This wouldn't add much in my opinion. It's fluff and the as much as things should change, I can't see why a 3d screen would truly make the game better.

it does look futurey

DARCA.

I'm happy with the 2D map (vs a 3D one). Plus no pentagons ruining the landscape.

I like it and think it is really interesting idea but agree that usability/readability would perhaps be compromised.

I do like the idea of planetary improvements having more of an impact on the visuals of that planet in the galactic map though...It is something that Sins and Endless Space did (to some extent) and I have always really liked it.

I like this idea a lot. Perhaps for more realism and to eliminate pentagons, we could make all tiles on planets triangles. These tessellate perfectly to form a geodesic dome. Furthermore, I hope that over time, the planetary map becomes larger in area and acquires a greater significance, especially with regard to planetary invasion. Planetary invasion shouldn't be a pure numbers game, it should be an interactive process that involves control over specific strategic areas on a planet and that can end in a draw (ie, two civilizations holding control over different parts of the same planet).

Even though the bulk of people dislike the notion of a spherical planetary view, I still contend that it would enhance the game. I have recently been playing GalCiv2 again and I do not see how this would detract from game play at all. Plus you could theoretically toggle between a 2d and 3d view. It is nice to see someone else like the idea as well. I still think the Hexagon/Pentagon combo fits in more with the aesthetics of the current game rather than pure triangles (which would be further from what they are doing now).

Regardless of planet size - I agree that some sort of planetary combat should be somewhat interactive as well. Perhaps similar to whatever Stardock has planned for the fleet battles but played on the planet map screen instead of the starfield. The taking over of worlds by an alien civilization is a BIG deal! A ground invasion/occupation is, in many respects, a bigger deal than bypassing the orbital defenses. The falling of worlds shouldn't simply be a numbers game. There is no reason Governors or admirals cannot be assigned to execute these battles for larger galaxy maps later in the game but I myself would play out each one first hand. The potential for this part of the game could be dramatic and fun. Plus moving to the spherical tessellation could be more flexible allowing the developers to one day have varying planet sizes - rather than a fixed 2d board.

Also, going back to the the pentagon tiles, they could add to the planet's overall strategy. Initially when you are colonizing a world, due to the fact that they have less sides, the pentagons could play against the player in the placement of improvements but later in the game they could play to the benefit of the the player strategically if we did ever receive planetary invasion/ground combat mechanics. Your main city or special/unique improvements placed on pentagon tiles are more protected from ground invasion troops.

@JoeBall23: Looking at the rest of the planet would be as simple as rotating the map. 3D models are certainly an issue, although I think that they would be a small one compared to the wholesale 3D update that Stardock has brought to the rest of the game. Further 3D models would have to be made for a whole line of Planetary Invasion techs, such as tanks, personnel carriers, ships, you name it.

I don't gather what you mean by "direct interference in space battles". Space battles are already played out on a large map (although I would wholly support a smaller tactical map) but planetary invasion is purely a numbers game. How planetary invasion works in GCII does a terrible injustice to the military, political, economic, and logistical challenges that accompany the conquest of a planet.

Also, as noted above, there is no way to make a globe out of a single regular polygon beyond 20 faces (a regular icosahedron), which is smaller than the game maximum. In addition, there is no way to make a globe out of even IRREGULAR polygons of the same shape in a sufficiently large size.

You're always going to be stuck with the Soccerball problem - inserting a couple of different-shaped polygons amidst the others.  It's not an insurmountable problem, of course, but, once again, it brings up the issue of dead spaces in the map, which further reduces usability.  Because it's going to be a PITA to code up a globe having to worry about two different face sizes and how graphics fit in them.

Take a good look at the rotating solid sphere above, and the soccerball next to it. Notice that all the faces are differently oriented, even those of the same shape. Which means that both the pixmap that shows the terrain, and the buildings themselves, will face different directions (unless, you want the devs to have to make DIFFERENT pixmaps for use in different orientations).  It will look ridiculous. Which even further detracts from the usability.

I pointed out above:

 Wouldn't the complete bitmap of the planet surface/terrain be one image and the grid be a separate layer laid over the bitmap? And even if it wasn't wouldn't the code splice up the bitmap into the appropriate pieces once the planet was generated? Also, the buildings in this hypothetical 3d planetary view would be 3d and you wouldn't have to have differently oriented pixmaps for them at all as they would just be plopped on top of the tile.

