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]

Escaping from a destroyed transport, single player multi-side


I've never seen more than one occupant of a transport escape when the
transport is destroyed, even with occupant-escape-chance (which is
documented as being for *capture*, not *destruction*, of the transport
anyway) set to 100%.  If there are multiple occupants when the transport
is destroyed in combat, I haven't tested carefully but it looks like the
first occupant escapes and the rest vanish.  I wonder if this might be a
side effect of intended behaviour - for instance, if the escape is
consuming ACP from the transport, maybe the ACP runs out after the first
one and so future escapes can't happen.  So it needn't directly be a bug,
but I'd like to be able to write my GDL in such a way that all the
occupants always escape instead of being destroyed - ideally all
stacking into the same cell where the transport was, although the current
behaviour of "a random adjacent cell" is good enough.

Is there some combination of a setting I can set and/or a bugfix that will
bring me closer to my goal of having "token" units that are
indestructible, immobile by themselves, but can be transferred, captured,
picked up and dropped, and carried off the map?  As things are, even
though my tokens can't be directly hit in combat, it's much too easy for
them to be destroyed as a side effect of other things being destroyed.
Beating up Calvin is a pointless exercise for Moe if Calvin's lunch money
vanishes in the process.

Also, for both testing and general amusement it would be nifty if I could
play multiple opposing sides myself (using Xconq more as a toy than as a
game).  Maybe such a thing is possible using the "controlled side" feature
in GDL if that's implemented (haven't tried yet - it looks like the sort
of thing that might not be), but I haven't yet figured out how to do it in
the UI (maybe set up a variant that would have one side controlled by
another?).  As things are, what I'm doing is running a network game and
logging into it twice, which is annoyingly complicated and leaves me
susceptible to game-out-of-sync bugs.  I haven't found a reliable way to
reproduce those yet, but they seem to bite most often when I'm using
sequential play and the "delay" command.
-- 
Matthew Skala
mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                    Embrace and defend.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/


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