Build grid suggestions/discussion

Yea, if you have no space for units to go through it's bad, but that's just something you have to keep in mind, just like with regular grids.

Buildinggrids like that in a rtsgame to me is a thing of the past ... i want to be able to build a structure were i want .... if i want to build it on a ramp let me built it on the ramp when the TERRAIN allows it and is not filled with rocks not some arbitrary grid ...
On the ramp not in front of it, not in the back of it, but on it
Grids are for turnbased games or risklikemaps ... they shall not be part in a real time game .... if neccesary it should be a tool for scale as in how much is a meter, a squaremeter or a squarekilometer something along those lines for an editor f.e. ... but it shall not limit me to the angles i want to build in if i want to build a wall in a 67 degree or 153 degree or heck even 238 degree 56" 37' (?) angle in front of my factoryline then i should be able to instead of just 90,75,45 and so on degree ...

I mean just with the map control you sacrifice early game by building a tight base, and later on with nukes. Early to mid game, you are really just begging to be surrounded if you build your structures that close together.

From a gameplay perspective, there are no positive things about building neat, compact bases. there are a lot of problems with doing it, though. I don't even think it looks better since it goes against PA's style of massive sprawling bases.

The only reason I can think of why someone would want this is if they just can't keep track of where everything is. It seems like these people will probably need to train their brains to work differently, because they will still need to keep track of things no matter what.

I forgot to mention. It should be an option.

I (and I'm sure many others) like to have huge, but still well organised bases.

I believe the bottom right image isn't actually quite indicative of how things would work.

I think the procedural generation would be much closer to "assembling a world" out of pieces like this:


The art and rendering side of the game would make it look slightly less hexagon-ish.

The planet model would have those "different sized hexes" as well smoothed out as ramps, but the underlying circumference and surface of the planet would still be built out of the interlocking isotropic shapes (hexagons).
So those slopes on the hills you describe shouldn't be an issue.

This leaves the "Build Grid".
This would be that underlying grid composed of the actual circumference of the planet before height addition/subtractions.
When displayed to the player, it would be a way to clarify and make clear (yes build/no build) for what the art and rendering has smoothed over.

And that is what i personaly dont want ... no thanks ... i want to have engines that can push technology and offer more options in creating and building stuff ... stuff that can be more organic looking ... grids take potential away imo either they do that or they are significantly changed for allowing far more finetuning ... the grids you guys are proposing feel like 2 or 3 steps backwards to what could be possible with this game and engine ...

Civ 6 really needs to adopt the PA style sphere map.

THAT i would be totaly ok with ...

that's the thing though.
what we have to go with is that the planets are cubes. with their faces pushed outwards to make it spherical.

so if we were building the planets with whatever shapes we want and however many we could do it.
the bummer is we're not. six faces, all squares. where do you start you grid from for it not to overlap and somehow screw up?

Can we stop for a moment to appreciate a dev taking time to post a technical video regarding a forum debate?

Thanks.

This seems like it implies a height-map approach, which wont work here. How do these hexes work on overlapping/overhanging terrain, or non-sphere maps (either non-planet maps or even just heavily deformed ones)? Planets may start out speherical, but they don't use height maps, and they dynamically build pathing/buildability areas onto the arbitrary 3D mesh.

http://www.mavorsrants.com/2013/02/planetary-annihilation-engine.html

This is a good discussion on the terrain geometry of PA.

EDIT: http://allenchou.net/2013/07/bending-solid-geometry-in-planetary-annihilation/
This is a good discussion as well.