Skinning a true sphere (or, at least something made via splines/Bezier surfaces) is much simpler, and flat maps are idiot simple.   Remember, we're looking at probably a dozen or so different surface designs, and with a 3D solid, you can't efficiently "assemble" a surface texture (i.e. just pick out a pixmap for each hex/pent) and expect it not to look wrong because of the varying orientation of each face, so you *have* to do the skin.  We're talking probably 10x the effort to create a skin for a soccerball vs a flat map.

Additionally, 3D models of each building are a lot of work. A *lot* of work - GC3 has maybe 200 buildings, so that 200 models vs 200 pixmap images. Plus, even coding up the interface to show a spinning globe with a flat pixmap surface is significantly easier than managing 3D projections from that surface.

Overall, I'd say we're looking at probably at least an engineer/month of work to do the tech stuff, and possibly a couple of artist/months to do all the artwork properly. That's a *significant* outlay in money.

And none of this addresses the issue that a flat surface map is superior in information presentation/density to a globe. Basically, a 3D globe gets you a whole lot of eye-candy, no features that can't be much more simply implemented on a flat surface, and a whole bunch of deficiencies the flat map doesn't have.

I'm not against bling/eye-candy - heck, the whole "watch the ships circle the planet" view in GC2 when you zoomed down was pure eye-candy, and served no purpose at all other than looked real cool.  It *is* a game, after all, and looking great is a big selling point.

But functionality/playability over everything else, period. Eye candy you add in AFTER everything else, and is MUST NOT hurt playability. I can't see a globe planet view making that criteria.

Again, the globe could be useful in terms of planetary invasion. Invading a spherical planet is totally different from invading a flat map-style one, since on the flat planet there are edges and on the globe (as in real life) there are not. The logistics associated with the game, invasion routes, etc. would be completely different on a round planet vis à vis a flat one. This is not pure eye candy, it could serve a purpose.

Why shouldn't it justify changing the military system? Honestly, it would probably not take that much effort to create tactical maps (just use the same ship models, perhaps several ships for each fleet, and have them fight in a smaller tactical sum-map). GCII could become a much better game militarily if the true challenges of military use were explored. Stardock shouldn't make a game that functions "well enough"; it should work to make a better and better game. In addition to tactical maps, I would support efforts to place stellar systems within smaller system maps, to reflect the fact that planets orbiting one star are generally not halfway in between their host star and another, but much closer to the host star.

Also, regarding the soccer-ball problem, the issue could be easily resolved by using triangular tiles instead of hexagonal (this could apply to the main map as well although it wouldn't be exactly necessary. This eliminates nearly all of the inconsistencies and discrepancies associated with hexagonal tiles while still allowing for natural, organic terrain to be created. Although pentagons would still be formed by the triangles, they would not have an effect on the movement of units. This makes geodesic spheres a good model to use. Below is an example:

The issue regarding models could be resolved by taking the Civilization model of building construction, creating cities and then constructing buildings inside those cities (farms, mines, lumber mills, field labs, and other tile improvements could be constructed outside). Thus 3D models do not have to be detailed, if they exist at all, and the work of developers is reduced greatly. Since planets would be much larger, Planet Quality would not depend on how many tiles there are to use (although the Habitat Improvement line of techs should still make unusable tiles, which may have strategic resources, Precursor mines/libraries, etc., usable) but would have a certain value for the planet, representing the amount of waste that its ecosystem can process and assimilate while remaining in balance. Buildings and people would produce quantities of waste; while certain techs (Xeno Recycling?) and buildings could reduce the amount of waste, they would not be able to entirely eliminate it. To go beyond the limit of Planet Quality, one would either have to risk crop failures, industrial accidents, and the like on a planet, or would be forced to transport waste between planets (which would be ruinously expensive and would create space junk that harms your spacecraft).

To say it again. I think the OP is a bad idea. Although the spinning soccer vall is cool.

DARCA.

I read the original post and was like: SWEET BABY JESUS, THAT IS AWESOME. Then I read the first couple comments and was like: Well, it was fun while it lasted.