This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Xconq project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Table Request: Accident-Occupant-Effect

From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
To: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:03:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Table Request: Accident-Occupant-Effect
References: <20040923004610.31863.qmail@web13121.mail.yahoo.com>

Elijah Meeks wrote:

Only accidents don't affect occupants.  So, if anyone
can think of a better solution to this problem, let me
know, otherwise, if somebody in the know gets the
chance, I think it's worthwhile to see accidents
affect occupants.

Or how about a new unit property, 'auto-upgrade-chance'? By default this would be 100%, so as to not interfere with the regular auto-upgrade mechnaism. However, you could set it to 25%, and make sure that no materials, advances, size, etc... are required for the auto-upgrade. This feels less hackish than using accidents for such purpose, and may prove useful in other situations as well.

Eric

P.S. Between you and Lincoln, it sounds like I am going to be doing kernel hacking rather than SDL UI hacking this weekend. I guess I'll have to cloister myself in a monastery somewhere with a laptop and no access to the outside world, if I ever want to stay on track. :-)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Table Request: Accident-Occupant-Effect
  - From: Elijah Meeks

References:
- Table Request: Accident-Occupant-Effect
  - From: Elijah Meeks

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]