Elevated vs. flat terrain

[PosledniKovboj]

In the world of turn-based strategies and/or RPGs:

In games where tactical combat is a key point (e.g. JA, old X-COM games etc.), do those games benefit from/suffer of lack of 3D terrain? As in slopes, little hils, canals, what have you. JA2 maps are flat as a Korean dancer, would the combat be better if you could take terrain altitude in account when planning your attack? JA2 has rooftops but those are not what I have in mind. Otoh, UFO games have little hills and stuff here and there, do they help the game or just make it kind of a clusterfuck?

 

[Hoaxmetal]

Makers of chess didn't have the technology for elevation.

 

[Haba]

What are you asking again? Height map or not? It is completely trivial to implement for any grid based game. Does it add strategic depth and new opportunities? Sure.

Does it make sense? Should you add complexity for the sake of complexity or not?

Making AI understand height differences and try to take advantage of them is no rocket science. But if you are already struggling with AI implementation, then you most probably shouldn't add more stuff to provide the player with more opportunities to cheese. Unless every combat is a hand built encounter (puzzle, as tuesdayfag said.)

Makers of chess didn't have the technology for elevation.

Yeah, different shades of colours were not invented when they made chess

 

[PosledniKovboj]

I'm not struggling with the AI, as I haven't even started implementing it yet . In any case, this

Should you add complexity for the sake of complexity or not?

is pretty much the essence of the question.

Moar discushion pls.

 

[sea]

Jagged Alliance 2 doesn't have varied terrain but it has lots of buildings, foliage and so on that easily make up for it. In its case the difference isn't really mechanical, it's just visual, so take your pick with respect to setting. In a grid-based game, multiple planes are pretty straightforward to implement - where you get into more complicated stuff is in a 3D world where you need to calculate everything relative to each actor on-screen. If a character is standing on a hill, how do you know he/she is high up enough to get an accuracy bonus? How big or small should that bonus be? How do you factor in line of sight? You need lots of complex ray-tracing stuff at that stage, I think, to realistically implement height into combat, which is why for my money 2D grid stuff is always best for turn-based combat, whereas the "fuzzy" nature of rules in 3D make it more appropriate for action-based stuff.

Whether or not you actually want this stuff in your game is a fair question. I think it adds tactical depth, and if you want lots of tactical depth, then go for it. If you want combat to be faster-paced, then feel free to ignore it. You risk alienating fans either way.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Height is good. Though if you're implementing stuff like 50m visual range limits, it's pretty pointless as having a hill won't let you to dominate a large area and it's not necessary to break lines of sight.

 

[laclongquan]

SIlent storm series and Hammer Sickle used elevated terrains pretty good. You could say they are the obvious successor to JA2. So if you want to know about that aspect, try those three games: several-story mansion, destructible terrains, hills, ditches, whathaveyou...

 

[waywardOne]

If the engine physics can use the Z, add the Z. If not, can the Z add visual interest? If not, dump it.

 

[Derek Larp]

I dunno, kinda depends on what you're going for. If you have heavy weapons that can spot and kill units across the entire map (like in Chaos Gate IIRC), elevation makes sense for covered aproaches or good firing positions (like Awor said) or stuff like keyholing (sp?). If you make anything that simulates combined arms tactics with squads and vehicles as single units it's a must. If you have something that's only close quarter battles between squads (or parties and mobs) in buildings and forests with low vision range of individual units it's probably not worth the effort, something binary like the building roofs in JA2 is probably enough.

 

[PosledniKovboj]

Thanks for all the wonderful input! I ll take a look at how much extra work it is for me and make a decision

 

[Baron]

Battletech tabletop had simple terrain maps with woodlands, water and hills. The game was still fun on flat terrain, unleashing every weapon to the point of overheating and shutdown, but the game improved markedly after we made shitty cardboard hills that we used for cover / ambush / jumping onto enemy heads. Also fun standing waist deep in a nice cool lake and firing lasers. In a computer gameplay is even better as terrain that conceals location of enemy units can be removed entirely from the player's sight. So, if you have the skills, include it as mandatory in any strategy game, and consider it for any RPG. Doesn't have to be full fly anywhere 3D map... just 3 or 4 levels.

http://skyhawks.combatace.com/images/BT/battletech_map_14.jpg

 

[Undead Phoenix]

The answer is obvious here:


They can only add to the game, but they must be coded for and have meaningful effects.