True 3D playing area?

I agree.

I had suggested this, but no one seemed interested in it. It would make strategic warfare a lot more challenging.

Would it be possible to include in a future expansion pack or is it more likely that galciv3 might be needed to make it possible?

GalCiv2 will not get it, and neither will GC3. Full 3d simply doesn't work well with free-travel space (as opposed to starlanes as in MOO and others); the game would quickly become totally unmanageable even on small maps.

the only 4X game that i know that did this was Ascendency. It was awesome, i think that most people cant think natively in 3d so it disturbs them.
Being a pilot, i have no problem with 3d (4d in reality) so i say bring it on, it would add alot to the game.

SD

The challenge is that it is hard to intuitively and easily project a true 3D space onto a 2D computer screen. So we end up with flat galaxies.

Ascendency did a pretty good job at it, but with the larger maps it did become somewhat difficult to navigate through and get the view I wanted (I am NOT a pilot!).

Now if someone came up with a true 3D computer display (i.e., holographic projection onto a 3D space) that would be awesome.

here here

I don't think it would be too problematic so long as you can rotate/spin/zoom etc. You could even "walk" into it, placing the camera angle in the main content. I'd think that it would open up new levels of gameplay and make it more interesting as Jinksy. Heck - lets see the planets slowly spinning around thier suns

You could also switch to an alternative 2d representation (lines indicating nearest systems).

althoguh its a different genre Homeworld 2 did a good job of the idea of 3D space.

Its a great idea that, in my most humled of opinions, doesnt work very well on a 2D display. MOO3 had a full 3D galaxy, and it looked gorgeous. But it was fairly awkward to play with.

A 3D galaxy would be so awesome, but it would have to wait until we get holographs. That's when 3D will truly become important.

One problem with a 3D galaxy is that it's pretty unrealistic. Most, if not all galaxies are relatively flat... if you wanted to make it true 3D that fit in with real space, you'd have a large rectangular prism, with maybe three layers of stars up and down for every 25 sections of stars across... yeah, it might add in depth, but it wouldn't be worth as much trouble as it would be.

But then again, it is a game and we don't need true realism, we just need fun

i think the Reality Check just bounced, all of us in here are playing games with 3d cards and 3d reps of reality.

It would be even easier now than in Ascendency to make things 3d. HW2 is tactical but showed the richness that 3d could provide, i loved attacking ppl from a vector they didnt expect.

Yours in 3d Plasma,
Star Dagger

Ahh Ascendency. Great 3D map with point to point warp jump points. Great map. Nice concept, nice mechanics.

ABSOLUTELY the worst AI ever created for a SF game, even after the antagonizer patch.

People who kbitch about the AI in GalCov2 should be chained to their monitors and forced to play against that AI.

I don't think the overall gameplay would be improved all that much by having a 3D map. If they introduce tactical battles, however, then a 3D battle area is a MUST. But that is only for battles, not for general gameplay.

The other interesting thing with 3d worlds is that you wouldn't need to switch to a close up combat viewer: the view would just appear to "zoom way in" to the point where you can the fine detail of fleet battles. It would make the thing much cooler and seamless.

the only 4X game that i know that did this was Ascendency. It was awesome.

It was not the only one. Imperium and Star Control 1 (marginally a 4x game) did it much earlier. MOO3 had it later. IMHO, all it does is slow down your game playing as you are spending a lot of time fiddling with your camera.

FWIW, Ascendency had the dubious honor of having the weakest AI known in any 4x game. I once gave the AI a 500 turn head start and still easily beat it.

A 3d map would rule. I disagree that free travel in 3d is unmanageable. Ascendancy looked and sounded really nice. I especially liked their tech tree.

I would LOVE a 3D map more than ang, but apparrantly it makes the AI MUCH more difficult to program.

I also would love it but it would be a truely awesome achievement.

I would think that a game invovling tunnels would probably be easier to implement a 3D map with -- Dungeon master in 3D, yah!

I have played a windows3.1 game called " Second Conflict" that is space based and was somewhat 3D -- the view was 2D but the distances between planets was 3D so it was sorta neat. It also had simultaneous combat resolution which is very neat. Gameplay is very simplistic compared to GC2 but heh the game came on a floppy. Bottom line though is it is a fun game to play. But probably almost impossible to get nowadays -- 10 years ago I only found 1 store in the country that had it and had to buy it thru the mail.

Personally I'ld be happy with wraparound maps with the ability to center the minimap on any sector. Sort of like playing on the surface of a sphere.

I don't think that it would be very difficult to program - perhaps the majority of games are now done in some kind of 3d (shooters etc) and graphics cards are geared fully towards 3d (and the latest integrated intel cards are all excellent at this).

The real challenge would just be making sure that it doesn't demand too much processing power (but modern graphics cards and the latest intel integrated cards can handle a lot) - and for the developers to create a good interface.

The difficulty isn't programming, it's making it easy to make your ships go where you want them.

