From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9133 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2003 20:29:17 -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 9123 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 20:29:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web13105.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.174.150) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 20:29:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20031118202905.23029.qmail@web13105.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [138.202.33.36] by web13105.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:29:05 PST Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:45:00 -0000 From: Elijah Meeks Subject: Re: Strategic Range in Xconq To: Eric McDonald Cc: pzgndr@hotmail.com, xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00774.txt.bz2 > Acutally, there is disabled support in the existing > Xconq kernel > for what are known as "side agreements". My > understanding is that > it was commented and #if 0'd out because it didn't > work right. So, > "implementing" this feature might involve fixing the > existing one. Now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection of reading how side agreements were supposed to work in the manual. Even if it's only the side system you can set up in scenario design, but implemented based on AI situational decisions, it'd be an improvement. What we really need for accurate strategic games, though, is a way to simulate political and national loyalties that may not make sense from a 'game' standpoint, as well as contingiencies, so that we can have the escalating chaos of treaties like at the start of WWI. Still, it'd be a start to have alliances within the game of any sort. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree