[Freeciv-Dev] Re: team play (PR#1350)

[Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Per I. Mathisen wrote:

> > It would be nice to get more information about how Starcraft works in
> > this respect. Can the players be seperated later? Can you examine
> > later which player was the original owner?
> 
> No, I think you misunderstand. It isn't two players being merged, but two
> or more connections controlling the same player.

In Thy Kingdom Come, a few of the players "originated" races, thus you 
could choose to regard the inventor of the "race" as "original owner" if 
you chose. However, female units and male units were distinguishable by 
means of impregnation. The units designated as female would eventually put 
out another piece (unit, counter, character, a feature of the game that 
possesses mobility in respect to the "map").

Thus if one utilised a "male" "piece" to impregnate a female "piece", some 
confusion as to the "ownership" of the resulting "piece" could in 
principle be possible to conjure up.

Each "piece" had a "loyalty" which was initially inherited from the 
"mother" (the piece from which it derived, as opposed to the piece which 
"impregnated" the piece from which it derived). The "loyalty" could be 
hypothesised as being potentially attributable to so-called "Helsinki 
Syndrome" or "Patti Hurst Syndrome" in that the loyalty could be altered 
by means of nonfatal combat interactions ("attack to subdue"). Also, 
whoever was "logged on to" the piece (using the piece name and password, 
at some times possibly also requiring being logged on as the "player" to 
whom the piece "belonged" aka the most recent player to "take over" the 
piece) could change the "loyalty" field.

The "loyalty" field thus sounds somewhat like "your mothers maiden name" 
kind of fields but it had a function in the game: any units whose "loyalty 
field" string was the same as the "name of unit" field of another unit, 
then the unit named in the "loyalty field" would be accompanied in its 
movement by the "loyal" units.

In the Kingdoms MUD implementation of En Garde style regiments, something 
along those lines was also used. The Subaltern could sign on to any of the 
privates, the major could sign on to any of the subalterns or privates, 
and so on up the heirachical structure.

> Another question is, of course, how to stop connections from joining when
> you don't want to share control.

Do not give them sufficient social rank and/or "influence" and/or money to 
purchase or be appointed to a rank that has a share of control?

BB
MM