Re: Transports that affect protection?

[Lincoln Peters <sampln@sbcglobal.net>]

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.