Whatever happened to the 3D map

Colon™ · July 1, 2001, 18:00

One thing that has made me curious since more information has been available about civ3 is that it appears they kept the 2D map from civ2, at least judging from current screenshots.
IMO one of the most interesting new features in SMAC was its 3D map which enhanced battle, artillery placed on top of mountains had a higher firing power for instance, and was also a visual improvement, there was a greater experience of height difference.

Is the only reason the screens don’t show a 3D map because they haven’t come to developing it yet or have they decided to drop the feature?

July 1, 2001, 20:02

Think they are keeping this 2d, because the game itself is finished, just a few more graphics, testing and play balancing is left to complete.

I think its fine, there's always room for CivIV anyway

DarkCloud · July 2, 2001, 17:10

The 3D map was interesting... but (according to Computer Games Magazine) the 3D map was "useless"... However, if they HAD implemented bonuses based upon height the 3D map would have been useful.

Sabre2th · July 2, 2001, 18:33

Personally, I'd much rather have a strong AI and good gameplay than a fancy map.

- Groucho - · July 2, 2001, 20:54

I'm a bit miffed about the lack of an map-interface update. There are so many great things that they could have done and still retained the tile based movement Sid seems so enamoured of.

The political features better be outstanding otherwise the two big things on my personal wish list will be kaput.

TechWins · July 3, 2001, 01:07

Quote:

Whatever happened to the 3D map

Whatever happened to people caring more about the gameplay than the graphics? Don't get me wrong good graphics are a plus but I'd much rather have great gameplay.

July 3, 2001, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Colon
Is the only reason the screens don't show a 3D map because they haven't come to developing it yet or have they decided to drop the feature?

If you guys remember "Will" was going to make SimCity 3000 3D.
They delay the game for over a year or more, did not work right, had to go back and make it 2D.
So maybe the same applies here. They may have tried and tried, but no luck.

Rasputin · July 3, 2001, 02:08

besides in agame that abstracty defines the land, amountain square actually being a large area upto 100 miles square... giving a longer range for weopons fired from there doesnt make sense...

ancient · July 3, 2001, 02:22

simcity 200 is 3d..

Rasputin · July 3, 2001, 02:35

simcity 2000 i think you mean , and yes it is, the moutnains are definatly higher than the plains...

Zanzin · July 3, 2001, 02:45

Simcity 2000 looked 3-d, but in the true sense of the concept it didn't use polygons or anything fancy like that - it used 2-d bitmaps to make it look 3-d....the same thing happened in simcity 3000, although this time they had different bitmaps for the four different angles you could view your city from, making it as such that the buildings didn't "follow" you......

anyhoo......yeah, i think its a pity there isn't a sexy 3-d map in civ3. It couldn't have been too hard to implement, and would have made civ3 truly different from civ2......the only difference between civ2 and 3 in terms of the maps is that the tiles are in a different shade...but the way its done is completly the same with diamonds and what not....kinda disapointing

SerapisIV · July 3, 2001, 11:22

Firaxis has touted their 3D map in earlier previews, but I sure can't see it in the screenshots. Just looks like tiles, ala Civ2. The only difference being that the tile image can block the view of tiles behind.

BorderPatrol · July 3, 2001, 12:01

The map is 3d from what I understand. The height of you unit will affect it's ability to attack an adjacent tile. I read something like that in an interview. If I fine it again I will give you a link.

July 3, 2001, 13:42

Quote:

Personally, I'd much rather have a strong AI and good gameplay than a fancy map.

I see, so your theory is, good graphics = weak AI and weak gameplay.

Yes that makes a lot of bloody sense.

KrazyHorse · July 3, 2001, 13:47

Seriously, though; the artists who make the pretty pictures are not the same people who make the AI run well.

SerapisIV · July 3, 2001, 14:59

As much as I agree with the artists don't write AI statement, the complaint over 3D maps is a fundamental design issue because in it contains the coding for world generation, path finding, and user interface questions. The decision by Firaxis to skip the 3D map was most likely made very early in the game cycle so that time was not lost changing things if 3D didn't pan out as desired. I think that this where the answer to the globe map civ question lies, aside from being too extreme a departure from the standard civ formula, it would've been hit or miss for coding properly, the game is already taking forever in development in my mind, imagine how long it would take if they went to a globe?

N35t0r · July 3, 2001, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
However, if they HAD implemented bonuses based upon height the 3D map would have been useful.

In SMAC they did, it was an optional rule you could trigger...

Geoff the Medio · July 4, 2001, 02:46

I think there are about 3 different things being discussed here, all of which could vaguely qualify as "3d map" or something to that effect.

1) Each map tile having a "height" value (above/below sea level) like in SMAC, which is used to determine combat bonuses or resource output

2) The graphics of the game being generated using models (made of polygons) which depict the terrain or units (not just bitmaps)

3) The world map being a globe (sphere), not a flat rectangle (or cylinder or some variation thereof)

Specification of which of these is being discussed in posts would help the discussion a bit... (or at least help me follow it)

Adm.Naismith · July 4, 2001, 04:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff the Medio
I think there are about 3 different things being discussed here, all of which could vaguely qualify as "3d map" or something to that effect.

1) Each map tile having a "height" value (above/below sea level) like in SMAC, which is used to determine combat bonuses or resource output

2) The graphics of the game being generated using models (made of polygons) which depict the terrain or units (not just bitmaps)

3) The world map being a globe (sphere), not a flat rectangle (or cylinder or some variation thereof)

Specification of which of these is being discussed in posts would help the discussion a bit... (or at least help me follow it)

As Borderpatrol mentioned, a preview spoke about your 1), where height should affect long range fire effect. It can be calculated also if the map is not made with real polygon but by "flat" bitmapped tiles.

The interview often mentioned that Firaxis started using SMAC engine (visually polygonal 3D map) but using pic of Civ II as placeholder: some of us supposed that early screenshots where take with that old engine "flattened" for test.
Now I'm almost sure that Firaxis chose again the shortcut to all flat. Only units model is changed, to add realistic movement: I suppose it's all the useful part left from exctinct Dinosaurus project (they mentioned a new technique on a Sid's Diary).

AFAIK Simcity 3000 was supposed so full 3D (your 2.point) to let you "walk" down the streets of your simulated City. The full amount of details to manage was too much for that game, so it was dismissed.
But a simple rotable 3D terrain is a basic of today games: it's not too difficult to make and manage it without bad side effects on AI routine

A globe was in my hope (and one of the enhancement requested into CIV III essential poll and list), but we already know hasn't been in design. Never. Let's forget it.

Listen, is not as I want to insult or minimize the work done by Firaxis programmer: simply I can't get where they put two years of effort. They stated two years ago that first thing they did was to throw away the bad SMAC graphic engine (or do I misunderstand the sentence?). Is the new engine any better? Not looking at current screenshot or E3 movie IMHO.
It looks like time isn't changed from last Civ II

But surely they spent two year on a radical better AI who will kick @$$ to all that proud Deity vet players around here