> The purpose is what the documentation says it is.
> However, I agree that
> the name is somewhat misleading,

Somewhat?  There's no mention of a second necessary
table in consumption-per-fire and even though hit-by
is right next to it on the list, when the
documentation for consumption-per-fire says "Specifies
how much a material m will be used as ammunition when
a unit u1 is firing." it sounds pretty
straightforward.  I'd think if a designer was defining
this table, you'd think the hit-by would default to
true (Or 1 or whatever).  Why would anyone go through
the trouble of defining a consumption-per-fire table
and then not want it to apply?

Regardless, I defined a hit-by table and it works,
except when a unit runs out of material.  At that
point it can't fire anymore, which is proper, but when
right-clicking on an adjacent enemy unit it will show
the fire animation and the attack has no effect.

All that means a unit that has both an attack and a
fire will not default to its attack after running out
of ammo.  Instead, it wastes ACP.

Attacks work if you manually order the unit to attack
('a') but right-clicking defaults to fire, which Xconq
allows and charges ACP for, but it seems to 'come to
its senses' when applying hits and/or damage.

I've modified the consumption example so you can see
what I'm talking about.


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/