Feedback on Wrapping Worlds -- Message Board / Global Triumph -- Too Much Stupid

I'm likely going to have worlds wrap in GT2. So, a unit could pass through the left side and appear on the right.

Of course, a unit couldn't hit the top and pass through the bottom, since the top and bottom of worlds don't touch. (You can't just hop from the north to the south pole.) Conceptually, it's a bit trickier. Consider this image of the map as it's being wrapped onto an actual sphere:

user image

Imagine it continuing to wrap until the two red dots touch. At that point, in fact, all the dots would be the same point, at the very top of the world.

Imagine a unit heading north toward the left, green dot. Instead of popping out of the bottom of the map (which doesn't make sense), it would actually pop out heading south at the right, green dot. Even though it technically makes perfect sense, I imagine that might be confusing to a lot of users when working on a flat map. They'd sent troops north or south and they'd pop out heading the opposite direction exactly halfway to the left or right.

So, should I make the world round only in the horizontal direction and not let units pass vertically, or should I set it to work correctly and risk people being confused?

Interesting!

I think the allowing units to move vertically would be good.

Edit: Would I get to see where exactly the remainder of my attack routes show up on the other side?

edited 1x / 2m

Manaco wrote on :

Would I get to see where exactly the remainder of my attack routes show up on the other side?

I'm not sure just yet. For efficiency's sake, the game currently only displays attacks if the unit is on the screen. That would never be the case in this situation, so I'd have to see how intensive it would be to always check for attacking units half a world away with set attacks and check if they cut in.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's most likely something I would not do.

Although a cylindrical world is one solution, I do think that a fake-spherical (where you still have a rectangular map and sector uniformity, as you showed above) or toroidal (leave the top going north, re-enter on the same vertical axis in the south still heading north) map would give some new and interesting strategic considerations (since we would no longer be picking between being squeezed into a corner or being open on all sides in the middle).

I would have to say though that any wrapping solution that permits the main map screen to scroll seamlessly (i.e. not popping from 1 side of the map to the other) would be fine.

That's awesome! This kind of wrap will change the nature of alliances too since corners and edges wont create so many land-lock countries.

I'm all for point touching poles. That's the closest to reality. For example, if Russia was to sent nukes to the United States, they wouldn't cross the pacific or atlantic (good heavens no! lol), they'd blast right across the poles and Canada.

It would be rather incomplete however if attack paths didn't pass through. I haven' a clue what the technicality is of such a feature, but I remain hopeful.

edited 1x / 2m

GholaMaster wrote on :

For example, if Russia was to sent nukes to the United States, they wouldn't cross the pacific or atlantic (good heavens no! lol), they'd blast right across the poles and Canada.

I hadn't really considered air attacks. I think it could become quite a confusing mess to allow air attacks go across the top of the map, since the game will still be played on a flat rectangle. It also wouldn't make much sense to allow land units to pass through and air units not.

I think for the sake of simplicity (especially for newer users), I'll most likely go with a cylindrical world. Scrolling and units will work horizontally, but the map will "end" vertically.

Wouldn't the spherical world be a cool differentiating element for your game though? I mean, there are varieties of online war games that all feature vast flat maps. Nailing this thing down to sphere would put the globe into "Global Triumph" baby! I think it would be a great USP!

It would be different -- I've never see it implemented that way. It has alway been edges only or toroidal (think donut) when all points on the top match the bottom.

I've no idea how such a system would play since I've never seen anyone implement it.

You could try adding some sort of "spherical view" were you view the map as a ball, and can move it around like that. That could help understanding the map.

I think the spherical approach would be awesome, but if you choose the cylindrical approach I would still see it as an improvement.

Global Triumph

Thread

Messages / 1 to 10 of 10

Message Board

Categories

Search