This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Transports that affect protection?
- From: Lincoln Peters <sampln at sbcglobal dot net>
- To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- Cc: Xconq list <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:28:56 -0700
- Subject: Re: Transports that affect protection?
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409281503001.15951-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu>
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 12:12, Eric McDonald wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Lincoln Peters wrote:
> > city. The wall usually provides 1000% protection against normal attacks
> > (they can only attack the wall), so the army is going to have one heck
> > of a time taking the city. On the other hand, if a siege tower moves
> > adjacent to the city, any knights within the tower should be able to
> > attack the city and ignore the wall. The same is true for knights who
> > attack from flying vehicles or from the backs of flying monsters.
>
> It is tempting to classify this as a sort of elevation-dependent
> problem.
>
> As I recall, there is already a property out there which affects
> an occupant's height (for the purpose of vision). Perhaps this
> could be commandeered for some sort of attack modification as
> well. Just a thought....
That is an interesting thought, and I can see how it might solve this
problem.
> I would probably restate the problem as how a transport modifies
> its occupant's hit chance versus various targets. I believe that
> there is already a sort of generalized occupant hit chance
> modifier table, a TableUU between transport and occupant. I think
> what you are proposing would perhaps require something like
> 'transport-adds-hit-chance-against' (one would not be able to
> specify an occupant type in this case, since we don't have 3D
> tables, __just the type of the occ's transport and the type of
> the defender).
Somehow, I had not realized that a 3D table might be required to do
exactly what I was describing. A "transport-adds-hit-chance-against"
table should work in my case, though.
I'll add that to the "to-do" list for knightmare.g, then implement it
there when it is implemented in the kernel.
(In case your wondering, I think I'm close to having an Alpha release
ready, but my off-line schedule is such that I can't predict exactly
when.)
---
Lincoln Peters
<sampln@sbcglobal.net>
Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.