View Profile
View Forum Posts
correct me if im wrong please,
the footprint is the city's worth, the height doesnt represent the army strenght cause that would be some vital information to keep to one's self
Is it possible we could change the height of a city to reflect the number of troops contained rather than the number of armies? because the heights create a very disconcertingly innaccurate visual right now. . .
Also, is the footprint constant, or does that change based on some other factor of which I am not aware?
correct me if im wrong please,
the footprint is the city's worth, the height doesnt represent the army strenght cause that would be some vital information to keep to one's self
Height tells you how many armies are inside it. A lot of armies will be a really tall polygon.
The with of the polygon is based on city population.
Correct. The larger the footprint, the greater the worth of the city. The shape of the city (octogon, square, triangle) is determined by who is currently occupying it.the footprint is the city's worth
A note: This does not take total troops into consideration. A city with 5 armies of 100 troops each will be much taller than a city with 1 army of 300,000 troops. The reason is so that your troop number can be semi-confidential.Originally Posted by Beezer
Thanks for the information, I just found your explanation about confidentiality in the other thread.
If we're the kind of people that don't like visually misleading display data, is there a way we can turn off the height variation then? I mean, sure it's pretty, but if it doesn't tell me anything. . . why would I want it?
It's good by the way it is...
hmmm seems to be... the worth of the city should be displayed in height...
and the number of armies can be refered through another page...
With this we don't need to worry about polygons over lapping each other....
and you can have more cities close to each other !!
Its not the height of the city that makes them overlap, its the width (population size) of the polygon that makes them overlap. For example, Philly will probably not be added due to the size of New York's population.
I think he's saying we could make them all have a small footprint, but then raise the height according to the value of the city.
That kinda makes sense. Let me sleep on it (and give others a chance to respond) and see where we are tomorrow.
I like that idea, ignoring the number of armies in the city altogether (since that data doesn't really reveal anything about the troop strength anyway) and using height to imply worth.
Plus it could solve the overlap problem, which is nice.
So not wider, but higher... Hmmmm, sounds good... (??)
And nothing about armies...
It will be ok, I assume...
This ais a good point. It would allow additional cities such as Austin and a few others.
This feature has been accomplished right now
It was really weird to see unoccupied cities with height!!
Wow, you're quick!
Specifically, all cities now have the exact same width, and their height is based on total value. I played with the height calculation for a while and settled on:
$height = ($cityvalue + 5000000) / 100;
The "+ 5000000" was to balance things out a bit. Bigger cities are still taller, but not by as much of a difference as they technically should have. The problem was that smaller cities (under a million) were virtually flat on the map, while huge cities were reaching outer space. This leveled them out a bit, and I think it looks pretty good.
Yes, I am quick... Like the thundeeer!... :P
Been there, seen that... :PP
Those flat cities were really cool, haha...
And from outer space, the world looked like a ball with pins on it...
Private Message
