planet overview, no map » Forum Post by ERMAK8980

Seriously? Does everyone really like parts of the landscape poked here and there instead of a full-fledged map of the planet, as in part 3?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think it would be cool if planets were truncated icosahedrons. I think a limit of 32 workable tiles would be fine and I think that approach would give more interesting adjacency options than what we have now even though twelve tiles would be pentagonal instead of hexagonal. However, I wouldn't envy the programmer(s) told to implement it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Jeff Yutzler,

reply 2

I think it would be cool if planets were truncated icosahedrons. I think a limit of 32 workable tiles would be fine and I think that approach would give more interesting adjacency options than what we have now even though twelve tiles would be pentagonal instead of hexagonal. However, I wouldn't envy the programmer(s) told to implement it.

So you'd prefer planets look like soccer balls? (or C-60 molecules) ? Somehow I think they'll be sticking with hexes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting AdamMG,

reply 3

So you'd prefer planets look like soccer balls? (or C-60 molecules) ? Somehow I think they'll be sticking with hexes.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Mathematically it is better because you have more usable adjacencies. I think 32 tiles is more than adequate for any planet. The problem with the planets now is that resources are invariably located at the edge of the map where they are hard to use. Why would more potential adjacencies be a bad thing, short of the programming required to implement it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

SchismNavigator

Join Date 06/2012

+165

We will be adding more variations in backgrounds for planet types. But, the basic grid layout is unlikely to change much.

Successfully updated karma reason!