> Dan Corrin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Rich, if you are having a problem with people getting errors giving
> > items to other chracters (I have done this myself, and I've played
> > over 90 turns) why not add some code to the error section. i.e. if
> > you get an "error noble not present" have the program search inner
> > and outer locations for the noble and perform an "assumed" move
> > to that location first, just like the move routines do.
> I don't mean to be too negative, but.... this is unspeakably horrid!
> Absolutely the last thing that I want is for my nobles to be moving
> around without me explicitly ordering them to do so. Quite aside from
> the obvious problems (once I have done such an "assumed move" into a
> structure on day 1, if I continue the month by trying to "MOVE NORTH"
> and then conduct various other actions, the whole remainder of my month
> will be ruined), there are all sorts of ways that one might use this to
> "trick" a noble into ending up somewhere it doesn't really want to be.
> Thus just exacerbating the present difficulties in arms-length dealings
> with one someone doesn't completely trust.
Well, actually your move north, in the example, will work. Currently the
program will do an "assume move out" first. This is why I suggested it,
as there is already a precident for an assumed move, in this case
it is a move in rather than out.
I do see one way to inconvience a noble, that is to trick them to move
out of the structure, however if they do a "wait unit nnnn" before the
give/etc there will be no problem. Additionally if you trust them to move
into your location (which would have to be the assumed action for the
"trick" to occur), then you should be able to trust them not to lure you
out as they are equivalent (for combat purposes).
I believe that the solution to the construction problem alone encourages
the inclusion of such a option as we are discussing.