<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
On 11/2/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per, I need help understanding this one. Is there a reason that border
> expansion doesn't include vision expansion? That's not intuitive, and
> that's not how commercial civ borders worked....
A quick meta-comment: The commercial civs (1 & 2) that inspired
Freeciv the most did not have borders. Few of us were very inspired
much by the later versions. Our borders were originally inspired by
Alpha Centauri, then rewritten by me to avoid a host of problems I can
no longer recall accurately.
In any case, the reason that borders do not give vision is mostly due
to inertia, I think. It was suggested, and I think it is a good idea,
but I never got around to look deeper into it. As someone argued on
the forums, it is rather strange that you control all this territory,
but you have no idea what goes on it. If you hade no idea what goes on
in it, how can you claim to control it?
> I think that vision expansion would clear out the destroyed city?
Yes, it should.
> I'm also having difficulty understanding virtual cities. Does that code
> leave a virtual city lying around for old fog-of-war?
If you are thinking about the distinction between server view of the
world, and client views of the world (both contained within the
server), then yes, these view may be radically different due to fog of
war. However, borders operate only on the server view of the world,
and does not touch client views at all (which may be kind of odd when
you think about it, but it has to be this way, or things will become
really strange when players meet and they try to figure out where
their respective borders are).
Freeciv-dev mailing list