Re: Problems, suggestions, etc.

[Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>]

Jim Kingdon wrote:

> Alternately, getting rid of surrender-to would be OK with me.  It is a
> complication, and I guess to me it doesn't seem all that necessary.
The original motivation for this was team play at Utah - for
instance, you could have 3-on-3, and if someone had to go to
class, he/she would "surrender-to" an ally, transferring all
units, instead of having to resign and having units either
disappear or be up for grabs, throwing the game's balance off.

One could also use this to spite people in an N-way - if you're
being trampled by one player and are about to lose, resign and
give your remaining units to another player.

This all predates the change-side/give-unit stuff, so could
in theory be as easily accomplished by manually transferring
your units before resigning - although then the game logic
will just declare that you've flat-out lost, and you won't
get a change to resign (unless you kept one unit back from
the transfer or something).

Stan