Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
Moderator: maddog986
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:24 pm
Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
As most people know, or should know, flat maps are not an accurate representation of the surface of the earth. Generally speaking, the larger the area shown, the more distorted and inaccurate the map becomes, usually and especially near the edges, although it depends on which map projection is used.
Here is a typical Mercator projection map of the type often used to show the earth.
A couple of obvious problems with this: The increasingly gross distortions of the landmasses near the poles. Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and Siberia are all much larger than they should be. Even more extreme is the size of Antarctica near the south pole.
Also, scrolling across the poles would not be possible if this map were used in a wargame, or at least wouldn't make any sense.
Nor do the areas near the poles come together as they actually do on a globe. In the above map, Siberia is many thousands of miles away from northern Canada, for example, when in reality it is much closer on a globe.
Using various modified flat-map projections doesn't solve these problems.
OK, hopefully most people here already knew all this.
The only accurate way of mapping the earth, or parts thereof, is to use a sphere/globe. (Yes, I know the earth is slightly egg-shaped, being a little wider at the equator than from pole to pole, but that is irrelevant and a perfect sphere would be just fine for the purpose of this discussion.)
Unfortunately, from everything I've been able to learn, it is impossible to impose a contiguous polygonal grid across the entirety of a globe. In other words, a globe cannot be completely overlaid with a contiguous hexagonal grid, or any other kind of grid, without resorting to some other polygonal shape in some area(s). A good example of this is a soccer ball.
Note that while the white polygons are hexagons, the black ones are pentagons.
The closest I've been able to find on the 'net that shows what I would consider an ideal global grid, is this graphic (source):
Sorry about the size of this, but I need to keep it big in order to point out the problems, which are two-fold.
First, while all the polygons in this grid are hexagons, the polygon I marked with a red X at the center is a pentagon. This is the point at which all the other polygons come together and due to the curvature of the sphere this apparently cannot be a hexagon.
Secondly, it is obvious that the sides of the hexagons nearest the center pentagon are distorted to various degrees, again presumably due to the curvature of the sphere. I don't know how such an irregular grid could be hard-coded into a computer wargame - it probably can't.
A similar situation presumably exists on the other side of this globe, at the south pole. Note that these areas of anomalies don't necessarily have to be at the poles, they could be located anywhere on the sphere, but the poles would probably be the best places, since those areas would presumbably be least used in a wargame.
Im presuming a lot, ain't I? But I think I'm making sense.
So what's the solution?
The most obvious solution is to not have a polygonal grid at all, but to simply depict areas, such as with the typical area maps of games like Empires in Arms, for example.
I myself am one of those people who is partial to having some kind of a grid, because area maps usually tend to have some areas that end up being more important than others, for various reasons, although I'll be the first to acknowledge that I have almost no experience with games that utilize area maps.
Another thing to consider - and maybe herein lies a solution - is that, when depicting a sphere/globe, only part of the earth would be visible to the player at any given time. No more than half the planet would be visible, even at the most extreme zoom-out level.
Let's imagine the ideal zoom level for my hypothetical wargame is similar to this graphic:
This happens to show a square grid, but a hexagonal grid could just as easily be used.
This then, might be the zoom level at which most game actions would take place, such as moving units, initiating and resolving combats, etc.
As the player scrolls around the map, the grid would stay stationary while the sphere beneath it moves. In this way, the polygonal anomalies shown on the large global map above might be avoided.
However, I'm not sure this actually solves the problem, because various locations on the map would still always have to be in the same locations in relation to one another and be the same distance apart, regardless of how the player scrolls the map.
That sounds a little confusing, so let me try to clarify.
In a conventional hex-grid wargame, a given location will always be in the same hex on the map. In fact, hexes are often numbered (AA07 and so forth). Likewise, any two locations will always be the same number of hexes apart from each other. For example, if city X is at hex AA01 and city Y is at hex AA05, it means there are 3 hexes between the cities, AA02, AA03 and AA04.
