Re: Using terrain coatings and existing code to model topography, weather, and vegetation

["D. Cooper Stevenson" <cstevens@gencom.us>]

On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 16:13, mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
[snip]
>  I'm usually quite happy to have details abstracted.  The level
> of abstraction that's appropriate varies a lot depending on the individual
> game.  Some games are "strategic", some are "operational", some are
> "tactical", and in general you see more detail and more complication at
> the tactical level and less at the strategic level.

I don't want to lose the tactical aspect of the game: that's critical.
For me, thinking about how movements should be made in the macro sense
is a primary draw to the fun of the game.

> 
> That's one reason I said in one of my other messages that I think the
> GIS/XConq translation process will need a lot of customization per map;
> really, what it needs is customization *per game*.  Some games will want
> some of the data to be really detailed; others will want less of the data
> and less detail in it.  I think that in all cases the game's needs have to
> come first, and they'll shape how the data is treated.

You're right. I overlooked this. I'm going to do Antarctica first, then
look for an, "operations" level theater to do (Normandy Beach?). I hope
that I then have the experience to give the satellite view of a tactical
theater without getting in the way. Think: a "toned down" satellite look
with only the relevant features making it through the filters.
 
> 
> I have similar reservations about Cooper's plan to make every hex its own
> unique terrain type. 

Me too. I thought as I drafted my plan, "wouldn't it be nice if I could
say, okay, Xconq, here's your world view image divided into hexes. Now,
0,0 is border, 0,1 is sea, 0,2 is plains, 0,3 is mountains, and so on."

>  I can see doing that as a work-around in order to
> give every hex its own unique picture, but even that seems like a lot of
> work and I think it would be a very special game that actually needed it.

Exactly.

>   
> It would be nice to instead do something like the recent "specify a
> picture for an individual unit" patch to allow specification of a picture
> for an individual hex, while leaving the hexes grouped into just a few
> terrain types.

Exactly! Also, if a designer later wishes to design new terrain types to
match their design goals, we haven't gotten in their way to do so!

>  Ideally, you could specify custom pictures for just a few
> hexes, or for every hex, according to taste - that way you could deal with
> a wide range of different game needs.

Right. This feeds full circle back to the type of game. If it's a
tactical game you're after, just have a few different tiles for each
terrain type. If it's an operations level game you're after, have each
tile accurately reflect the actual topography. The key is to display
tiles and display them well without getting in the way of the games
native functionality or the designers goals.

I think this is the way to go. I will look deeper into the patch and try
to emulate it from the first go.

My primary focus is to bringing nice-looking satellite imagery to Xconq.
This way, the game designer gets the opportunity to use (and modify) the
imagery while at the same time giving them the freedom to implement
whatever attributes the designer wishes.

A game scenario about trying to take Russia in the winter, for example,
definitely has a weather factor. I don't want to interfere with the
designer's freedom to do that.


-Coop


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Cooper Stevenson        | Em:  cooper@gencom.us            |
| GenCom                  | Ph:  541.924.9434                |
| "Working For IT"        | Www: http://www.gencom.us        |
--------------------------------------------------------------