Spherical global map

[Neilster]

I know I'll probably cop heaps of flak for this suggestion but I'm putting it out there in case others think it has some merit. I'd like MWiF to have a spherical global-map[X(]. I'm not in favour of changing the game mechanics (unless it is vital or radically improves gameplay) but I think one of the real benefits of a computer implementation is this kind of "impossible to do on paper" stuff.

I also don't think it's terribly difficult to do compared to things like PBEM and an AI, that Matrix has already committed to, and it may have all sorts of subtle benefits. It appears they'll have plenty of time to work this idea out while they wrestle with the other stuff. I made a post along these lines ages ago but it seems to have disappeared into the ether during the hacking.

I'm thinking of a spinable (East-West and North-South) globe in a small window that works just like the standard global-map. Click somewhere on it and the main game-map centres on that point. Displaying a curved surface on a flat screen will mean the hexes will be distorted in some way but I think not radically. The global map is so big that any screen sized portion will be fairly flat. The same counters could be used.

1. A spherical globe would end the distortion of the map at higher/lower latitudes. When one considers the number of operations that occurred in the far North especially, (Winter War, Norway, Northern Russia, Arctic convoys, Aleutians, Iceland, Naval stuff in far North Atlantic etc) this has to help realism. One hex would mean one hex, just like in smaller scale games.

2. The little globe could be spun quicker or slower by some arrangement of arrow keys or grabbing it with the mouse and moving the mouse at various speeds. This should make it much quicker to leap around the globe, checking stuff and making plans.

3. It should require fewer hexes to model the Earth. A map that more accurately portrays the planet should also make global-scale stuff like convoys, naval operations and strategic movement more realistic.

4. I bet there are unforseen advantages to a model that better reflects the real world. Look at Object Oriented programming for example. It's seems more difficult at first but the more realistic model makes things much easier later on.

5. There may be more far-reaching implications. Suggestions whispered by only the bravest of souls. If one hex once again represents one hex worth of real-estate, Sea Areas could perhaps be done away with. This may help solve problems such as the interactions of Land Based Air with Sea Areas. With Sea Areas gone, LBA is either in range or it isn't. Having said that, I know there are some nice abstractions with Sea Areas and as I said, I think the game mechanics should be meddled with as little as possible.

I'm interested in everyone's feedback, especially from Robert or someone else from Matrix. If it makes the game better then it's not electrons wasted.

Cheers
Neilster.

[Mziln]

A Spherical Globe [&:] I'll Take the Flat Map [:D]

Click this Link to Old Screenshots of the Game Map

In the upper right hand corner is the Global Map with positioning sidebars (I mention this just so everyone starts on the same page in this debate).

1.
(A) Naval movement and combat (including Naval Air) take place in Sea Zones (So hex scale dosn't realy apply that much).

(B) The Aleutian's: Attu and Kiska islands wouldn't show up on the map if we are talking scale. Dutch Harbor is on a large Island which is represented.

(C) Iceland: With the exception of the port of Reykjavic is useless in a strategic sense.

(D) This leaves Winter War, Norway, and Northern Russia. Which IMO the game handles just fine.

2. This is already done with the current Global Map.

3.
(A) It would require fewer hexes but would require more complex programing. Or do jou invision a in game Global Map to Flat map conversion?

(B) Naval Operations are handled in Zones so realistic space is unnecessary.

4. Is your opinion. I am taking the other view so I have to disagree.

5. Considering the actual time scale involved in one turn, weather conditions, and units involved. Doing away with Sea Zones would impact the game in a major way. You could make it work but there would have to be an "Opertunity Fire" phase for aircraft or the aircraft would be way too static to be as effective as they were.

When creating a strategic simulation exact scale is not as important as it is in a tactical simulation.

[Titi]

A Spherical Globe?

I'll also Take the Flat Map for the following reason :

You can't keep the hexes lines on a spherical globe because when you are going near the north or south pole, the hexs will turn in some sort of squares or triangles lines.
So on a spherical map, there would be no more hexes.
And without hexes, that's no more something looking like WIF.

[Neilster]

I forgot to write that with a spherical global map it might be possible to only have 2 rather than 3 maps. I used to hide the intermediate (operational level) map anyway.

I possibly didn't make myself clear. The main playing screen would still be a flat map. The shape of the hexes would have to be distorted a little to map a slightly curved surface onto a flat screen. The maths isn't that hard.

It seems logical that a more realistic map would have unforseen advantages. Also, the superiority of Object Oriented Modelling is hardly just my opinion. It's a paradigm in computer science.

I stressed that the game mechanics could all stay the same. Just imagine that global map wrapped around a little sphere.

To answer Titi, the hexes don't have to change shape toward the poles. You just tile a sphere with the same shaped hexes, just like one could cover an orange by pushing in thumb-tacks.

I appreciate the feedback.

