From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6151 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 18:36:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6144 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 18:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.panix.com) (166.84.1.72) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 18:36:48 -0000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B381D48915; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kingdon@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id h62IalC13339; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200307021836.h62IalC13339@panix5.panix.com> From: Jim Kingdon To: elijahmeeks@yahoo.com Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20030702175039.53062.qmail@web13105.mail.yahoo.com> (message from Elijah Meeks on Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:50:39 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: Occupant Combat, Redux References: <20030702175039.53062.qmail@web13105.mail.yahoo.com> X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 > Otherwise, I think it's a real problem that when units attack a place, > they get free attacks on all the occupants in that place. It makes attacking a transport (including, for example, a city in the standard game) a fairly powerful move, yes. As a defender, this means one is well served to distribute one's occupant unit among a greater number of transports. With respect to game balance and such, I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not, but it certainly is something which has affected my strategies and tactics quite a bit. > I know, I know, but I promise I'll pick up Lisp for Dummies next week > and see how much I can contribute to the actual code. On the whole, the Language Syntax section of the xconq manual (refman.texi) tells you everything you need to know about lisp. Unfortunately, it throws in a bit of lisp terminology here and there and could use more examples (both things would be nice to fix, given the number of people who know lisp isn't so great these days). But you don't really need to know lisp - the overlap between xconq and lisp (chiefly syntax) is smaller than superficial impressions might imply. I suppose if we really want to address this perceived barrier, we could switch to XML. Although it isn't clear whether xconq would fit XML as well as other uses of XML, which are more document-like (or record/field oriented, which fits into the document model pretty easily).