This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Xconq project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Thoughts on the standard game



   Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:54:56 +0000 (GMT)
   From: Keir Novik <ken21@cam.ac.uk>

   (table out-length
     ...
     ;; Places can share things around.
     (/ m* 6)
     (cities m* 12)
     )

I keep thinking there was some reason I didn't want to do this, but
can't remember.  This will actually help AI play, eliminate some
out-of-supply situations that mplayer has never been very good at.

(The whole in-length/out-length thing is poor, but I don't want to
think about alternatives until after 7.2.)

   or something similar, and the second problem by

   (table out-length
     ;; Net consumers of supply should never give any up automatically.
     ((i a b f d s t bb nuke) m* -1)
     ...
     )

I've not considered this to be a problem that needed solving, but I
suppose if some clever person used subs as a sort of chain of secret
supply points for aircrafts, the victim of this strategy would be mad
that the game allowed this... I don't think it can be solved using the
current tables.

This and other situations really call for three-dimensional tables,
which would be a big pain to add and space-hungry besides.  Alas,
two-dimensional tables will never have the same degree of
adjustability, so it will have to be done somehow.

   I'm not satisfied with the way places protect their occupants.  I'm
   tired of seeing things like 

   Your 2nd armor misses the Siamese town Upper Stepney.
     (and destroys occupant the Siamese 1st fighter!)
     (and destroys occupant the Siamese 4th infantry!)
     (and destroys occupant the Siamese 5th infantry!)
   The Siamese town Upper Stepney throws back your 2nd armor!

   It's obvious to me that it's a mistake to leave anything in a place
   that might be attacked.  This problem appears to be that misses on the
   town attack *all* the units inside.  How can we get around this?

Hmmm.  There is an element of realism here - a real-life attack could
very well clobber the airport or a barracks while leaving the city
center relatively untouched.  I could see raising the protection
level.  Have to be careful though, if you make the city impregnable
and don't allow occupants to be hit either, then you can get into
stalemate situations.

It occurs to me that ground units ought to be *very* hard to hurt when
in a city, while aircraft ought to be rather vulnerable - right now
the protection table doesn't distinguish.

   On a more picky note, it should be "destroys the occupant Siamese X"
   or "destroys occupant Siamese X", and not "destroys occupant the
   Siamese X".

Yeah, one of these days. :-)

							Stan




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]