Sign in to follow this  
geo2004

Warcraft 2 Style map

Recommended Posts

So I am in the process of converting a 2D RTS i'm working on to use an iso map with diamond tiles, instead of a regular, top-down style with square tiles. Inspiration is any Blizzard RTS. I have a couple questions about the option of layout for the map. 1. Warcraft 2 i believe is a pure iso map, as opposed to starcraft which is actually square tiles with iso units? If so, I have noticed their map is different than most iso games because it is orientated as square, not as a diamond (like Age of Emprires). What are the pros/cons of doing it this way? Examples: warcraft 2 'Square' map AoE 'Diamond' map 2. Is one way easier, as far as rendering and pathfinding go? Doing it as a square makes more sense to me..but that's just me. Thanks, Geo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends, but when starting out it's easier to get a grip around squared-maps :)
The isometrics are actually squared tiles also, but with a bit heavier math and masking to create iso-tiles.

As always - as long as it looks good it doesn't matter how you do it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya I understand how the tiles are made and how they are offset.
Example tile
tile

My concern is just how different the techniques are for the diamond vs square map for rendering and pathfinding, Oh and also tile-picking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am no expert but maybe people use iso because 90 degree angles are easier to pick up in the eye than 45 degree angles?

That way it's less apparent that you have a grid based system perhaps.

It seems like rendering, picking and pathing can all be solved by treating the iso tiles like a rotated grid and using the same math as you would on a grid.

but then again im no expert :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ISO strictly offers a visual enhancement. It looks more 3d. In a time when 3d rendering was new, and not as widely supported, this was a good compromise.

Just my opinion. I don't think one has positives or negatives over the other, really. But you do have to treat things differently (as for your pathfinding and what not).

Better or worse? Just different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this