This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Some proposals to implement *sieges*
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>
- Subject: Re: Some proposals to implement *sieges*
- From: Bruno Boettcher <bboett@yoda.u-strasbg.fr>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:52:00 +0200 (MET DST)
- cc: xconq7@cygnus.com
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Stan Shebs wrote:
> I assume you're referring to the standard game. For a long time I
right :)
> thought that allowing road-building was unnecessary and complicating,
> because chains of bases have a similar effect, and allow for battles
> to focus on controlling the bases, which wouldn't happen for roads.
that's right, and the other thing is that you can let travel anything through
places!! I admit that myself i often have let travel battleships across lines
of bases to shorten transport.... even if it is quite a non-sense... this
couldn't happen with roads, or am i wrong? Further roads don't offer protection
as places do....
> But on the other hand, road-building only comes into play if players
> are advanced enough to know about it. One practical problem is that
> currently the unit would be able to build 1 segment of road each turn;
> there is no notion of a not-yet-completed road. The closest you could
> get was to allow negative acp, which I consider too complicated to be
> desirable for the standard game.
that's true, but what about variable duration depending on the terrain type?
> So if everybody agrees that allowing infantry to build road, at a rate
> of 1 segment/turn, is OK and won't unbalance the game, then I'm
> willing to make the change.
Yeah please, my vote granted ;D
ciao
bboett
==============================================================
acount at earthling net
http://erm6.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================
Unsolicited commercial email is NOT welcome at this email address
To contact me replace acount by bboett in above addresses