Re: More unit view stuff

[dancebob at mindspring dot com (Bob Carragher)]

Regarding the basic unit view problem, I would argue in favor of
keeping the "fog-of-war" methodology.  I didn't quite follow the
entire description of how the unit views work, but if these views
are "owned" by a given side, then it seems to me that it should be
possible to fix them so that they are static -- and disassociated
from the real, underlying unit.  Since these views never change
position, and are removed only when the hex they occupy is directly
viewed, it would be easy enough to remove them as new intelligence
becomes available.  And I don't see how adding in the purging of
"dated" unit views would be problematic.  But then again, I don't
have the courage to look through the kernel code to see why it's
difficult.  B-)

So, I guess I'm in favor of fix 2 (the "hard" way).  I actually
like seeing old views of units, as it gives me some idea of the
extent to which a given side has explored, and hints as to where
they have production/strength.  This is particularly helpful when
one is battling 15+ opponents.  B-)  But, on the other hand, if this
means putting in a lot of effort for something that doesn't really
affect game play that much, then it's probably better to give this
a low priority -- maybe just put it in the TODO file?

I agree with Hans' other suggestion that revealed see-always units
(either through expanded side coverage or captured enemy info)
should have only 1 static view, until updated by subsequent
intelligence.  So, for example, the cities' "owner" should be seen
to be the same until new information on them is revealed/captured.

Hans Ronne <hronne at telia dot com> sez:

> Another question is how to handle "Enemy information fell into your hands!"
> for non-see-always (usually mobile) units. As it now works, the terrain in
> the same cell as the unit is drawn, together with a unit view that quickly
> becomes obsolete. This makes little sense. I'm not sure what to do about
> it, though. Perhaps more of the terrain should be revealed instead, at
> least adjacent cells? This could also apply to cities, BTW. Alternatively,
> one could restrict capture-related information to the location of
> see-always enemy units, i.e. cities, for which this concept makes more
> sense.

I'm not sure, Hans, what you mean here.  Are you saying that it does
not make sense to also be given the terrain information?  That only
the unit's position should be revealed?

If this is the case, then maybe the view update should be that a
side's view needs to be layered.  (Perhaps it already is.)  One
layer is the terrain, which presumably doesn't change.  Portions
of that are determined to be revealed or unrevealed.  Another
layer is the unit-views of units that are not directly owned or
controlled by or in view of that side -- e.g. the enemy units.
Most of this information would be obsolete.  Finally, there are
the unit-views that are 100% reliable.  These are of the side's
units, but also of units within the "visible" range of the side's
units.

Is this feasible?  Does it make sense?  Is it already implemented
this way, and I'm just babbling?  B-)

				Bob Carragher