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: Occupant Combat, Redux


On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:27:15AM -0700, Elijah Meeks wrote:
> > With respect to the city, bombarding it should
> > damage the occupants, so I
> > see nothing wrong in principle with this.
yep but there's somehow a lack of consistency between an attack in open
field (i attack with a bomber a hex filled up to the brim with units,
    and my bombs hit only 1 unit) and one onto a place (where all units
      get hit..)

i absolutely agree that units should be damaged if their container is
damaged but its still annoying if a lone armor is able to take a city
with 5 armor in it...

> Most units aren't bombarding a city in the sense you
> describe (Artillery or strategic bombing), they fight
true, there should be a disctinction between shooting and bombing, means
point weapons and surface weapons

> > What I find strange in this code is rather what
> > happens if you miss the
> > transport. You must all have seen the frequent
> > message: "Your unit a misses
> > enemy unit b and hits its occupants c, d and e". But
yah that one kept me wondering for years now :D

> > work. If we change this scheme we would also have to
> > change every game that
> > uses the standard combat model. Which I doubt would
> > be a good idea right
> > now.
hmmm but i think that if we manage to move to something more consistent
and logical it would be a necessary step to take IMHO sooner than later
;)

> You could add it separately, so that xconq still
> recognizes and handles "occupant" and "transport"
> relationship as it does now, while we can add a
> "resident" and "dwelling" relationship which would be
> subject to the revised system.  This way we can keep
> the old occupant-transport rules, which are suitable
> in many cases, and utilize a more realistic system for
> units in a place.
i can only and absolutely second this !! coming to combat, cities should
be regarded more as a type of terrain than as a unit.

-- 
ciao bboett
==============================================================
bboett@adlp.org
http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================


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