So, while hex numbering in my above system would probably be pointless, if not impossible, the relationship of any two points on the map, say between cities X and Y above, still need to be kept constant in terms of the overlaying hexagonal grid, no matter how the player rotates the underlying globe. That is, they always have to be four hexes apart and in the same direction of movment.
In order to accomplish this, the computer might be programmed to convert real-life distances into hex distances, so that the distance between say, Dallas and El Paso, which might be 300 miles, would be translated into say, 10 hexagons.
Well, I'm not sure if those last parts make sense to readers.
In any case, I'd like to see a strategy/wargame utilizing a rotatable globe as a map, even if it's an area map.
EDIT: Another possible solution might lie with a gridless pixel-to-pixel system, such as I understand is used in games like Conquest of the Aegean, which I haven't played.
Here is a typical Mercator projection map of the type often used to show the earth.
A couple of obvious problems with this: The increasingly gross distortions of the landmasses near the poles. Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and Siberia are all much larger than they should be. Even more extreme is the size of Antarctica near the south pole.
Also, scrolling across the poles would not be possible if this map were used in a wargame, or at least wouldn't make any sense.
Nor do the areas near the poles come together as they actually do on a globe. In the above map, Siberia is many thousands of miles away from northern Canada, for example, when in reality it is much closer on a globe.
Using various modified flat-map projections doesn't solve these problems.
OK, hopefully most people here already knew all this.
The only accurate way of mapping the earth, or parts thereof, is to use a sphere/globe. (Yes, I know the earth is slightly egg-shaped, being a little wider at the equator than from pole to pole, but that is irrelevant and a perfect sphere would be just fine for the purpose of this discussion.)
Unfortunately, from everything I've been able to learn, it is impossible to impose a contiguous polygonal grid across the entirety of a globe. In other words, a globe cannot be completely overlaid with a contiguous hexagonal grid, or any other kind of grid, without resorting to some other polygonal shape in some area(s). A good example of this is a soccer ball.
Note that while the white polygons are hexagons, the black ones are pentagons.
The closest I've been able to find on the 'net that shows what I would consider an ideal global grid, is this graphic (source):
Sorry about the size of this, but I need to keep it big in order to point out the problems, which are two-fold.
First, while all the polygons in this grid are hexagons, the polygon I marked with a red X at the center is a pentagon. This is the point at which all the other polygons come together and due to the curvature of the sphere this apparently cannot be a hexagon.
Secondly, it is obvious that the sides of the hexagons nearest the center pentagon are distorted to various degrees, again presumably due to the curvature of the sphere. I don't know how such an irregular grid could be hard-coded into a computer wargame - it probably can't.
A similar situation presumably exists on the other side of this globe, at the south pole. Note that these areas of anomalies don't necessarily have to be at the poles, they could be located anywhere on the sphere, but the poles would probably be the best places, since those areas would presumbably be least used in a wargame.
Im presuming a lot, ain't I? But I think I'm making sense.
So what's the solution?
The most obvious solution is to not have a polygonal grid at all, but to simply depict areas, such as with the typical area maps of games like Empires in Arms, for example.
I myself am one of those people who is partial to having some kind of a grid, because area maps usually tend to have some areas that end up being more important than others, for various reasons, although I'll be the first to acknowledge that I have almost no experience with games that utilize area maps.
Another thing to consider - and maybe herein lies a solution - is that, when depicting a sphere/globe, only part of the earth would be visible to the player at any given time. No more than half the planet would be visible, even at the most extreme zoom-out level.
Let's imagine the ideal zoom level for my hypothetical wargame is similar to this graphic:
This happens to show a square grid, but a hexagonal grid could just as easily be used.
This then, might be the zoom level at which most game actions would take place, such as moving units, initiating and resolving combats, etc.
As the player scrolls around the map, the grid would stay stationary while the sphere beneath it moves. In this way, the polygonal anomalies shown on the large global map above might be avoided.
