View Full Version : Creative Assembly Round Maps
So the question is would you like to have maps being completely round?
The way Round Maps work would be something like this:
-There would be no borders/red zone
-Units rout/withdraw off map after running a certain distance
-Reinforcements can only appear on map being a certain distance from units (you use markers on map to set location they enter from)
-Defenders would pick there deployment zones on the map 1st and then the attackers (attackers deployment zones have to be some distance from the defenders)
I think this would be a cool thing to have and it would add a new lvl of gameplay. No more edge camping using the red zone to protect flanks. This would allow free movement everywhere on the map except bodies of water and mountains etc.
I have gotten this idea from one of my old time favorite games Populous The Begining. It's awesome to play on round maps where almost everypart is useable and no bordars. I think many strategy games are missing this.
So tell me what you think. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-23-2002, 22:34
sorry amp, before u vote
round maps do have a border and i dont think they add a lot. i would prefer seeking a solution for that in other things.
round maps dont have corners tho.
Magy,
The round maps i'm talking about don't have borders. It's a complete circle around, that's why i listed under the poll how units and deployment zones would work. You probaly didn't understand what a meant because very few strategy games have this.
This would add a lot to the way battles are fought. You have free movement anywhere on the map and no bumping into borders(redzone). Once units have routed a certain distance they will vanish(showing they have escaped). You can surround enemies that camp on a hill or box themselves. If an enemy is surrounded reinforcements will be blocked off(players/AI can't sit next to redzone allowing safe passage of units). Deployment zones will be done differently cause of this(defense pick 1st and attackers 2nd). That will allow for some very interesting battles.
In Multiplayer it will be much easier on players when fighting 3v3 4v4 battles. Players will have the chance to pick there deployment zone on the map and not have to worry about being against the red zone(also won't have to worry about an enemy proecting his whole flank using the red zone). The use of cavalry will be more useful being able to get behind enemy lines without being blocked by the red zone.
Still unsure what a mean about round maps? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
It's like your on a planet and you can attack from every direction, which means no borders and very interesting games. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
solypsist
11-23-2002, 23:42
I think what is meant by round actually refers to a sphere, which would explain no borders and edge for routing units to leave the map by.
solypsist thats exactly what i mean a *sphere* i should have said sphere instead of round. Would have been easier to understand. DOH
Being jammed up against the border is a real bummer. We need sphere maps to allow more tatical play and less head on clashes. There would be more fighting over good postions and protecting all sides, which is what we need. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-24-2002, 00:32
ha ok a sphere, that i understand. a sphere would be nice. another solution could be an 'ongoing everlasting map"
so if people crawl to teh edge we have now just another row of textures are added.
this brings me to another idea
imagine 4 maps as we have now in a row, on each map people are playing but u can move a unit to your maps edge and when it surpassed the border it appears on teh next map and is controlled by your neighbour player.
I think I understand what you're getting at.
I'm up for anything that will add new depth to the game play, so "round" maps sound like a good idea.
The way MP is set up now, technically, you've got one team attacking and one team defending.
Now no one says you have to play that way.
I'm sure if you speak to the people you're playing with before hand, an agreement could be reached regarding "border hugging", to gain protection from the Red Zone.
What about increasing the size of a map, and having allies start closer to each other in the centre.
This should provide ample flanking opportunities for both parties.
When you've got 8 players on one map, things do tend to get a little crowded.
Azrael
Kraellin
11-24-2002, 03:00
ah, another intruging idea from amp.
what yer talking about is 'wrap-around edges'... go off one side of a map and come back in on the other. it has some disntinct advantages and disadvantages. i think it was civ II that used these, but they only did the east-west wrap. when you do all 4 edges you have to decide if it's truly a sphere or a cube. it makes a difference as to where the units will come back in. it's also tougher to implement than you might think. it gets cute when you walk off in the northwest corner, for instance. do you come back in in the northeast corner, the southeast corner or the southwest corner. you also have to make it relative optically. what does the defender that's sitting on a border see? does he see just the main map or does the border move so that he also sees the 'other side' as being next to him? and as he moves, does any of this change? ya see what i mean about being tricky, and it can get even worse in the corners.
you did give me one idea that might work better, though, amp. when you said,
Quote[/b] ]-Defenders would pick there deployment zones on the map 1st and then the attackers (attackers deployment zones have to be some distance from the defenders) , this gave me an idea. what if you did just this part, allowing the defender to pick first from a visible map and put his and his teammates there in a shared zone. once they had picked, the entire maps shifts to where this becomes the new center of the map. then, the attacker picks his location based on this new view of things. this is similar to what happens on a castle map. the defender is in the middle surrounded by the attacker's deployment zone. the defender does NOT know where the attacker will or has set up. thus, the defender may get the good ground, but the attacker gets his choice of avenues as to where he'll attack from. and, if you allow the attackers to each set up ANYWHERE in this zone, the defender could end up being already surrounded.
just another way to do it. i do like the sphere approach, but the implementation of it would make it or break it. please define how you'd do it, amp, cause there are diff ways to do the wrap-around.
K.
MagyarKhans Cham
11-24-2002, 03:15
well i must be missing my dictionairy but i dont think amp ment that with "sphere", did u amp?
I mean completely round like a planet,basket ball,baseball etc. So there are no borders and edges and the way to have units rout of the map would have the vanish,since there are no borders/redzone to run off into. If you have ever played Populous, that's exactly what i would like to see. I don't know of any other games which play like that.
So, picture this, your playing on a desert map and want to start marching towards your enemy. If your deployed Half the map away from him, you can choose to take path north/south or east/west. You can split up your army and attack from two sides or all (of course not always a good idea).
It dosn't have to be a circle like populous (although that's one of the best things iv'e ever seen in a game). It can still be square without the map wrapping around to connect as circle. If this were so then your screen would always be in the center, when scrolling around the far away out of sight units will appear at the edges once you scrolled enough.
This may sound confusing, but really isn't and is simple. Also very much fun to play in an evoriment like that. I should know i've been addicted to poplous for 3 years in the past. Not having to put up with borders and not have your camra stop at an edge of a map is great.
If you think this is a bad idea i would like to know your reason why. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
MagyarKhans Cham
11-24-2002, 13:49
and teh actual surface size wiuld be at leat 8 times the current map size?
Magy,
No, the surface size wouldn't be atleast 8 times lager, maybe twice the size of a large map at the most. That's if you did the wrap around like a planet.
I have the game Populous The Begining still, but not installed. If you want i can install it and take some screen shots to show you what i mean. Maybe you can do a search for the game, might find some screen shots,i know there homepage is down, since the game is dead just about. This will give you a more clear picture of what i mean and how easy it is.
honestly, i think that is a bit of a pipe dream for MTW.
it is a great idea, but in order for it to work, a lot more thought would have to be put into group formations and marching also. in a sphere situation one would need a greater ammount of control over the units.
it will probablly take 20 years before i get a job as a game project manager/design leader, but when i do i'll rember the sphere maps.
i think the ever lasting map is better, because its the same but you dont get the army pop up again, although ppl could run endlessly lol
longjohn2
11-25-2002, 23:52
Everyone knows the world was flat in Medieval times :-)
It'd be a cool idea for a tactical Sci Fi game though.
lol Longjohn2
I know in a way it wouldn't make much sense, but i'm sure lots of people would love playing on round maps, almost everyone.
You guys should add it, just give it a try i'm sure no one would mind. It adds more to the battles giving additional tatical play and more free movement. Say bye bye to the borders and hello to a new open battlefield. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Just make a sample for us to try and if we don't like it 5 times better, just drop it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Dionysus9
11-26-2002, 09:25
"Spherical" maps, amp, "sphereical." Round still implies borders, you are talking about a map that "wraps" from left to right.
If you say spherical I bet people will get it. If you send a unit East, it will eventually appear back on the West side fo the map...still heading east....
Borders are artificial and somewhat silly for a tactical simulation. "Oh sorry, there is a magic barrier there...your troops will not go there."
