Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Multiple alliances was: Re: another fix
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Multiple alliances was: Re: another fix

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Multiple alliances was: Re: another fix
From: Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:29:24 +0100

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Thomas Strub wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:02:34PM +0100, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:33:23AM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > > 
> > > A is at war with C and allied to B
> > > B is allied to A and C
> > > C is at war with A and allied with B
> > 
> > You mean: allied(A,B) && allied(B,C) && at_war(A,C)
> > 
> > Just a thought: 
> > 
> > Given allied(A,B) && at_war(A,C). Why is whatever(B,C)-->allied(B,C)
> > possible at all?
> 
> AI needs ~ 100 turns to get out of that situation ... but it does.
> Think if the players know the diplstate from there allies or enemies
> they will decide faster if they should do an ally like that.
>  
> > > C attacks a tile that houses a city belonging to B and a unit belonging to
> > > A. According to can_unit_attack_unit_at_tile(), an attack on this tile is
> > > fine, 
> > 
> > This is strange. Why not require !at_war(A,C) before allied(B,C)?
> > If C declares war to A after this, do allied(B,C)-->peace(B,C).
> > If A declares war to C after this, do allied(A,B)-->peace(A,B).
> > 
> > So we can avoid having ally and enemy on the same tile.
> > 
> > General rule: declare_war(A-->B) implies cancel_alliance(A,i) for all
> > i with (allied(B,i) && allied(A,i)).
> > 
> > I think this is also more realistic.
> 
> I think its useful that you can make ally before the other change the
> state to war.

Yes, _before_, but not _after_.

> And perhaps screnairios with:
> 
> A al B, B al C, C al D, D al E, E al F and F al A
> 
> A peace C,E
> B peace D,F
> C ..
> 
> And war between 
> A D
> B E
> C F

I don't see why it's useful. Have you ever encountered such a situation
in a real game and found it useful?

> but therefor should be a limitation of shared view.
> Something like: 
> Only show that that i see and that i discovered, not that i see from my
> allies.

Yes! Shared view shouldn't be transitive.

Related are:
http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2296
http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2294

Maybe allies shouldn't be either.

Christian

-- 
Christian Knoke     * * *      http://www.enter.de/~c.knoke/
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]