However, I'm not sure this actually solves the problem, because various locations on the map would still always have to be in the same locations in relation to one another and be the same distance apart, regardless of how the player scrolls the map.
That sounds a little confusing, so let me try to clarify.
In a conventional hex-grid wargame, a given location will always be in the same hex on the map. In fact, hexes are often numbered (AA07 and so forth). Likewise, any two locations will always be the same number of hexes apart from each other. For example, if city X is at hex AA01 and city Y is at hex AA05, it means there are 3 hexes between the cities, AA02, AA03 and AA04.
So, while hex numbering in my above system would probably be pointless, if not impossible, the relationship of any two points on the map, say between cities X and Y above, still need to be kept constant in terms of the overlaying hexagonal grid, no matter how the player rotates the underlying globe. That is, they always have to be four hexes apart and in the same direction of movment.
In order to accomplish this, the computer might be programmed to convert real-life distances into hex distances, so that the distance between say, Dallas and El Paso, which might be 300 miles, would be translated into say, 10 hexagons.
Well, I'm not sure if those last parts make sense to readers.
In any case, I'd like to see a strategy/wargame utilizing a rotatable globe as a map, even if it's an area map.
EDIT: Another possible solution might lie with a gridless pixel-to-pixel system, such as I understand is used in games like Conquest of the Aegean, which I haven't played.
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
But the earth IS flat!!!!
Press to Test...............Release to Detonate!
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
UFO and X-COM series. Check out UFO: Alien Invasion. Doesn't cost any [;)]ORIGINAL: BoredStiff
In any case, I'd like to see a strategy/wargame utilizing a rotatable globe as a map, even if it's an area map.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.
MekWars
MekWars
- Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
ORIGINAL: BoredStiff
In any case, I'd like to see a strategy/wargame utilizing a rotatable globe as a map, even if it's an area map.
EDIT: Another possible solution might lie with a gridless pixel-to-pixel system, such as I understand is used in games like Conquest of the Aegean, which I haven't played.
A well-thought out post, especially as to placing the pentagons in a hexagon grid at the poles. Note, however, that by definition pixels occupy a non-zero area, so that effectively pixels are a grid.
A gridless system, which I would guess has everything defined in positional coordinates and then has the computer move the map the appropriate distance for viewing, would work very well for naval games. On land, however, you have things like roads, rivers, and railways, which compel movement along pre-determined paths. That seems more difficult to me.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
A gridless system, which I would guess has everything defined in positional coordinates and then has the computer move the map the appropriate distance for viewing, would work very well for naval games. On land, however, you have things like roads, rivers, and railways, which compel movement along pre-determined paths. That seems more difficult to me.
Check out "Highway to the Reich" and "Conquest of the Aegean" as excellent examples of games which don't use grids, but continuous coordinates and which manage this very well.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
One of our toys at Stratsims, http://www.stratsims.com/CIC_MP01.asp does the spherical globe thing (2D engine even, strange eh).
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:24 pm
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
Good, I tried to be as clear as possible with a subject in which I don't know the technical language.ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
A well-thought out post,
I'm not sure what you mean by non-zero, but I understand your point and was aware of the issue. To put it another way, pixels basically represent the center of polygons, presumably hexagons, and if pixels were able to be spaced equidistantly from one another across the entirety of a globe, then so would polygons, which unfortunately they are not.Note, however, that by definition pixels occupy a non-zero area, so that effectively pixels are a grid.
Back to square one, no pun intended.
I think I understand what you're saying. This relates back to the point I was making about locations always having to be properly distanced in relation to one another, both with a polygonal system or a pixel system.A gridless system, which I would guess has everything defined in positional coordinates and then has the computer move the map the appropriate distance for viewing, would work very well for naval games. On land, however, you have things like roads, rivers, and railways, which compel movement along pre-determined paths. That seems more difficult to me.
Well, if grid systems are out, then lets at least have a game using a spherical/global area map. Shouldn't be anything too difficult about that.