The best possible scenario would be a rolling map that created itself semi-randomly as you moved across it. Everytime you got near a border the map would get a bit bigger with random terrain appropriate to the height near the border. You would never get to a border but also never get to the other side. It would feel more like open plains or hills...
I like your idea of routing units vanishing after they move x distance. This makes such maps possible.
Watch Blizzard come out with a game like that and a TW similar combat system....oohh multiplayer support....
Competition is good.
well i thought at first when he said "round" he meant circle, but now i see what he is talking about... personally my 2 cents on thie issue
it wont work.. it will be general chaos, with people going the longway under the shpere to outflank somone. The battles wouldnt work for a medieveal style of warfare, as it usually consisted of armies facing off on a plain, not over a loarge endless body in which you could simply run away and hit them in thier rear... nuff said
Yes, i should have said "sphereical" maps, my bad. I am so use to saying round maps cause i've played a game called populous for three years and the radar is round being as it is the battlefield is a sphere "planet". I would always say round cause the radar is and all the stratgey games i've played have bordars and the radar would show as a square. Again, my bad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Alrowan,
I know you dislike the idea, but it dosn't mean it wouldn't work. Everyone has a right to thier opinion, but i wouldn't say it won't work just cause it dosn't make sense to me or whatever.
This is a game and the battles for the most part are unrealistic. You don't see armies just apearing infront of on another or having thier flanked blocked by some invisable wall. I play this game because i like this type of warfare not for the realism of the battles. The sphere maps aren't endless and in fact can be quite small and if you played populous you would see how small they can be and fun. You can't just turn and start marching around the map to hit someone in thier rear unless that person dosn't know how to turn his troops, other wise it would be a pointless march. I added the sphere idea to open the possibilties to manunver around mountains, prevent players from having flanks blocked by redzone, prevent the loss of full units routing into the rezone, deployment zones being free to pick allowing battles anywhere, and much more.
It may sound silly for some and not make any sense, but i'm just sharing ideas of mine to everyone to see if it could help improve the gameplay. It would be cool if they made a sample test for us to try out and than we would see how good or bad it really is, but that of course would never happen.
MagyarKhans Cham
12-03-2002, 01:39
well but it will never see daylight amp... longjohn posted it
Why not simply have a round map where you can fall of the edge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif instead of going around or having the invisible walls,if you move a unit over the edge theyre gone , this would solve corner camping forever , of course it would require slightly larger maps to make manouvering easier ...
TGI
Quote[/b] (Kraellin @ Nov. 24 2002,03:00)]you did give me one idea that might work better, though, amp. when you said,
Quote[/b] ]-Defenders would pick there deployment zones on the map 1st and then the attackers (attackers deployment zones have to be some distance from the defenders) , this gave me an idea. what if you did just this part, allowing the defender to pick first from a visible map and put his and his teammates there in a shared zone. once they had picked, the entire maps shifts to where this becomes the new center of the map. then, the attacker picks his location based on this new view of things. this is similar to what happens on a castle map. the defender is in the middle surrounded by the attacker's deployment zone. the defender does NOT know where the attacker will or has set up. thus, the defender may get the good ground, but the attacker gets his choice of avenues as to where he'll attack from. and, if you allow the attackers to each set up ANYWHERE in this zone, the defender could end up being already surrounded.
just another way to do it. i do like the sphere approach, but the implementation of it would make it or break it. please define how you'd do it, amp, cause there are diff ways to do the wrap-around.
K.
Sorry amp I don't like it much, however I do like Kraelin's idea using yours as a base... I think round maps (especially when they are bigger than the maps now) would be a good improvement, I just do not think that the wrapping up part is a good solution to edge hugging.
I have another idea...
A battlefield is a place where armies "like" to meet eachother...otherwise there will be no battle, because at least one side won't be there to fight in the first place.
Raise the whole map and leave the edges and corners significantly lower (sort of ditch all around).
Flattish in the centre...sloping down to the edges...with a ditch on the edges
This has 3 effects:
1.No more campers on the edges and corners.
