This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Consumption-per-fire?
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>, xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:16:42 -0600
- Subject: Re: Consumption-per-fire?
- References: <20040604230455.43590.qmail@web13123.mail.yahoo.com>
On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 17:04, Elijah Meeks wrote:
> I don't understand. So the consumption-per-fire on
> its own won't cause any change, but if I set the
> hit-by table, it will consume ammo?
Correct; it should.
> Does this mean
> units that are false on the hit-by table are immune to
> the damage?
No. But, if they are 0 for all relevant 'hit-by' entries, then they
probably should be immune, but currently are not.
> Would I be able to include, for example,
> 'Tungsten Ammo' in a panzer game, along with "Regular
> AP" and "HE" and set it so that different tanks and
> infantry are invulnerable unless it has the right
> ammo?
Ideally, yes, but presently, no.
> Because it doesn't seem that way. This is
> really quite confusing, what's the purpose of the
> hit-by table??
The purpose is what the documentation says it is. However, I agree that
the name is somewhat misleading, and I once inferred a different use for
it, before making it realize its intended purpose (according to Hans),
and adding some notes to the documentation. I still find it interesting
that it allows negative values down to TABLO rather than -1 (and I think
it was this way prior to me touching it last year).
Eric