Re: OLYMPIA: Cooperative Attacks

From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 23:31:26 +0000

}} In article <1992Jun12.174207.10474@walter.cray.com> rsocia@renaissance.cray.com (Rick Socia) writes:
}}
}} PLAYABILITY MUST NOT BE SACRIFICED!!!

I don't understand how being cooperative sacrifices playability.

}} Steve, Steve, Steve.  When someone is attacked, the do not willingly cooperate,
}} they capitulate.  And so for playabilities sake, if you attack anyone in an
}} alliance (a stack is a weak alliance), you attack them ALL.
}}
}} Therefore I must concur with Rich, who currently has it working this way.

I am amused by this statement.  As the author of the combat code, I
think I know how it works, and there isn't anything in there to stop
me from attacking someone I'm cooperative with.  Yes, you attack a
whole stack; I didn't say anything about changing that.  I myself put
in the change to disallow attacks within a stack, because it was
ambiguous (if A attacks B, does A unstack and attack the rest of the
stack, or should B unstack and A attack with the rest of the stack?).

I guess I still don't get your point.  Maybe we should take this to
e-mail so I can figure out exactly what you mean...

}} Rick Socia

sjc@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
                      I won one game, three to two, too.

If I don't want it in my back yard, I don't want it.

References

OLYMPIA: Cooperative Attacks
rsocia@renaissance.cray.com (Rick Socia)
Fri, 12 Jun 1992 17:42:07 +0000
Re: Olympia Stacking 'Gotcha'
srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner)
Wed, 10 Jun 1992 21:44:49 +0000
Re: OLYMPIA: Stacking Reform Concepts (was Re: Olympia Stacking 'Gotcha')
sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Fri, 12 Jun 1992 19:30:07 +0000