From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32093 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 18:27:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32083 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 18:27:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web13103.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.174.148) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 18:27:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20030702182715.8577.qmail@web13103.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.166.22.214] by web13103.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:27:15 PDT Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:36:00 -0000 From: Elijah Meeks Subject: Re: Occupant Combat, Redux To: Hans Ronne Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 > You can set protection to 0, i.e. full protection, > and the occs will never > be hit when you hit the transport. Furthermore, if > you leave > occupant-escape-chance at its default 0 they will be > killed when the > transport is killed (but remain intact until then). Yes, but with full protection, a place can have no capture chance (As my fortresses are set up in Specula). Otherwise, if they can be captured, then the units within the cities, which are supposed to defend it, instead are wiped out or captured. > With respect to the city, bombarding it should > damage the occupants, so I > see nothing wrong in principle with this. > Most units aren't bombarding a city in the sense you describe (Artillery or strategic bombing), they fight the units within they city, and when they do the way the current system is set up, their fire is multiplied by the number of occupants. Even with bombarding units, this is only realistic if you're trying to simulate some kind of troop density in a hex, so that a more heavily occupied hex is vulnerable to strategic weaponry. That's situational, and should be handled as an exception and not a rule. > 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 > this is how things > 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. 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. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com