Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:44 pm
by shall
Except as expressed wouldn't the furthest forward one in fact fall back into line this way, this being the "easiest way to reform" moving least bases?
Si
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:01 pm
by lawrenceg
shall wrote:Except as expressed wouldn't the furthest forward one in fact fall back into line this way, this being the "easiest way to reform" moving least bases?
Si
Second bullet (v6.00) :
...Its front edge is placed level with the furthest forward base in that direction.
so bases cannot fall back into line.
Unless this has now changed. I've lost track.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:43 am
by shall
No it hadn't but I was rather wodnering if it can be fixed most easily by removing other restrictions and just saying you move the least no of bases to achieve the formation.
Si
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:54 am
by rbodleyscott
shall wrote:No it hadn't but I was rather wodnering if it can be fixed most easily by removing other restrictions and just saying you move the least no of bases to achieve the formation.
Si
I thought we already had a satisfactory fix.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:57 am
by lawrenceg
shall wrote:No it hadn't but I was rather wodnering if it can be fixed most easily by removing other restrictions and just saying you move the least no of bases to achieve the formation.
Si
Not having thought through the implications in any detail, my initial reaction is that this might well work. See if you can convince RBS. He now seems to be at the stage of wanting the minimum necessary change, rather than the simplest, clearest or most elegant wording if it is more than a minmal change.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:40 pm
by shall
My guts are telling me that too but I haven't had a chance this week to really flesh it out and test it. Hopefulyl the enxt few days will give me a chance to do so.
Si