This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Strategic Range in Xconq
- From: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
- To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- Cc: pzgndr at hotmail dot com, xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Strategic Range in Xconq
> Acutally, there is disabled support in the existing
> Xconq kernel
> for what are known as "side agreements". My
> understanding is that
> it was commented and #if 0'd out because it didn't
> work right. So,
> "implementing" this feature might involve fixing the
> existing one.
Now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection
of reading how side agreements were supposed to work
in the manual. Even if it's only the side system you
can set up in scenario design, but implemented based
on AI situational decisions, it'd be an improvement.
What we really need for accurate strategic games,
though, is a way to simulate political and national
loyalties that may not make sense from a 'game'
standpoint, as well as contingiencies, so that we can
have the escalating chaos of treaties like at the
start of WWI. Still, it'd be a start to have
alliances within the game of any sort.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree