Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: April 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4095) Allied Victory :-)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4095) Allied Victory :-)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4095) Allied Victory :-)
From: "ChrisK@xxxxxxxx" <ChrisK@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:11:45 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > 
> > I'm starting to wonder whether this situation is in fact a bug. Should it
> > really be possible to declare war on an ally's ally? 
> 
> No.
> 
> > Shouldn't a
> > declaration of war on a player automatically lead to its allies also
> > declaring war on you? 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Isn't that much of the _point_ of an alliance?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But the above bug would still be a bug if we substitute war for "neutral" 
> or "peace", or any "non-aliance".

Let's call it TAP transporter alliances problem.

I think alliances have to be transitive. War state is not.

So make an alliance is only allowed when all allies of A are at least
neutral with all allies of B. When the alliance actually happens, all allies
of A and B become allied to each other.

When A cancels an alliance with B, all his other alliances are cancelled,
too.

A former thread on this starts here:

http://lists.complete.org/freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx/2003/01/msg00090.html.gz

Just my 2 cents.

Christian

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



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