From: "Tom Holub" <doosh at>

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:51:58PM -0800, Daniel Damouth wrote:
> >
> > Most commercial human-vs.-computer strategy games take the some
> > which can be described as "the only way to challenge the human player is
> > play under different rules".  For example, in Civilization, the computer
> > to cheat extensively to challenge the human player at higher difficulty
> > levels.  Nobody really likes the fact that the computer has to cheat.
> "Cheating" by having one brain controlling 8 ships on the same team is
> a lot different than cheating by having all the other races in the game
> gang up on you, or by changing the resource allocation rules.  I think
> it's the wrong focus for the project and I don't think it will provide
> useful returns, but I don't think it's philisophically a big problem.

I don't care if one robot is controlling the others through the message
board, like a human captain directing a team.  They can use any
organizational structures they want, just as a human team can.  And they
will still have a huge speed advantage in communicating.

But if the robots get to communicate cloaker positions and all the other
tactical information through direct client-to-client sockets, then they
aren't playing with the same rules as a human team with blessed clients.
That's all.

Dan Damouth