2.Players must control the whole map from left to right, because...
3.Players can use the edges to sneak around.
The bigger the map...the better. Attackers heaven, defenders nightmare. This will force both players/teams to monitor and use the whole battlefield.
I made such a map a while ago...lost after a hd crash, but I'll make another one if ya like.
Kas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
spacecadet
11-26-2003, 22:33
I like the idea of a spherical map, but worry about how big the map would have to be to make it work and how that would affect play. You could spend an awful lotta time roaming maps without actual battle. We talk about the fatigue problem even now.
I like kraelins idea of teams not being limited in your choice of deployment zones - its been talked about by many people before - hopefully Longjohn and CA have taken note and its not too dificult for them to implement for Rome - surely not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
Space http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
ElmarkOFear
11-27-2003, 02:10
Interesting idea AMP. You could just leave the maps square as they are now and make it to where if you go off bottom of map you appear at top of map, if you go off right side of map, you appear on left side of map.
I think what would really be interesting would be to have one or a few, uber maps. These maps would be large enough to allow the manuever of 4v4 armies using fog of war and line of sight. Once an army/armies met an enemy army on the big strategic map, the big map would be replaced by a smaller battle map, which would have the same terrain features and elevations of that area of the big strategic map. It would be like a zoom effect. This would be very similar to a campaign 4v4 game. You could send all your army to one spot or you could split it up to support a partner's army.
If you met an enemy at the same time as your partner, your partner would have your support troops as reinforcements which he would control.
Either that or you could treat it like Sid Meier's Gettysburg. Once you met the enemy on the big map, you hit a button to zoom down to a skirmish level, set up your fighting troops, then zoom out and over to your partner's area of the big strategic map to help him fight there. Some of those huge Sid Meier Gettysburg and Antietam battles were awesome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
These maps would have to be large enough to offer maneuvering yet small enough to allow for ease at finding enemy units. A "capture the flag" type feature would be useful here. On these big maps you would have several key areas to control for differing amounts of points. After a time limit the winner would be declared who had the most points from areas controlled. Once again similar to Sid Meier's Gettysburg. If you are against set time limits, then you could have it to where a countdown timer begins only after all point areas are quiet with no fighting. I always loved this part of multiplay in Gettysburg. It actually made for very strategic games, with lots of tension and strategy.
I think this would satisfy us online campaign supporters by adding whole new levels of strategy to big 4v4 games. It seems more easily "do-able" for the programmers and would eliminate the long time it would take to play through a complete online campaign that uses both turnbased and realtime battles.
1dread1lahll
11-27-2003, 04:22
I dont think this will work..... their is still an end to the map which the camper will anchor at least 1 flank, bigger just meens I must march farther to get to his back-edge of the map.....it does rid us of the corner though.....I'de still like to see the "one giant map" that was stated for RTW so long ago...(with a speed bonus for marching in column on roads)...and for a larger map....somthing must be done about the fatigue question......
A spherical map would be cool, good for excercising non-euclidian thinking, i would love that. Adds a new dimension to flanking manoeuvres.
Ah, it's been a year already for this post, i thought it wouldn't see the light of day again.
I was just trying to offer a way to rid of the redzone and allow free movement everywhere. Some don't seem to like it and some do, what can ya do...
I like what elmo said "You could just leave the maps square as they are now and make it to where if you go off bottom of map you appear at top of map, if you go off right side of map, you appear on left side of map", instead of having the wrapping around that you can see. Also be like those MMORPGs that just keep generating the world as you move/ scroll around.
Now add that with FOW, take away attacker/defender, add ffa's, allow more players in one game, and different game types and the mp gaming will be a blast.
It can be done, but it's problay way to much work, so it's just wishfull thinking...
ElmarkOFear
12-02-2003, 04:30
Maybe it will be included in the "Invasion of the Men From Mars" add-on to the "Milky Way: Total War" game. hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
dwarven_eagle
12-04-2003, 15:32
mp with a sperical map Up to 8 players ffa That would be, hard, sweet, fustrating, fight to the death So..whos going to make it???
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.