On 7/26/08, Per Inge Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/25 Madeline Book <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>  > There was a suggestion some years(?) ago that players should have full
>  >>  > vision inside their borders, to offset such information leakage. I
>  >>  > think that is a reasonable idea.
>  >
>  > It might be interesting to try this out, but it does not address the
>  > problem that when someone finds the border edge, they get
>  > extra information that someone has a city near there. I realize
>  > this is hardly significant when playing with AIs or novice players,
>  > but knowning where your opponent is (and without him knowing
>  > that you know that) can be the difference between a win and a
>  > loss for two expert human players.
> Sounds like a feature to me. Current Freeciv multi-player is too much
>  of a hide-and-seek, where the chance event of discovery of another
>  player while he is still busy expanding without considering defence
>  often decides the game. Instead of hiding players even more, we should
>  make it even more obvious for all players.

I don't really like the randomness due to position and chance discovery
either, but I have no idea how this situation can be ameliorated while
having an unknown (i.e. completely unseen) map at the game start.

>  > There is also the issue that players can essentially see through
>  > the fog since border information is sent even when a tile is
>  > fogged. So for example they can see when a city changes owner
>  > by the changing of the border around the city tile.
> Well, I'm not really sure why fog of war should hide city changes in
>  the first place. Cities are huge, and trade has in all times been
>  prevalent, diffusing knowledge of the immediate geography around
>  nations. So it is not at all strange that this information is
>  'leaked'. Restricting knowledge of the map strictly to a player's
>  vision gives the game a little too much myopia, reducing the
>  interaction.

I would be open to having this as a server option, so that gameplay
could be tested with or without it. My own feeling is that, as is, it would
be more advantageous for attackers rather than defenders. This
is not terribly good, since attacking is already generally easier than
defending (at least in the sorts of games played on warservers), but
given that there are many differences between 2.2 and warservers
already, I'm not sure really how the gameplay would be affected.

>  > This is one way it could be handled I suppose. My own idea would
>  > be to only send updated border information when the unit sees the
>  > source of that border (a city or fortress I presume). This would avoid
>  > the "visual mess" of partial seen borders (at least to the granularity
>  > of sources rather than individual tiles) and not give extra hints to
>  > attackers.
> Then you wouldn't know that you have crossed into another player's
>  territory until well after the fact... This is one other reason why we
>  need omniscient borders: The current diplomacy model pretty much
>  depends on it.

So how about this: border information is sent when the source is seen
(i.e. city or fortress) or when seeing a unit owned by that player. In the
latter case, it would send border information corresponding to the source
that causes territory ownership of the tile that the unit is on.

Of course this might be hard to implement (given the current design
may not be easily extended to such a case); for now I will focus on
the editor and bugs that I find in passing so as to hopefully get 2.2
ready for release soon.


Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to