In addition to the usual random map generation, such a game might have options that would let players create random area patterns, so that at least not every game ends up in battles for the same key areas. Likewise, there might be an option to determine the size of areas, with larger areas making for faster playing games and smaller areas a longer playing games.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:24 pm
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
Can you post a screenie of how the game utilizes a globe? All I see when I Google the game are the usual flat maps.ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
UFO and X-COM series. Check out UFO: Alien Invasion. Doesn't cost any [;)]
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:24 pm
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
One of their screenies pretty much looks exactly like what I have in mind. Unfortunately, it appears to be strictly a naval game, true?ORIGINAL: TonyE
One of our toys at Stratsims, http://www.stratsims.com/CIC_MP01.asp does the spherical globe thing (2D engine even, strange eh).
- V22 Osprey
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:07 pm
- Location: Corona, CA
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
I like the hex grid map of globe.The way I see is that,eeach hex doesn't have to be perfect,as long as each hex is big enough to fit the units for the game.I can see a World in Flames or WitP type game with that globe grid.
Art by rogueusmc.
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
I proposed a hex-based but (roughly) spherical map for World in Flames in 2004. I consulted with my Maths lecturer who's a geometry expert about it but that went no further because he was too busy.
Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:24 pm
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
I've been told it's not possible to cover a sphere/globe with a grid of evenly shaped and sized polygons.ORIGINAL: Neilster
I proposed a hex-based but (roughly) spherical map for World in Flames in 2004. I consulted with my Maths lecturer who's a geometry expert about it but that went no further because he was too busy.
Cheers, Neilster
I've raised the issue in other forums and have been told as much by various people. I also read as much in one of my Google searches.
Forum member Capt. Harlock, who chimed in uptopic, also seems to confirm this and in his profile he says he's an aeronautical engineer.
I raised the issue here because there seems to be a good number of game developers here who might see it and perhaps some of them might at least get some new ideas on how to present maps for strategy games.
I see no reason, for example, why an area map on a rotatable globe could not be done. That, in itself, would be a very appealing, not to mention unique, aside from the naval game someone linked to uptopic.
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
ORIGINAL: BoredStiff
I see no reason, for example, why an area map on a rotatable globe could not be done.
It would be impracticle for the players.
My first ever wargame was Risde and Decline of the Third Reich. At a glance you can see the whole of the map.
Years later a PC version was released. I had to page around to see the map. Ultimately it was about 3 screns high and 4 screens wide.
The inability to see the whole screen at one glance was a great disadvantage.
If the map were shaped like a globe I could not see the whole screen at a glance.
-
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:24 pm
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
That's no different from any other wargame.ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If the map were shaped like a globe I could not see the whole screen at a glance.
- Marc von Martial
- Posts: 5292
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Bonn, Germany
- Contact:
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
ORIGINAL: BoredStiff
That's no different from any other wargame.ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If the map were shaped like a globe I could not see the whole screen at a glance.
Well, there are plenty of wargames were you at least have the chance to see almost everything at a glance.
With a 3D globe you would still not be able to see everything at a glance even if you have a huge monitor / panel you play on.
I agree it is pretty impractible for the gamer.
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
But in the real world of monitors you often won't be able to see anything of value if looking at the entire world on a 2D map. It's all too small. With a 3D map you can actually see more hexes for a given 2D display area, it's just that many of them are away from the centre and distorted. You just need some snazzy and intuitive controls to spin the globe to check everything out quickly.ORIGINAL: Marc von Martial
ORIGINAL: BoredStiff
That's no different from any other wargame.ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If the map were shaped like a globe I could not see the whole screen at a glance.
Well, there are plenty of wargames were you at least have the chance to see almost everything at a glance.
With a 3D globe you would still not be able to see everything at a glance even if you have a huge monitor / panel you play on.
I agree it is pretty impractible for the gamer.
Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
I was hoping it is possible to construct a very many sided polyhedron out of hexes. According to Wikipedia though "There exists no polyhedron whose faces are all identical and are regular polygons with six or more sides because the vertex of three regular hexagons defines a plane". Well...that settles that then. The problem of course is that we have inherited hexagons from a 2D world and we are trying to make the leap into the third dimension (like that Simpsons episode where Homer gets sucked into the real world. "Hmmmm...erotic cakes!" Simpsons fans will know what I mean).ORIGINAL: BoredStiff
I've been told it's not possible to cover a sphere/globe with a grid of evenly shaped and sized polygons.ORIGINAL: Neilster
I proposed a hex-based but (roughly) spherical map for World in Flames in 2004. I consulted with my Maths lecturer who's a geometry expert about it but that went no further because he was too busy.
Cheers, Neilster
I've raised the issue in other forums and have been told as much by various people. I also read as much in one of my Google searches.
Forum member Capt. Harlock, who chimed in uptopic, also seems to confirm this and in his profile he says he's an aeronautical engineer.
I raised the issue here because there seems to be a good number of game developers here who might see it and perhaps some of them might at least get some new ideas on how to present maps for strategy games.
I see no reason, for example, why an area map on a rotatable globe could not be done. That, in itself, would be a very appealing, not to mention unique, aside from the naval game someone linked to uptopic.
If we are to stick with hexes I think there's a solution. We construct a spheroidal object from hexagons that don't quite touch, (making the hexes slightly smaller to preserve overall dimension I suppose). It's not a polyhedron but who cares about such theoretical mathematical concepts when the tiny gaps will allow us to make an Earth-like shape out of hexagons, which is what we're after.
Imagine you have dozens of flat-topped hexagonal thumb-tacks and an orange. You could push all the hex tacks into the orange without them clashing (as would happen theoretically) if you left a small gap between each one.
We already usually have a black line around our hexes to delineate them anyway. You could even adjust the gaps minutely to accommodate the difference between polar and equatorial radii (which from memory is approximately 60km or about half a MWiF hex and hence probably not worth worrying about).
MWiF has over 72,000 hexes but many of them currently only exist (near the Poles) due to distortion. By making a spheroidal map you could reduce that number to say, 60,000 hexes. That would approximate a sphere pretty well.
A 3D map ain't going to happen for MWiF 1 anyway. It may make more sense for MWiF 2 with Cold War stuff like bombers over the poles. In short, for 3D maps it's easier to abandon hexes. I mean, they're an abstraction that made paper wargaming easier. They still do a good job in many computer games but in 3D they're mostly more trouble than they're worth.
Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
- 105mm Howitzer
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:13 am
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
Maybe we should ask the little people living in the center of the earth what they think of this.[:D]
"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" - Publius Renatus, 390 A.D.
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
Matrix's own UFO: ET uses the globe system mixed with a regional system (although do note that really this is a pixel system on a globe as you can target any point on that globe to fly your ships to).
Techinically, if you pull the zoom all the way back on Civilizations IV, you get a "globe" but it tends to look a bit more like a global cylinder than an actual globe.
There is an independent game designer, named Sascha Willems, working on a global strategy game called Projekt "W." You can DL this beta version is you wish. Find it here.
Here is his globe:
Techinically, if you pull the zoom all the way back on Civilizations IV, you get a "globe" but it tends to look a bit more like a global cylinder than an actual globe.
There is an independent game designer, named Sascha Willems, working on a global strategy game called Projekt "W." You can DL this beta version is you wish. Find it here.
Here is his globe:
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade
RE: Wargaming on a Globe (Note: Graphic-intensive topic)
http://www.airlinesimulation.com/
Airline 6 is also using a globe for some animations, and a flat projection for others. If you are interested in map making and projections, you can always check out Campaign Cartographer that have many products for making maps: http://www.profantasy.com/
Airline 6 is also using a globe for some animations, and a flat projection for others. If you are interested in map making and projections, you can always check out Campaign Cartographer that have many products for making maps: http://www.profantasy.com/