Re: [spoon-discuss] Prop 1418

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:20  PM, Glotmorf wrote:

>

> Yes, but if there's multiple power plants, which one
> melts down?  Which oen gets destroyed is, as proposed,
> random; which one gets deactivated could be random
> too.

Mostly I just think we should be trying to avoid adding something else 
that needs to be tracked; it's simpler if each improvement has two 
states: There and Not There, instead of three - Active, Inactive, and 
Not There.

BTW, as proposed, a random *improvement* would be destroyed, not a 
power plant. Destroying a random power plant would a useless die roll, 
as the destruction of one plant would invariably lead to overworking 
all other powerplants. Thus, a well-aimed strike that took out three 
central power plants would wreak havoc on someone - all eir power 
plants would overload and die if this happened.

A better way to do it might be to have each plant provide power over a 
given radius; even if there's only one other building in said radius, 
the plant still doesn't provide any power to further buildings. Then, 
if too many buildings are put in a plant's radius, it overloads and 
explodes; this deactivates all buildings in its radius that aren't also 
in other plants' radii.

Perhaps also little routing stations could be built, which had a radius 
around them, around which buildings were considered to be in the radius 
of whatever plant powered the station...

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss