map design mod

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

map design mod

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> map design mod

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

map design mod - 8/16/2009 11:09:44 PM

Anendrue

Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

Hey modders does anyone think they can stitch this type of map together. Noitce it is all hexes and an occasional pentagon to bring them all together. I wonder if MWiF product 2 could have a complete world map like this. Just spin it around similiar to google maps and zoom on in.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by abj9562 -- 8/16/2009 11:15:53 PM >

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

Post #: 1

RE: map design mod - 8/17/2009 1:52:05 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

I suggested this in 2004. I think it would facilitate Cold War stuff too (bombers over the poles, Boomers etc)

There has been plenty of discussion about it....

http://www.matrixgames.com/Forums/tm.asp?m=2028085

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Anendrue)

Post #: 2

RE: map design mod - 8/30/2009 5:14:10 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

The depiction at the top of this thread is not quite correct (too many hexagons). The attempt to map a sphere onto flat faces is achieved most elegantly by copying buckminsterfullerene C60. The rule is that each hexagon borders three hexagons and three pentagons; that is to say, each pentagon is two faces from another pentagon.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C60

For an everyday image of buckminsterfullerene C60, just look at a football with its black pentagons. It is the most stable and therefore 'natural' way of arranging sixty atoms of carbon into a single (remarkably flexible) molecule.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 3

RE: map design mod - 8/31/2009 3:39:05 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

The depiction at the top of this thread is not quite correct (too many hexagons). The attempt to map a sphere onto flat faces is achieved most elegantly by copying buckminsterfullerene C60. The rule is that each hexagon borders three hexagons and three pentagons; that is to say, each pentagon is two faces from another pentagon.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C60

For an everyday image of buckminsterfullerene C60, just look at a football with its black pentagons. It is the most stable and therefore 'natural' way of arranging sixty atoms of carbon into a single (remarkably flexible) molecule.

Pentagons are incompatible with WiF.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 4

RE: map design mod - 9/24/2009 3:37:17 PM

Anendrue

Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

The depiction at the top of this thread is not quite correct (too many hexagons). The attempt to map a sphere onto flat faces is achieved most elegantly by copying buckminsterfullerene C60. The rule is that each hexagon borders three hexagons and three pentagons; that is to say, each pentagon is two faces from another pentagon.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C60

For an everyday image of buckminsterfullerene C60, just look at a football with its black pentagons. It is the most stable and therefore 'natural' way of arranging sixty atoms of carbon into a single (remarkably flexible) molecule.

Pentagons are incompatible with WiF.
Cheers, Neilster

Technically yes, it is incompatiable but with a few movement rules adjustments it seems like it would work quite well. Oh well, maybe in MWiF3.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 5

RE: map design mod - 9/26/2009 10:45:13 AM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

I don't see why pentagon won't be compatible with Wif? If the pentagon are about the same size as the hexagon, I don't really see the problem. ok, you get some hex that can only be attack by 5 instead of six side, is it really a problem?

There are other projection (like the one using triangle as in WitP) that allow to keep a fully hexagonal spherical map. Which I think is really a must and in the logic of all the expansion of Wif.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Anendrue)

Post #: 6

RE: map design mod - 9/26/2009 7:13:46 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I don't see why pentagon won't be compatible with Wif? If the pentagon are about the same size as the hexagon, I don't really see the problem. ok, you get some hex that can only be attack by 5 instead of six side, is it really a problem?

There are other projection (like the one using triangle as in WitP) that allow to keep a fully hexagonal spherical map. Which I think is really a must and in the logic of all the expansion of Wif.

Pentagons do not form a complete tesselation on a flat surface. Cut out 4 and you can prove this yourself.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 7

RE: map design mod - 9/27/2009 8:13:38 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

I think the idea would be to have large areas composed of hexagons but the areas would be pentagon and hexagon shaped. Like covering an orange in tiny hexagons and then peeling it. The problem is where the borders meet. If the majority could fall into sea areas, it might work. Pseudocylindrical might be easier and give almost a good a result, again trying to get all the borders where gaps open up to fall into the sea. Like this...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 8

RE: map design mod - 9/27/2009 2:31:04 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Ok, so using pentagon will mean that we need a 3D map (which is out of question for the time being). I though of a question of rules not a technical limitation, my bad.

I think that the triangular (big area) system used in WitP is the best for 2D Wargame. I really like to see it in WiF because I remind how I find the cylindrycal projection of civilization have deceived me (m'a d��u) when fighting near the pole.

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 9/27/2009 2:33:19 PM >

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 9

RE: map design mod - 6/9/2010 7:13:24 AM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

I have just have an idea for a spherical map easy to do : replace hexagon with squares. If the row not aligned (look at map of Great war at sea or the spherical map of Wif sea lane, so actually it is already done) it work like hexagon : each square has 6 adjacents squares but they will nicely be translated to a spherical surface!

The solution was already done and we have not seen it.

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 6/9/2010 6:19:44 PM >

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 10

RE: map design mod - 6/9/2010 2:39:25 PM

Anendrue

Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

Perhaps a zoom level of zero that just lets you turn a spherical map of the world like Civ 4 or google maps. You could grab and turn the globe to a new focal point. Then when you zoom in it could switch to the flat map centered on that same focal point. Oh well just dreaming.... By the way Civ5 has switched to hexagons. So maybe we will see a true version of a buckminster ball in action this fall.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 11