Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#576) Re: Play By E-Mail - PBEM

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#576) Re: Play By E-Mail - PBEM

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: tomg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#576) Re: Play By E-Mail - PBEM
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:25:15 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > Player 1 can always choose to attack or retreat. Player 2 doesn't have
> > > this choice.
> >
> > I don't understand why player 2 doesn't have this choice.
> Suppose we have two units from two players with full moves which see
> each other. Than the player which moves first has an advantage: he can
> decide if attack or retreat. The other player doesn't have this choice
> because either the unit attacked or is gone.

This situation simply does not arise. When a player moves so that enemy
unit becomes visible and we become visible to it, we no longer have full
moves. If we do not have enough moves to attack it, then we screwed up
and the opponent gets the initiative to attack.

> > But what if we do this instead:
> >
> > 1) player 1 moves
> > 2) new turn for player 1
> > 3) player 2 moves
> > 4) new turn for player 2
> >
> > It might seem a bit odd at first, but this is more like how it is played
> > at the moment than what you suggested :-)
> >
> > Also this way players can fiddle around with their new acquisitions for X
> > phases, where X is no. players in the game.
> So this means that there is no full seperation but only the unit
> movement is seperated and that the players can change all the other
> settings all the time?


  - Per

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