Cheers
Neilster

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

(1) I forgot to write that with a spherical global map it might be possible to only have 2 rather than 3 maps. I used to hide the intermediate (operational level) map anyway.

(2) I possibly didn't make myself clear. The main playing screen would still be a flat map. The shape of the hexes would have to be distorted a little to map a slightly curved surface onto a flat screen. The maths isn't that hard.

(3) It seems logical that a more realistic map would have unforseen advantages. Also, the superiority of Object Oriented Modelling is hardly just my opinion. It's a paradigm in computer science.

(4) I stressed that the game mechanics could all stay the same. Just imagine that global map wrapped around a little sphere.

(5) To answer Titi, the hexes don't have to change shape toward the poles. You just tile a sphere with the same shaped hexes, just like one could cover an orange by pushing in thumb-tacks.

I appreciate the feedback.

Cheers
Neilster

(1) I seldom use map #2. But it is nice, at times, to see the broader picture. Remember I posted asking for a Zoom feature to reduce the number of maps (but not at the expense of delaying the game). [;)]
(2) I see no problem with a graphic representation of the Global Map as being spherical. If we are just talking about a bitmap representation. It would be diferent ( [:)] being diferent isn't always a bad thing [:)] ).
But if we are converting to a Flat Map. I dont see the need to distort the hexes on the Flat Map.
(3) As you stated it's your opinion.
(4) No problem, no need to change the Flat Map.
(5) If the Hexes have to be distorted (as you've said) they would have to change.

[Neilster]

We need a cartographer [:)]

I think a little distortion is necessary, probably toward the edges of the screen. As the map scrolls, some of the distorted hexes will move toward the centre of the screen and look normal again. The normal counters can still be placed on the edge hexes because they would only be a slightly different shape and a little bigger. Also, because the map is so big and the part of it we are displaying relatively small, the distortion required wouldn't be significant.

The reason I think it's necessary is the same reason that the current global map (basically a Mercantor projection) has enormous polar areas compared to their actual size. One can't map a sphere to a flat page/screen without stretching or cutting it in some way. Since cutting it would look pretty crap, I think distortion would be better.

To quote the US geological survey,
"A map projection is used to portray all or part of the round Earth on a flat surface. This cannot be done without some distortion."

Their website has lots of cool stuff on map projections.

http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/MapPro ... tions.html

Cheers
Neilster

[rtamesis]

I think a polar projection showing the northern and the southern hemispheres will be more accurate for the European theatre and for the South Pacific. There will be some distortion as you approach the equator, though, but since most of the action in the equator takes place at sea in the Pacific, naval movement and combat could be abstracted to deal with that.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/MapPro ... tions.html

Meridians are equally spaced on the parallels, but their distances apart decreases from the Equator to the poles. At the Equator, meridians are spaced the same as parllels. Meridians at 60° are half as far apart as parallels. Parallels and meridians cross at right angles. The area of the surface bounded by any two parallels and any two meridians (a given distance apart) is the same anywhere between the same two parallels.

This is significant due to the location of 60° on the globe. It covers the area of Norway, Sweeden, Finland, and the Northern U.S.S.R.

WORLDATLAS.COM - LATITUDE & LONGITUDE

If distortion is at a constant rate, and I'm pretty sure it is. By the time your map reached North Africa your hex distortion would be a quarter as much as the ones at the equator (Singapore, Dutch East Indies, and New Guinea).

As things stand we receive more information from the Flat Global Map. You would have to enlarge the display to actualy show a Sphere instead of the Flat Map and get the same information. I.e. Hexes in North Africa would be 1.25 tiimes the width as ones in Norway.

[YohanTM2]

In another post Rob states that he will not be starting over and Matrix will not let him. While he is adding new art I think this will preclude any major changes.

[Mziln]

[:D] 3 reasons to keep this thread going [:D]

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall - It's a disgrace -6/22/2004 8:46:49 PM

(1) First let me say that we really appreciate the extensive feedback that has been posted here and I have been saving large swathes of it into my design notebook. Serious posts are taken seriously here! Keep it coming.

Cheers all, Rob.

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall - If I was the AI... - 7/31/2004 2:31:51 PM

(2) Beta testers will be selected from this forum (amongst other places) but that is not my particular job. Bart was working on this a while ago but before we can really consider this we have a whole lot of figuring out and documenting to do ourselves. Everyone who looked at CWIF had ideas for things they would like to see changed or added to it - not least myself. We are at the stage of looking at all possibilities and trying to sort out priorities. Then we have a lot of writing and preparation to do, and then we need to start making the changes. When that process is a few months in, then we will be getting serious about beta testers. We will want to beta from an very early stage with this one but it is premature still. You will see a call for beta testers posted here when the time comes. To improve your chances just keep making thoughtful, useful posts here. I read everything and frequently cut and paste ideas directly into my MWIF notes.

