In all cases you would be able able to declare attitudes on, and from, a
noble-by-noble basis.
The issue is whether one can specify a faction instead, to avoid having
to list all of the units in someone's faction.
An example:
You are allied with me, player [555].
All but three of my units are unmasked, i.e. their lord is
publicly known. Three of my units are sneaky spies, they say
"lord ?" when seen.
I ask you to grant me access to your Grove of Yews, and you agree.
Now the problem is that with faction trees, you must list every one of
my units, since, as Greg Lindahl pointed out, the program doesn't want
to give away info that you might not know.
With a flat hierarchy, however, the program can make a reasonable assumption
about what you might know. So if you say
admit cp03 555 # admit all known units of 555
This will allow all of my units, except the three sneaky ones, into your
sublocation cp03.
I would have to explicitly ask you for permission to admit the three
sneaky ones. "Unit [5678] is one of my spies, please let him in too."
admit cp03 555 5678 # admit all known units of 555, plus unit 5678
* * *
Frankly, when I look at a location report, I would like to either see
known units, or unknown units.
Osswid [5678], lord 555, with three pikemen
Osswid [5678], lord ?, with three pikemen
I never know what belongs to which player with the current FT system.
-- Rich Skrenta <skrenta@rt.com>