[pbmserv-dev] Re: cathedral

[Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net>]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 02:47:03PM +1100, Michael Sammut wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> <bit long (but extremely interesting) e-mail following:>
> ;)
> (Is there a discussion forum set up for this, yet?!)
> 
> I too think that Cathedral (or Towns? ...or something!!)
> would be great on PBeM! We could even use a Town Hall
> as the main building (sorry, I digress)!
> 
> > >Yes, we have, and it'd not be too hard a program to >do, but the notation 
> >is an issue.  Is there a standard >notation for the X piece?
> >
> >Yes, actually, there is one. Just look at:
> >http://www.cathedral-game.co.nz/onlineplay.htm
> >
> 
> Had a look at this site, pretty good...
> But it got me thinking...
> 
> 1. Is it necessary to have such a large board, or pieces?
> After a piece has been placed, it is merely aesthetic which
> one it was, as long as it helps enclose an area.

Yes, it does.  Yes, once 2 or more pieces are *connected* there's
no way to capture them.  But until that time, they are vulnerable to
capture (by surrounding).

So... placing a BRidge (X X X) vs. a TAvern (X) + a STable (X X)
both would be represented by (X X X)

or an INn (X  ) vs. a TAvern (X)
           X X) vs. a STable (X X)

They'd look the same.  But TA + ST is "safe".  BR or IN is not.

> 2. As it would be on PBeM, all remaining pieces (Dark and
> Light) should be displayed. Some people could keep a track
> of them at home/work anyway, so this would keep it fair!

Amen.

> 3. Positioning could be denoted by the left-most top-row
> corner of the piece. This would make it less prone to work
> out each pieces new 'focus' after rotations.

I've implemented the notation as specified on the "official" site.

-- 
 /  \__  | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja / Gamerz.NET Lackey
 \__/  \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/    <rrognlie@gamerz.net>
 /  \__/ | No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
 \__/    | However, a great many instructions were executed.