Re: Cow patties, and keeping them asleep

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 20:09, Hans Ronne wrote:
> >On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 17:59, mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:

> To not wake up occupants when transports are woken was actually the way
> xconq worked until a few years ago. However, it was changed for good
> reasons. Defenders of a city must wake up in time to do anything about an
> impending attack. For example, you may have artillery or bombers inside
> that are able of ranged attacks. So this behaviour makes sense in most
> cases. It would be rather easy, though, to add an
> occupant-wakes-with-transport table which makes it possible to customize
> the behaviour for different combinations of unit types.

I agree that the table approach is a good idea, and Matthew has
essentially provided a patch that would support this (minus the
documentation ;-).

In a simultaneous game, the defaults you describe make sense.
In a sequential game, I don't think they necessarily do. The player
should decide whether or not to wake a unit in nearly every case except
being attacked/fired upon/captured. Attacked/fired upon/captured the
exceptions, because we don't want a player to accidentally overlook the
unit being assailed. But, ultimately, even that should be able to be
overridden, in case a game involves sleeping dummy units to draw off
attacks.

> 
> But that would still make it impossible to disembark the unit (and also
> picl it up by clicking on it - that actually uses up acps of the unit that
> is picked up).

Right, thus it is not a good solution if the intention is to disembark
or transfer an embarked unit. But, as I just mentioned to Matthew, it
was not entirely clear whether a cow-patty was ever supposed to leave a
unit, barring the unit's annihilation.

Nonetheless, as I also mentioned, the reciprocal effect is more
generally useful in that a transport could modify an occupant's ACP with
factors other than 100% or 0%.

Eric