Those of ya'll that know something about art need to hash out a basic graphics 'look' for the game.

So -- cartoon (Link) style? Realistic drawings? Something I can't even imagine?

---------------------

I believe we'll need graphics for --
1) units (armies, not individual)
2) map tiles
3) pre-game and post-game screens

Probably you will need graphics for
- resources
- technologies
- buildings (?)
- map tile improvements (roads, castles)?

Peter

1) Since the graphical units actually represent MIXED armies, shouldn't we really stick to the "1 image for all units" idea? On the map, at least. Maybe someone knows the board game "Mighty Empires" (Games Workshop), in which there are only ship and army models (all the same) to represent all (VERY heterogenous) armies. That's no problem at all, one could, however, flesh it out by drawing several alternatives for different cultures / epochs (people like their armies to look different than the "enemy").

It would be a good idea, however, to offer less playful, but clearer alternative to the "hardcore gamer", i.e. simple army counters as we all know them from tabletop game. This way you always have the option to switch between increased optical appeal and clarity. Since counters can be done very easily, this isn't that much an effort.

Thinking of this, it might even be worth it to offer an alternative map layout: on-top squares (with counters) and isometric squares (and pseudo-3D figures).

2) Do not forget the IMHO most important graphics in the game: The interface. With a standard java look, people will run away crying. Now, I really don't know how feasable it is to give all those little windows made-to-fit masks, bit if it ISN'T, consider drawing all in one big gfx window so we can have a nice-looking interface. Standard java/windows icons make people vomit when appearing in a game - do not forget that DirectX became so important for windows as a game platform because it finally allowed for games using ALL of the screen. When playing, people do not want to be reminded that they are sitting in front of their ol' computer - they want to be "in" the game, and thus a game must use every pixel there is on the screen to create the right atmosphere. Every other approach dooms a game to being trashed by most people out there today, believe me.

I agree wholeheartedly. If no one minds, I plan on working up a basic full-screen interface next (something similar to what was in the 'RT' demo, with a few more panels), after I finish learning about the grafix.

1) I'm in favor of your several army pix per side / culture /era idea.

I think the alternative map views is an especially good idea. One minor point: To go from isometric to top-down we would need to use diamonds rather than squares, or the perspective of the map or distances would change. But I don't see any problem with diamonds... you can get higher-res figures in them anyway if they are a single individual.

2) Agree completely. It'll be good to see what you can come up with 'F'.

But in some ways the interface is the game. If the AI is doing incredibly clever things but everything is muddy and difficult to control, who cares? (Though people do move all those units and manage all those cities in civalikes...)

What I mean by the interface is the game is, if you aren't going to have lots of micromanaging, then the decisions should be before the player from a very easy interface. Perhaps added flexibility of decision making, or "powers" added by in-game choices could be incorporated into the interface. At first there is little on the interface, as there is little to do, but as time rolls on, more elements appear. If you do not make the choices, the elements don't appear.

Now, F_Smith, how about setting up that demo screen asap - I'll simply take a screenshot and "decorate" it in a more or less nice manner , i.e. give some ideas how the interface could be made visually appealing.

As much as I hate CtP, I must admit they have done a good job as far as the GRAPHICS of the interface goes (never mind the interface as such / it's functionality absolutely SUCK).

This basic demo is our starting point. Please do give me some ideas how to make this thing a bit prettier.

Will gladly do so, but please allow for some days since such a thing can't be done in 2-3 hours.

As far as maybe varying screen MASKS are concerned, I think that would be fine - for the in-game graphics DEFINITELY NOT. There will be enough icons etc. for the user to identify; letting THEM vary in style as per epoch would IMHO unnecessarily confuse the player.

As for the interface, my ideal would be to handle it in such a flexible way as to enable players do their own "skins" (as e.g. for WinAmp) if they like.

And do not forget that the game itself needs a face - with so many things changing over the course of one game, there have to be SOME consistent aspects. Doing too much fancywork here is like playing with one of those highly elaborated chess games: They are nice to look upon, but you never can distinguish queen and bishop

Yep, we need Both good mouse and keyboard support.

Manu:

I saw the same thing. It would be interesting if we could do such a thing. It mainly requires artwork time, because the programming would be trivial.

Artwork People, do you think this would be worth the effort?

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you absolutely underestimate the effort of doing convincing AND clearly understandable map graphics

Having any given tile style (let's assume 48 x 48 pixels for the square map, quite a comfortable size), what must the image of the tile reflect?

a) base terrain
b) streets / railroads (maglevs?)
c) modifications / fortresses

Believe me (I have experience in this), this alone is quite tough and requires many, many hours if the result is to look good, too.

Add to this the effort of making tiles look seamless (today, you just can't give the people 20 separate mountains, they want to see real, interconnected ranges).

Now, what "styles" do you have in mind - other than what comes to mind naturally (from CIV, the General series etc.)?

Okay, I make something up: The epoch is the early renaissance - so a quite obvious style to use could be one like Leonardo da Vinci's drawings, i.e. pergament background, brown drawings... could look great, but this, if done convincingly, reduces us to a more or less black and white map...

Okay, even if we COULD manage to do this: Can you imagine how a tile with 50% default CIV image and 50% Leonardo pixels would look like? Do you think you could recognize ANYTHING on that tile? Now add some streets a nd a castle...

I'm certainly not the mastermind here, and in the end it's all up to Mark, but I can only advise you NOT to fiddle around too much with the basic map graphics. These must be clearly recognizable and shouldn't change. The only thing I'd gladly see changing over time would be the look of modifications / buildings.

What do you say?

------------------
If somebody asks you "Art thou a god?", you tell him "YES!"

Very good points. That's why I asked for opinons of people who'd potentially be doing it Your prescription sounds good to me.

Diamonds and squares, yes, so as to satisfied the visually oriented AND the hardcore strategists, yes

AFAIK there's not too much coding involved with the alternative map layout - there only have to be alternative "draw map modules" (classes) - am I right in this assumption?

As for the style, I'm afraid there's not too many choices - if you look at the genre, most maps look more or less similar. And why not? After all, the essential thing is to be able to easily read and understand the map. But maybe the most important question as for the map tiles is: Are you planning to include elevation (I wouldn't think so, since this would be typically tactical, just asking)?

The tiles needed are more or less the same in all those games:

- grassland
- plains
- desert (both sands and ice)
- tundra
- jungle
- woods
- hills
- mountains
- swamps

maybe I would add brushland, too

then, of course the river tiles (canals?)

...and of course water (coast / deep sea) with all those coastal tiles.

Yep, those are the basics. There might be a few additions as you mention, like brush, a couple different types of forest, etc.

I was thinking of whether we could give an indication of the population on the map. The plan is to have people everywhere in Clash. Here is just a crude idea of a way to show the local population:
It would have to be logarithmic, one little guy on the square would indicate up to 5k people, 2 up to 25k, 3 up to 100k, etc. Do you think it could work, or be too cluttered?

Hm, I really don't know about the "pop indicator" function...

First, if at all, I'd represent pop by little farms and towns (VERY little, indeed)... but I'm afraid all this would clutter the map too much, yes - it's one more overlay gfx, mind you.

I have no idea what plans you have for the interface - my personal ideal would be the following:

Have the map tiles contain the really essential information only (more or less what you can see in CIV, too). Then, as soon as you move the mouse over a tile, all necessary information (e.g. population level) is shown in the info window. Of course, this implies some really qquick routines. Maybe one could allow for a certain amount of time so the the info window only is refreshed after the pointer hasn't been moved for, say, 1/2 second.

Left-clicking would activate any units on the tile, while right-clicking would show detailed information.

As you want to include a small overview map, too, maybe the player can switch betwenn, say, geographical / economical / cultural / population / military mode for this?

I don't know whether you deem the population information really essential, so in the end it's up to you again.

re: coding for different map 'types' (diamond v. square). yes, it's a trivial matter.

Even a silly question like "will rivers have a direction they flow?" is of importance.

Don't forget: you will have some layers for a tile to display, but you have to harmonize these. If you don't provide space for a structure you will have trouble to put it in later.

I can tell you the 'layers' of PoM in the order of appearance:
- basic terrain
- farms or city
- pollution
- rivers, roads, railroads, maglev
- trees (forest) or buildings
- units
- resources (if displaying enabled)

Peter

I've put my responses in "Terrain and Improvements to it". These are not all well thought out yet. Thanks for keeping me honest.