Short version 😀

While a two dimensional map that tries to mimic a three dimensional reality is a grossly simplification the same thing mapping a wormhole network is spot on and nobody will fault your vision.

Long version 😯

Using a wormhole network as a way to make FTL trips has some positive point.

First is that not having ships moving at relativistic speeds or more you happily bypass a lot of the paradoxes and head ache inducing effects that seems to plague this unfortunately no more Newtonian universe.

Second is that you have a quite strict control on the complexity of the game map.

In the starting menu the player will be asked if they want a plain no wormhole crossing map that will be really two dimensional or a more complex one with stepped levels of intricacy.

Third is that the absolute placement of the stars (or the mini star clusters) in the Real universe are of no consequences.

The player will be even able to displace the stars to get the best view for the specific strategic problem he is facing.

The wormhole links can have different characteristics but that will be coded in colour and line style, not in length.

Forth is that the 'fog of war' in this kind of map is naturally explained: even if you can see all the stars around your planet that means nothing, the next star linked through the wormhole nexus can be in the other side of the galactic arm, maybe of the galaxy, even in another galaxy altogether.

The link between the observable universe and the explorable one is completely severed. So is the need of realistic maps: there cannot be one, even inside the game-world.

The only negative point that I see for the moment is that the same strength is also a weakness: the player will need a stronger suspension of disbelieve to visualize this kind of universe as a real one.

For as much it is ridiculous a bunch of stars, not even enough to be qualified as a star cluster, disposed in a two dimensional spiral, will always feel more like a galaxy.

For examples of wormhole only star maps I point you to the Walter John Williams's "Dread Empire’s Fall" series that is by the way quite a good modern space opera yarn.

From the pen and paper roleplaying game world I have found Holistic Design's "Fading Suns", a nice entry in that genre.

For me, I like a very simplistic star map. A very easy to use 2D map with the mouse-over info and context sensitivity is great and ability to add POI (Points of Interest) to the map would be a bonus. I don't want to have to struggle with maps or constantly zooming in and out to get my bearings. I know there is a lot of gamers out there that want that depth in starmaps but i'm not one of them. I want to play more and navigate less. 🙂

I, am for a 3D map every time, best example is still Frontier although a lot more information could now be added to the map than they could do back in 93 when Frontier was released.

I, for myself, am for a 3D universe and a very simplistic map on the screen, I just have to find a way to pull that off.

I always thought a 3D map based on Travellers map, (as in you avatar pic) which is basically what was used in Frontier but had less information on it.

Now with today’s tec the same could done better, but instead of using symbols and letters there could be icons around each of the stars to indicate what is there.

Going one stage further the map could become a hub and clicking on the icons would take you to that information screen.

Well spotted!

I am, of course, a huge Traveller fan with a section of my library dedicated to the various versions, supplements, adventures etc. that came out in the last thirty years.

I love the Spinward Marches setting, I upgraded by hand the original supplement with all the icons that become standard with the Solomani Rim maps, but still, with the enormous computing capability sitting on our desks I think we can do the next step.

After all this years seems that the times are ripe for a gaming space map revolution.

Big fan of Traveller myself although it’s been well over 25 years since I played the paper and pen game. It also has defined what I think makes a good space computer game and I would still rate megatraveller 2 as one the best space RPG ever made although it does have terrible graphics and bad space combat.

Oh for a new traveller game especially if it was based on the Twilight's Peak adventure. 😎

While I have always loved Twilight's Peack I really think that "The Traveller Adventure" has been a landmark in quality adventure supplements.

BTW going back to the thread point, the traveller star maps were fantastic, they gave me a feeling of freedom and infinity that no 4X Space game ever managed.

They were flat, OK, but infinite! Spinward, rimward, trailward and coreward there was the rest of the galaxy. No square border a la GalCiv2, no microspirals like almost everything else.

Just a little speck of the infinite universe.

Why seems impossible after all this years and with Cray-level computing resources on our desk to get that feeling back?

I think the same could be said of most of the games made not just the 4X ones, certainly non of the modern games have that feeling of the grand epic scope of universe. Older games like Elite/Frontier managed it on computer with tiny amounts of ram and cpu power compared to days computers.

Spinward, rimward, trailward and coreward now that's what the Muppets at Egosoft should have used in the X games instead of that nonsense about north gate south gate.

To go 3D there will be the need to add also topward and bottomward... I think.

Disclaimer 😳

Based on a previous post done elsewhere

Short version 😀

To have the feeling of a truly strategic setting we need a lot of stars and planets but what level of detail is needed to have also the feeling of a real universe and not just a flat, black with few light here and there, board game?

Long version 😯

It is not a simple question, give an answer that and you are more or less describing what kind of game you want.

In an highly strategic or extremely simplistic one a simple icon that give an idea of the main planet can be enough.

Then it come the good old ships to planets size ratio (or unit to map to generalize) that plague all 4X games.

Kinda akin to that is the star system to map size ratio dilemma.

All of these dilemmas are derived from the question: 'What's the map anyway'?. Everyone has his answer on this.

The general answer is that the map is the board of the game and the details are all the one needed to play it. Keeping into this frame I would like to have an in-game answer also, a rationale consistent with the setting for what the player see and interact.

Define a setting and then being consistent in every part of the game, the UI and the map in particular.

So in my ideal 4X TBS/RTS Space game my maximum detail level is a full screen sphere that represent a planet surface.

The different continent should be clearly delineated and each planet can be Balkanized, with multiple independent nations and colonies.

All the moons should be there and exploitable as all the mayor asteroids.

In the late game stage planetary engineering should be possible like building a planet from scraps or even better the more efficient orbitals.

In the final game stage stellar level engineering should be supported by the map with things like ring worlds and giant planets ignition.

On the planet surface the mayor infrastructure should be visible like the mayor cities, the starport, the industrial complexes, the beanstalk(s), the special edifices or natural places.

Like a mix between the planetary map of GalCiv2, the cities of Civilization, SimCity from far away and the spherical point of view from Spores.

If you are looking at the planet nightside I would like to see the lights in the right places.

The nightside of your Empire capital should be something memorable, like a night view of a SimCity when you have filled out the map.

The map should give the player the feeling that they have build something massive and beautiful. Something to be proud of instead of a map full of dot of the same color that means that you have conquered and inevitably destroyed all that was around.

A planet that has been attacked with nuclear weapons should have a nightside glowing from the residual radioactivity, craters and ruins visible on the dayside.

Again in the last stage of the game something memorable should be the view of the ruin of an attacked and now no more habitable orbital or even more massive Ringworld.

The map should be able to convey the feeling that an once full of life habitat now is just a dead husk. The map should be enough detailed to convey emotion.

The map is the game or at the least the simpler way to describe and experience the game. More can be conveyed from the map more the game will be able to convey.

I have found this absoulutely gorgeous 3D star display programy

Yet everywhere I go, even here, everybody says that trying to use something like this in a TBS/RTS game would be impossible to play. Why do normal people say this ????