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

[Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:14:22PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 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.

So if A wants to attack B's city with C's unit in it, he has to declare
war. That's no big deal. But C can attack A so he better moves off <g>.
Where's the problem?

> 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.

In the first example, above, when A's unit is in B's city, C is _and_ is not
allowed to _move_ (not attack) into B's city.

Christian

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