Reply #1 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Seriously? Does everyone really like parts of the landscape poked here and there instead of a full-fledged map of the planet, as in part 3?

Reply #2 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

I think it would be cool if planets were truncated icosahedrons. I think a limit of 32 workable tiles would be fine and I think that approach would give more interesting adjacency options than what we have now even though twelve tiles would be pentagonal instead of hexagonal. However, I wouldn't envy the programmer(s) told to implement it.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Quoting Jeff, reply 2

I think it would be cool if planets were truncated icosahedrons. I think a limit of 32 workable tiles would be fine and I think that approach would give more interesting adjacency options than what we have now even though twelve tiles would be pentagonal instead of hexagonal. However, I wouldn't envy the programmer(s) told to implement it.

So you'd prefer planets look like soccer balls?  (or C-60 molecules) ?  Somehow I think they'll be sticking with hexes.

Reply #4 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Quoting AdamMG, reply 3

So you'd prefer planets look like soccer balls?  (or C-60 molecules) ?  Somehow I think they'll be sticking with hexes.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Mathematically it is better because you have more usable adjacencies. I think 32 tiles is more than adequate for any planet. The problem with the planets now is that resources are invariably located at the edge of the map where they are hard to use. Why would more potential adjacencies be a bad thing, short of the programming required to implement it?

Reply #5 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

We will be adding more variations in backgrounds for planet types. But, the basic grid layout is unlikely to change much.