PDA

View Full Version : Flyover permissions



rasqual
09-11-2005, 07:36 PM
We really need that great circle navigation.

But partially aside from that, I think there needs to be genuine navigation for armies in the game. It's a shame "paths" aren't a feature in the free GE, because if that were the case, players could map out their entire attack plan, overseas deployment plan, or whatever, upload the KML to Mickey's server(s), and the game could implement it.

Barring that, Mickey could implement a server-side path generation schema, something like the jewel collection routing. There'd be a "deployment widget" where the placemark balloon (a center-screen BBOX result) would include links for:

create waypoint
delete previous waypoint
this is the last waypoint
cancel this deployment

If you want to send an army to another city, you would evoke the widget and center your screen on the first waypoint you want. When the placemark appears, you'd click "waypoint," and this would register server-side. You'd continue doing this for each waypoint for the route you want. You could turn, double back, or do anything else -- point to point travel.

The very last waypoint would be selected for with the "last waypoint" link, and this would conclude the route. From this last waypoint, the armies' route would be directly to the destination city.

My overall encouragement has been to have more game widgets use links in the description (CDATA) balloons for placemarks, whether cities, armies, or resources (heck, players should have to visit their wells to sell the oil -- not a web page. Click the well's balloon and the stats for that well are there, along with a link to sell the stored oil. A web page could pop up where further business selections (which market do you wish to sell on? Is this trade to pay a debt to another player? etc.) would be made, the the deal closed. Whatever -- I digress. If ones army placemarks had balloons with links such as "send," that would inaugurate the process I describe. Until the route is completed or canceled, all use of the deployment widget would be set to the particular army whose description link self-identified in the GET to Mickey's route widget server-side. Etc., you get the idea.

That's a lot o' nuts & bolts yammerin' when my original concern was that regions controlled by an army (Mickey, you have it BACKWARDS -- population should be the vertical on cities, occupation strength should be the horizontal area; think about it! You're letting the reach of geographic holdings remain static based on an unchanging population) -- as I was saying, my concern was that regions controlled by an army should not have to allow an enemy to pass through their region enroute to a conquest somewhere else! It's my opinion that players should be able -- indeed, should be burdened with maintaining -- a "no fly" list, which would allow them individually or as alliances to forbid through-territory migration of military units (be they armies or air forces) of players on their blacklist.

I think there would be a lot of other advantages, as well, to the ability to route troops with complete control by the military leaders in question.

Keeping players intimately involved and using the GE interface is important. This game is not just about the game -- it's about seeing what happens when the GE UI is stretched beyond what most people think possible.

Did I mention using live data, such as earthquake data?

;-)

late edit with a bit more humility: "that's what the game SHOULD be more about, IMO" ;-)

War_Peace
09-11-2005, 07:39 PM
Oh boy!...

Lukepuuk
09-11-2005, 08:37 PM
That's a lot o' nuts & bolts yammerin' when my original concern was that regions controlled by an army (Mickey, you have it BACKWARDS -- population should be the vertical on cities, occupation strength should be the horizontal area; think about it! You're letting the reach of geographic holdings remain static based on an unchanging population)

Agree with the whole plan allthough I think it would take a lot of time programming.
But... the vertical and horizontal on cities I don't know.
This way...by making the horizontal attached to the population, you can make sure that cities will not overlap. Otherwhy's its gonna get messy on the board I think. But feel free to counter this approach.

Corporal
09-11-2005, 09:42 PM
With the way Stanley is going, Riyadh would cover the entire world and probably overlap itself. ;)

birq
09-12-2005, 01:14 AM
I think there would be a lot of other advantages, as well, to the ability to route troops with complete control by the military leaders in question.

This is a topic that I've been meaning to mention for quite some time, but have never gotten around to it (or figured out the actual logic behind it to be able to explain it well enough). Not only routing my own armies, but to be able to choose to attack armies that pass through the "airspace" of my cities (if I ever get another one) or my home base.

rasqual
09-12-2005, 02:25 AM
Birq: yeah, attacking armies passing your area would be an instance of attacking armies in any arbitrary spot on the globe. I recall Mickey saying he would be implementing that?

Lukepuuk: I think geography should impose real limits on city expansion. This is where Mickey should (again, I must say) use third-party data that's available in KM* or dynamic services. Country borders! A city would expand until it reached national borders, then its perimeter would be constrained to follow the national countours. If more than one city in the country were owned by one player, their areas would merge and further growth in either would continue to "fill out" the national boundaries. Once the country's area was filled, the expansion would cease but the "overhead" would be instanced as some kind of economic, military, or political potency. Perhaps this should be the FIRST of several requirements for nuclear eligibility, for example.

That sounds TOUGH to implement. But it'd sure be cool! What it would represent is hardwiring of respect for the legitimacy of national boundaries. Anyone wishing to "disrespect" them would do so by attacking a neighbor.

There ARE genuine limits that geography imposes on military power. This would be one way of doing that, but also of expanding the notion of cities to nations.

Mickey must be about ready to flee when he reads us all seriously posing such stuff. ;-)

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 11:06 PM
By now, Mickey is probably sorry he didn't just keep this game to himself.
Your idea sounds real cool I will admit.
And would be great if Mickey could implement it...but for now I think it will drive him to a burnout.
I think that would be the most difficult task to program to date.
Great idea though.
Are the boundaries set in the software or is it just a drawing?
Do the KM* files you know have all this info?

rasqual
09-20-2005, 12:45 AM
I'm actually drowning in information about GE and GMaps lately. It's unreal. Google absolutely has the killer app of 2006 -- and I say that because it's astonishing how many people STILL click on the bloomin' Mapquest link after doing a Google search for a location. D'oh!

I'm afraid GE won't take off till next year. I mean, folks are still discovering the bloomin' web maps . . .

Oh, to be on topic: I can't put my finger on a KML this instant, but I've seen a few threads at http://bbs.keyhole.com that seem to get fresh air now and then.

Mickey's privy to 'em, I'm sure. He's getting kickbacks from Google employees who are spending their "20% rule" playing the game with us. ;-)