Subject: RE: MN: Chew this one over?

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:40:47 +0100

Actually, the more I think about it, the less certain I am that
it will be workable. Shunting in particular strikes me as scary:
the reverse-shuntee theoretically would have to have an LV of 0; 
the reverse-shunter would drag the shuntee to the station as e
(forward terminology) 'vacates' it; the shuntee would be gifted
a token from the shunter (makes sense as the point is to lose
tokens), and e would have eir LV set to an unknowable amount.

So, if it's to work at all, there needs to be plenty more 
definition than I attempted.

>I think finishing with the starting amounts of Tokens is
perhaps
>neater, but still.

Nice idea.

>I don't know, really - it's a nice idea, but there are probably
quite
>a few loopholes that can be exploited (Banking Tokens strikes
me more
>than anything - say that you're collecting all your Tokens from
Bank,
>then head Home) and perhaps a lot of potential for deadlocks
when a
>planned reverse tactic becomes impossible.

Yes, the starting game state would seem to need (even) more 
definition regarding what everyone begins with. The Bank
situation is extremely scary, well spotted. I suppose that
would have to be sensibly set, or (possibly) randomised.

Apologies for any strange formatting resulting from Mucro$oft
Product.
-Graeme.