Space is not 2D

for the most part you spend more your time playing in a 2d environment even though the game itself is 3d

You can fish the z-axis control out of keybindings if you want. Generally speaking, though, trying to give three dimensional control in a two dimensional interface is a headache and a half and not worth the bother.

Any combat in space between two or three units (or groups of units) really takes place in two dimensions anyway.

His pattern indicates two dimentional thinking

WWW Link

ever played nexus or eve online
although those arent RTS
i cant imagine those in 2D

3D is a huge part, missiles for example dont (normally) fly straight
they go up and down and around



not really
just rotate using the middle mouse button
when creating maps just use overlays of planets with something like 4 layers max or 5

and the gravity well would be a sphere not a circle

I've played strategy games that try and be full 3D before, and in the end it gets awfully confusing and half the game is spent wrestling with the camera. Yes space is 3D, unfortunately a computer monitor is only 2D.

Realism does not always equal fun.

Planets, gravity wells, and star systems tend to be on different locations of the z-axis. Also, depending on obstructions ships will sometimes go up or down on the z-axis all by themselves and not everything you place in orbit is on the same plane in the z-axis. It tries to give the illusion of 3D without the complications of 3D. There are unused key-bindings you can set to give yourself 3D control over your ships, but for the average Joe out there the full 3d environment and positioning can over-complicate things. It seems that Ironclad/Stardock wanted to keep positioning easy for fans of other genres and other games to get used to, but still maintain the appearance of a 3D environment.

Using 3D positioning is very easy for some people to grasp, especially if you've had modeling experience. However, not everyone can handle it so that's why it's an option. There are complex issues of control preference when dealing with a 3D space. For instance should the planet well grid:

1) stay flat and allow you to set an xy location and then drag or mousewheel to set a z position? or
2) adjust to maintain a circle according to the player's viewpoint so that the camera or gravity well grid must be manipulated instead of the individual positioning? or
3) use multiple gravity well planes so that you can set your ship onto one or another hopefully without accidentally selecting the wrong plane or wrong location?

Some people will like it one way, the other, and the plain 2D system. Personally, I feel that 3D would over-complicate battles in the RTS environment. Better form would be to allow full 3D control, but better function would be to restrict things to 2D. The developers had to balance this form vs. function dilemma and I think they've got a solution that satisfies everyone since the support for 3D movement is there but not automatically turned on. I think full 3D would be overwhelming at first especially to new players (they're having a hard enough time with pirates and AI initially).

This is just my opinion though.

Very well said.

There's also no sound in space, so there should be no sound effects. There's no air in space, so there should be no fireball explosions. It's also impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, so there should be no jumping from planet to planet. You couldn't build a spaceship or colonize a planet in a matter of seconds, either, so the game should take years to play. See where I'm going with this?

This game works very well in 2.5D.

There's air inside the ships though, so fireball explosions are okay.

And certain plasma reactions don't give one lick about vacuum (witness, the sun). And FTL is not possible for our present level of technology. It can't be conclusively said that it is impossible...yet.

FTL isn't possible for anyone's level of technology. The sheer amount of energy it would take to get to even 99.9% the speed of light would require you to be able to harness the power of several galaxies, and we're nowhere near that level.

However, back on topic, Homeworld 2 had full-3D movement, but it was a feature that was sadly ill-used. It was great fun coming from below and above your opponent catching them in a z-zxis pincer, but then you realized it was so much easier to just do the same maneuver, but in only two dimensions. 3D can be fun, but 2D is both easier to get in to and easier to play with.

Gravity moves at the SoL so at a future time it could be possible to harness the gravity of a mini or micro blackhole to use for propulsion.

But anyway the game setup using a 2.5D fits very well for this style of game. I am use to both 2D (rules of engagement, Starfleet Command) and 3D (Nexus: the Jupiter incident) style of gameplay and as much as I love the 3D in Nexus I find this style to fit perfectly.

Well, space is in 3D but planets paths around a star tends to be approximatively in the same plane. So it is a good approximation to have a solar system map in 2D

Space is 3D? Whatever happened to String-theory and M-theory and Time for that matter?

Time?

Remember that light speed is like a horizon. You can't reach it from this side of it (the slower side), and you also can't reach it from the other side (the faster side). So anything that exists at speeds faster than light cannot slow to light speed (for example, the theoretical tachyons). Isn't this a feature of at least special relativity?

Could one then try to envisage a machine that could "jump" the horizon that is light speed, so one could conceivably go faster than it, and then "jump" back again? Could we just assume that this is what the phase drives do?

But as to the 2d/3d space thing, I agree that three-dimensionality should be maintained, though, in terms of function (as somebody said), 2d could be more easily managed.
I enjoyed HW's management of it though, even though there is a clear difference here (for example, the gravity wells only allow z-travel within the swept circle that is the well).

Comparing the game's management of 3d/2d to the "forgetting" of the no-sound, no-fireball environment, is, I think, erroneous; the latter is cosmetic, the former is practical.

i aggree with the sound but u slip up on a number of points

when a ship explodes the air that forms the fireball is from the life support systems so in theory explosions are possible in space

also unable to go faster than light is only theory to us and cant be proved or disproved so u cant have an argument with this as evidance for all we know some one out there has worked it out

think of all the UFO sighting that america tryed to cover up lol

is it just me or ever since the game came out the most dumb, idiotic and n44best questions seem to roam the forum with a vengeance...

I already hold the patent on 10, 11 and 12 dimensional UI's, so Ironclad couldn't use them.

The thing is, this isn't a bad question. It's perfectly rational - space is 3d, right? So why, the OP asks, is this fact not made all that obvious? It's not dumb, it's not idiotic, and it's rather the opposite of n44by, if you ask me.

totally agree. can you imagine how difficult and annoying all the fights would be trying to maneuver your fleets in that environment

Not really. HW pulled it off well.
Yeah, though, I like it if the option for z is there, but isn't necessary... that suits everybody, I think.

Only with a liberal use of the pause button.

That's audio feedback from the ship's damage control computers.