Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: July 1999:
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Fog, was: Idea for 2.0

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Fog, was: Idea for 2.0

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Fog, was: Idea for 2.0
From: Mitch Davis <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:55:17 +1000

David Pfitzner wrote:
> I'm not sure if this will clarify things, or just add more fog,
> but I will try to make a few clarifications of my own. :-)

No, it's good.

> 4. Supposing by 3 that it is game "policy" that certain
> information forms part of the "current view", then what
> should be the details about that policy?  Eg, specifically,
> what information about enemy units last seen in areas
> covered by fog should be considered part of the "current
> view"?

I had thought of this, and my thinking is thus:

If a tile is currently visible from a city or by a unit, then
that person gets all updates regarding that tile.  When a tile
is no longer within viewing range of a city or unit, a turns
value is given to that tile.  This value is then decremented
each turn until it is zero.  If something happens on a tile,
updates are sent to those people who have non-zero turn counts
on that tile.  The initial value could be a server option.

This is like a use-by value on the information:  You get updates 
for a while, then you don't, unless you inhabit that land (or post
units), or you revisit it.
Strangely, this was how I thought Civ I did it... :-)

| mailto:mjd@xxxxxxxxxx       | Not the official view of: |
| mailto:mjd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Australian Calculator Opn |
| Certified Linux Evangelist! | Hewlett Packard Australia |

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]