This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: More unit view stuff
- From: Jim Kingdon <kingdon at panix dot com>
- To: hronne at telia dot com
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:15:50 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: More unit view stuff
- References: <l03130300babe4615f234@[212.181.162.155]>
> This does not make sense. It is easy to understand how the location of
> an enemy city could fall into your hands through capture of an enemy
> unit. But why should you also be able to see what happens in that
> distant city for the rest of the game?
Well, the comment says:
;; Towns and cities always have foreign correspondents, telephones,
;; private citizens coming and going, so their state is always
;; going to be available to any side that knows they exist.
(add cities see-always true)
> The obvious fix is to make see-always units visible, but not part of the
> permanently covered area. You would get to know the unit's location and see
> its obsolete view
What does that have to do with see-always?
I think you are proposing to get rid of see-always. Which might make
sense.
> 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 guess I don't see any obvious problem with it. The balancing act
here is to not reveal too much. Right now, the standard game reveals
too much. Capture a few towns and you know where the enemy's home
base is.
> 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.
Might work. Or just non-mobile units (e.g. cities and bases).