Elliott C. Evans writes:
>3. Scores are computed as captured points *minus* points still in your
> territory.
This would be an interesting variation.
>Here's where we hit on why games I was playing in did not have any
>problem ending in reasonable time. I tend to push games to conclusion
>even if I'm losing,
Hmm. I'll note that this is actually at odds with what I saw of your
Icetowers strategy (which seemed to involve shaking things up until
you thought you'd done as well as you were going to). Different
games, different philosopies? (or just a real hatred for double-caps?
:)
>I agree. I am not in favor of changing the rules of established games.
>I would like to figure out a good tournament structure, though.
I'm kind of curious about how "the game ends when there's a winner and a
player with a clear field, a winner being defined as a player tied for
the lead with a clear field or one clearly in the lead" would
play. But that's clearly a change.
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-'