games don't bother with 3D, would you agree? Whether it's because it's harder to design, or because it truly doesn't add anything, or whatever, I can't say. Though what I can say is this, only do 3D if the game you made has the mechanics to make use of and compliment such a feature. It is my understanding you would do this for any feature in the game. Assuming you want your product to sell anyway.

2D and 3D are completely different beast. Stick with what you know yes? Creativity and ambition often result in failure, it's why you don't see much of it. Games are too expensive to develop nowadays. For most companies failure is not an option. Wouldn't want to lose your beloved stardock for a silly 3D map, would you?

Obviously for the sake of effect I over dramatize a bit.

Not to most, most want to know where SotS2 failed. Condemning all the features it has is not really enlightening. SotS1 was a pretty big success and it had a 3D map as well, so 3D was surely not the reason for the flop.

Even thinking that third dimension doesn't add anything it showing a lack of vision. If you don't see a difference between 2 and three dimensions, nobody can help you. I see a huge difference between a board or a need to think in things through in space.

There were people complaining about the confusion in SotS1, but they were in minority. Flat maps (very small variation in z axis) were added for those.

Sticking to what you know... Where is progress in that?

3D just does not add anything into game of strategy. It is not like getting extra dimension makes any bloody difference except add distance between 2 points which from one projection appear to be close by. And time to travel HAS to be told in the game, so it makes no bloody difference.

Name me ONE strategy level game where 3D map actually mattered? SotS does not fit in, as action was still stuck at planets.

Everything, literally EVERYTHING relevant to strategy level can be done with less fuss with 2D map.

What I do not like in the space 4x games with 3d maps Ive played is that the 3D limits the "Free roaming" aspect. You always have to tavel along lanes.

Is there a 3d map with free roaming somewhere? It seems it would be hard to implement UI wise.

I'm surprised you don't propose a 1D map... Because it could be done, all systems in a row. Why have that extra 2nd dimension and the fuss it brings at all?

Just going into extremes, not trying to provoke a war. It is true, as long as you can get around and take different routes, the third dimension does not add extra strategy.

When you look at SotS real space map though and realize that this is how things actually are around here... It brings yet another dimension, beyond that 3rd. Naturally, the map needs to be presented in the right way and SotS1 nailed it completely for me. Its 3D maps look far more beautiful than any 2D board I've seen before. Sadly I can't run SotS2 to see the maps there.

BTW, you always get the info on how long it will take to travel from any point to another in SotS1.

Actually you are going into stupid. As you yourself admit, 3rd dimension does not bring anything what would not be present in 2D but only makes the whole thing more complicated without benefit.

Maybe for you, but in gameplay terms it is useless and effort wasted on that would be better used elsewhere.

So you want pretty instead of good? I guess that is common these days. Eyecandy instead of function. Some eyecandy is necessary, but making stuff which complicate matters unnecessarily is not that.

 

Thus, no real relevance.

Bah, I see you got your port guns at ready... Calm down.

3D has no less functionality than 2D. I don't understand where you got that idea. Some are less able to orientate themselves in 3D, but that does not make it any less "good". Also, maps can be flattened for those 3D impaired.

3D has functionality, eyecandy and realism. Personally I prefer 3D.

3D is less functionality for me.  I have extreme trouble using any 3D display I have had access to so far.  I guess that makes me one of those "less able to orientate themselves" you seem to dismiss so easily.  That makes it "less good" for me.  If, as you state, maps can be flattened, then there is no actual gameplay or functionality added with the 3D, only a pretty display. 

3D has no functionality, some eyecandy, and impedes immersion.  Personally, I prefer 2D.

Should we have a vote, or let the devs decide?

Neither it has MORE functionality. It adds aspects to game which simply do not serve to make the game better. It has NO FUNCTIONALITY!

It simply complicates the process of controlling strategic level. In case you have not noticed, militaries use very simple abstractions representing different aspects. Reason is that in strategy it is important to see the actual big picture with one glance, not overwhelm yourself with useless trivia without actual use.

3D just adds layer of useless trivia which makes it more cumbersome to play.

Given the screenshots, they've already decided. That's a decision you have to make at the start, because it impacts so many things. They're probably not going to wake up tomorrow and decide to rewrite things to use a 3d map.

This is a great thread for people that want to debate the relative merits of 2d vs 3d movement in strategy games, but it's too late for it to have any impact on the game at all.

I am bumping my previous post because I am still curious if any one knows of a full 3d strategic space map that allows free roaming the way a 2d one does?

There are couple I think, trying to remember the names. They did not exactly hit big success I though.

Bit shameful not to remember the names as I actually own them...

Star ruler was one.

There was this other one I think, where your planets would build cargo ships for traders as source of income.

Distant worlds I think. Funny thing, it appears I have lost receipt for it. Good thing this came up, have to dig it out.

Agreed.  A game like this plays like a board game and adding visual complexities that don't really enhance gameplay isn't necessary.

Ill have to give Star ruler a go. I gave it a very brief try a couple years ago.

Well, it has it's own megalomaniac pull for it. I think someone managed to build warship which was about as long as galaxy was wide.

Distant worlds is not really 3D.  I play it quite a bit...