Re: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?

[Angelo S. <ang...@oo...>]

>> Well, MAP is just that: Mutual Assistance.  Since combat code is 
>> 1 on 1, MAP is useful since it will remove the attack
>> button from members that you have MAP with.  In BB, I expect to 
>> use MAP to extend who can be in sector for attack; this
>> way, numbers can remain hidden from CPL when an operation is 
>> underway.  Minimize alliance hopping.
>>

Hm,

MAT should work, or MAP if you prefare that naming.

However, why remove the attack option? It is a coding efford (if we have 
NO MAP display attack ...) and it removes an dimension from the game.

How to kill a spy if only the alliance leader of teh alliance he is 
in can kick him?

Middy might remember "Silent Knight" and the question if LADS should 
kill him, I blindly denied that question as I still was unsure if he was
a traitor.

However he was. I would even go so far that alliance mates have an
attack link ...

MAP would be of course nice in busts if it would allow busts without
alliance switching.

If MAP is implemented to allow more, like busting (and like SG usage)
then an alliance limit is useless.

With shared tax accounts and interims alliances or strong relatinship
between trader alliances and more war oriented alliances an alliance
limit is useless coding work.

With a low alliance limit and no MAP it gets boring as big bases are
unbreakable then.

Erm, basicly I do not rely care, my thoughts above ... keep the attack
option on everybody regardless of alliance political state, however.

aos

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Schneider         OOAD/UML         Ang...@oo...
Putlitzstr. 24       Patterns/FrameWorks          Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe           C++/JAVA                Fax: +49 721 9812467