One result would be a playing area that will feel much smaller - currently tiny is 5x5 (25) and gigantic is 16x16 (256)(doing this from memory, so please bear with me if the numbers are off). So the cube root of 256 about 6, so that a gigantic galaxy in 3D would have the feel of a tiny galaxy in 2D. 9 hostile (or unfriendly)opponents all within spitting range? Yeow!

We could go the next step and having something would be really frantic - a full 3D world and real time.

We see freighters moving from one place to another, several battles happening at once (you'd see LOTS of flashing lights go of on your display!).

While things would go relatively slowly (e.g. you see ships move but they do slowly, albeit some ships move quicker than others) a large portion of your strategy would be decided on what you should spend time on!

You'd be in control while things are going smoothly.. but you'd really start to panic when other races declared war on you and several things started to demand your attention at the same time! That really would be frantic.

I think that a full 3D environment would add lend itself more to a real time environment. To be honest I still like the turn thing better - so you'd need to have the option to switch between them (or choose which version to play) to keep me happy.

GalCiv2 will not get it, and neither will GC3. Full 3d simply doesn't work well with free-travel space (as opposed to starlanes as in MOO and others); the game would quickly become totally unmanageable even on small maps.

the only 4X game that i know that did this was Ascendency. It was awesome, i think that most people cant think natively in 3d so it disturbs them. Being a pilot, i have no problem with 3d (4d in reality) so i say bring it on, it would add alot to the game.

Ascendancy was one of those games that uses starlane-type travel between stars. as opposed to the freel-travel space as seen in Galactic Civilizations 2 and to be featured in GC3.

Kryo's point still stands.

I loved Ascendancy, as well. I've got it in a (fake?) leater-bound disc case somewhere, maybe among other games (I don't know how many discs I put in that case). I don't know about it's difficulty, as I tended not to really care so much about how hard it was to beat an AI, so much as how hard it is to manage my own government. I tend to focus alot on managing my own people than trying to compete with the AI in these types of games.

... In-system is another matter - I do remember you did have to give the ships orders on where to go once in-system. But I think even then it was fairly simplistic, wasn't it?

We could go the next step and having something would be really frantic - a full 3D world and real time. We see freighters moving from one place to another, several battles happening at once (you'd see LOTS of flashing lights go of on your display!). While things would go relatively slowly (e.g. you see ships move but they do slowly, albeit some ships move quicker than others) a large portion of your strategy would be decided on what you should spend time on! You'd be in control while things are going smoothly.. but you'd really start to panic when other races declared war on you and several things started to demand your attention at the same time! That really would be frantic. I think that a full 3D environment would add lend itself more to a real time environment. To be honest I still like the turn thing better - so you'd need to have the option to switch between them (or choose which version to play) to keep me happy.

I think you should play Hegemonia: Legions of Iron. It involves colonizing planets and building them up, just like these games, but it is also a Real-Time Strategy that involves flying inbetween planets and even flying inbetween systems (the game supplies a form of 'jump point' system to allow inter-system travel (the jump points tend to be over or under the star, if I remember the Multiplayer maps correctly- at least it was true for one of the maps). There's even MOBILE STARBASES that people keep talking about on this forum.

Hegemonia was one of the cooler gaming experiences I've had.

The difficulty isn't programming, it's making it easy to make your ships go where you want them.

Yes. This is exactly the point. This kind of game does not lend itself too much towards full-3D maps. RTS does a fair better job, as you are reacting in real-time to enemy activity. Also, the interface for an RTS tends to be quick-clicking to move your ships, which is a great way to handle 2D fields of play, but gets sticky when you go to 3D.

Also:

One problem with a 3D galaxy is that it's pretty unrealistic. Most, if not all galaxies are relatively flat... if you wanted to make it true 3D that fit in with real space, you'd have a large rectangular prism, with maybe three layers of stars up and down for every 25 sections of stars across... yeah, it might add in depth, but it wouldn't be worth as much trouble as it would be.

... this must be considered, as well. This kind of game should have relatively flat maps, by nature. There's no reason to have multiple levels in the strategic stage. Maybe for a tactical stage, but not the strategic overview that is scaled to the galaxy.

I got hooked up easily on gc2. but I find it rather pointless to call something space strategy, when it's 2d. that's not space, we could easily put this on a map of a planet and call it waterworld civilizations.
vertical axis is not an option here. it's pointles to design your ships with 3d space in mind where in fact no such space exists.
as for galaxy being "flat" it's still lightyears flat. plenty for vertical action.
as for free travel, 3d is the essence of free travel. sure it would be slightly more difficult to manage, but there's ways for it. homeworld 2 is one example of how free travel is solved in 3d, nexus is the other. so it can be done.
I would love to have 3d strategy because it would really challenge strategic thinking. it would change designs, tactics and thinking.
also, problems I can see would be the fact that you'd have to program firing vectors for all the hardpoints, make a difference between turrets and fixed hardpoints, set up fields of fire and see how would they protect the ship.
that would add micromanagement, as well as require a lot of patience.
the only thing that stands in the way of 3d games is the fact that those who aren't cut out to play it, won't. and it seems that's a big chunk of the players.
having it in real time would be a bonus. but not necessarily that big one.