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." '---''(_/--' (_/-'