[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert.
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> This is also a good idea. But we need to simplify the rules first.
>
> Axiom: all units on the tile of defeated defender die (unlessthere is a
> fortress/city/airport there)
> Corollary 1: You cannot attack a non-city tile with a unit not at war with
> you.
> Corollary 2: To make rules consistent you cannot attack _any_ tile with a
> unit not at war with you.
That sounds reasonable. Whether your friend is really a hostage or is
actually conniving with the enemy by pretending to be a hostage, you could
treat it as if a hostage and if you really don't care about the hostage
them you can go to war with the "friend" then attack.
But mind you I know virtually nothing about all this allies stuff. Can
units of different players occupy the same tile at present/already, or is
all this stuff in the future? I actually never imagined that in Civ two
players would occupy the same tile however "friendly" they might be...
-MarkM-
--
Got a website? Get 10,000+ hits a day FREE...
http://makemoney.knotwork.com/10000hits/
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert., Per I. Mathisen, 2003/05/08
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert., Gregory Berkolaiko, 2003/05/08
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert.,
Mark Metson <=
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert., Per I. Mathisen, 2003/05/09
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert., Per I. Mathisen, 2003/05/09
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert., Raahul Kumar, 2003/05/10
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4196) Enemies in allied transport assert., Gregory Berkolaiko, 2003/05/10
|
|