🚀 go-pugleaf

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message 
news:Xns9755D07F6FD71sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.211...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
> news:lPGdne-1FZUILkjenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> Did you ever play Star Control 1? It had a 3D map and you had to rotate
>> it around to do things.  It looked great.  But as long as we're playing
>> these games on 2D displays, I'm not sold on trying to make the player
>> play on a 3D map.
>
> I did, but I can't really remember much about it. Making true 3D strategy
> game would probably be quite an exploration. I can't think of anything 
> that
> has been done. UI is probably the most difficult issue. 3D could be good
> for the strategy though. In 2D you have deal with weird problems like
> having travel huge distances over populated space to get out in the wild.
> In 3D interception would become much harder too. So it would be more
> realistic in sense that one would have to defend his star systems rather
> than vaste amounts of empty space.

Homeworld (while not a 4x game) used a 3D map, however 90% of the game ended 
up being played in a 2D plane. This was partly because all the maps were 
basically created as 2D maps, but also partly because players had real 
difficulty getting situational awareness on a 3D environment.

Some of the strategy aspects of 3D did managed to present themselves, like 
the increased cost of having to defend against an area of attack, rather 
than just a single line, and the ability to "flank" in any direction, not 
just 2 sides.

I also have a vague memory of a 4X game from back in the 80's that used a 
static 3D map, where it was presented as a 2D plane, and then elevations out 
of the plane. It didn't really add anything to the game though, except to 
make it harder to tell which planets were close enough together to be able 
to jump between them.