Ta, Rob.

(3) I like debates [:D]

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

As things stand we receive more information from the Flat Global Map. You would have to enlarge the display to actualy show a Sphere instead of the Flat Map and get the same information. I.e. Hexes in North Africa would be 1.25 tiimes the width as ones in Norway.

We see very little of the flat global map in the window. Projecting a sphere in there would display half the globe at once. Sure the equatorial regions would be easier to see but that's why I wanted a North/South scroll as well as an East/West one. Thus one could spin the globe around and up/down so that the area of interest, say Europe, is in the centre of the displayed hemisphere.

Yeah Yohan, I read the post about no major changes. Depending on how the coding has been done though, it may not actually require huge changes and may even generate efficiencies later on. If the code was originally written using Object Oriented principles, it should be quite compartmentalized and ameniable to changes such as this.

Cheers
Neilster

[sedecula]

Use a Fuller Projection. It's a flat map that can be constructed into a globe; it has equal area projection in both latitude and longitude.

http://www.bfi.org/map.htm

[Mziln]

[:D] So it would be a Icosahedron instead of a Globe. I like it (it looks like a big d20)! [:D]

Link to Icosahedron description

We will never convence Matrix to go for it [:(]

Maybe they could use it in another game and use a multi hex (couldn't find an example for the corect name) polyhedron and avoid the copywrite problems.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: sedecula

Use a Fuller Projection. It's a flat map that can be constructed into a globe; it has equal area projection in both latitude and longitude.

http://www.bfi.org/map.htm

It looks cool and I love Buckminster Fuller but we want to do the opposite, ie display part of a globe on a flat map (the main playing map). How does one, for example, scroll down from Japan to its Southern Resource Area on the Fuller projection? There's a big black bit there.

I'd love to live in a dome-home though.

Cheers
Neilster

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It looks cool and I love Buckminster Fuller but we want to do the opposite, ie display part of a globe on a flat map (the main playing map). How does one, for example, scroll down from Japan to its Southern Resource Area on the Fuller projection? There's a big black bit there.

I'd love to live in a dome-home though.

Cheers
Neilster

Big Black Bit? What Big Black Bit ? You did click on the in animation (link), didn't you?

It morphs the Flat Map into a Icosahedron (a Icosahedron is the shape used for a 20 sided die).

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: sedecula

Use a Fuller Projection. It's a flat map that can be constructed into a globe; it has equal area projection in both latitude and longitude.

http://www.bfi.org/map.htm

I have created my own fuller projection world maps for the worlds I have invented for my roleplaying games for years now. They work quite well with hex grids too, except for one slight problem: At the apices of the icosahedron (the points), the hex surrounding those points become pentagons (think soccer-ball, which is made of hexagons and pentagons).

Personally, I would prefer the WiF maps to be pasted around a sphere (or cylinder) so that functionally they operate in a cylindrical fashion. Anyway, the WiF maps do not show the polar regions, where the distortion of flat maps usually becomes greatest.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Big Black Bit? What Big Black Bit ? You did click on the in animation (link), didn't you?

It morphs the Flat Map into a Icosahedron (a Icosahedron is the shape used for a 20 sided die).

Yes I did, but the main game display would have to use the flat projection, which has big, black chunks on it. We want to display a section of a globe on a flat map, not the other way round.

Cheers
Neilster

[Mziln]

I was thinking wether you used a globe, cylinder, or icosahedron. You would link back to the same Flat Map the game has now.

So whatever global representation you used we would still retain the standard original map. Although your version of would require slight distortion of the hexes themselves.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

I was thinking wether you used a globe, cylinder, or icosahedron. You would link back to the same Flat Map the game has now.

So whatever global representation you used we would still retain the standard original map. Although your version of would require slight distortion of the hexes themselves.

But that's the point. What I'm talking about is changing the global map so that it's a sphere tiled with hexes. We then display the part of that map, slightly distorted to make it fit a rectangular main game screen, on which we are playing. Everything else goes like normal.

As I explained earlier, I think a spherical global map might have advantages that makes it worth it and computers can do the hard work of storing/manipulating the virtual 3D map and displaying it.

Cheers
Neilster

[Neilster]

I thought I'd reply to myself [:D]

Say there's a spherical global map. Might not a roughly circular, blobby main screen be able to have hexes about the same shape? Dunno. Bigger in the middle I guess. Maths might be easier? Doesn't fit so well on a rectangular monitor screen perhaps. Maybe less game area.

Possible subtle elegance to solution in that displaying the main display map in MWiF is like it is captured by a satellite in a low orbit around planet WiF. That's essentially what a spherical global map implementation would do, putting a virtual camera above a virtual 3D map and displaying what it sees. Would the satellite return a circular view of the planet?

Here's a blocky sort of Earth...

http://www.butera.org/planetbrick/images.html

Cheers
Neilster