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: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:14:22 +0000 (GMT)

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > It is rather subtle, as it involves three players in very specific
> > diplomatic states with each other.
> >
> > 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?
...
> So we can avoid having ally and enemy on the same tile.

The same situation would arise if allied(B,C), non_attack(A,B), war(A,C).
So you get a non-attack city and an enemy unit on the same tile.

Note that this is only a problem for not-at-war _cities_ with enemy units
in it - other stacks with variously diplomatic aligned units is not a
problem.

  - Per



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