Garrison Clearing Projectiles

Bug #895285 reported by Bug Importer
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ares
In Progress
Wishlist
Renegade

Bug Description

Dunno if you were all aware of this, but RA2 did, in fact, have a garrison clearing logic already in (Assaulter=yes, anyone?), so this should be really easy to implement. Basically, have some special weapon, a grenade or such, able to do what the Assaulter= logic did, and that was to simply clear all units out and play a little animation for the occasion at all of the garrison fire ports (UCBLOOD was supposed to be an explosion, but was never completed; the assaulter logic works great, but the only way to invoke it was to have the unit "enter" the building).

##### ADDITIONAL INFORMATION #####
tags associated would problably be on the weapon or the warhead, take your pick, and it would be something like "GarrisonClearer=" You could even add a "ClearingChance=" to set a percent chance that the weapon will clear, or possibly "HitsToClear=" to make the weapon hit a building a set amount of times to clear the garrison.

The last two are optional, with the last one being just a fun little add-on of little importance.

Revision history for this message
Bug Importer (bug-importer) wrote :

I got a revision on the tags/logic from the OP to make:

So here is how i see it in my head:

this will be integrated into the UC.PassThrough logic, as well as considering the UC.FatalRate. The name of the tag I am proposing is UC.DamageAll=, and will be connected to the weapon being fired. The order of parsing would be this:

If weapon Passes UC.PassThrough (when attacking a garrisoned building), then evaulate if weapon has UC.DamageAll=yes. if yes, then damage all occupants according to RecieveDamage() (calculated for each indidual unit for that warhead). if no, then damage only the occupant that is chosen to be damaged. If weapon passes the UC.PassThrough AND has UC.DamageAll=yes, AND passes the UC.FatalRate test, then all occupants of the building are killed. If UC.FatalRate fails, then do normal damage according to RecieveDamage() for all occupants.

I'm not sure if this is even possible coding-wise, but just about anything is, and this doesn't seem too hard to implement, but I could be wrong.

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

This will not be implemented into PassThrough because the community vote in thread #1392 made pretty clear that the community prefers PassThrough-related flags only to be parsed if PassThrough actually applies.

Since PassThrough only applies when explicitly set, tying the garrison clearing logic to PassThrough would render it useless on 99.99% of all occupiable buildings, unless the modder goes through and updates every single one of them.

It is unreasonable to expect a modder to update all his buildings just to add a single weapon.

Revision history for this message
Bug Importer (bug-importer) wrote :

Well then we could do one of two things:

1) Add a weapon based PassThorugh-like tag for the garrison clearer weapons, which, as discussed in issue 663 would be impractical and unrealistic, OR:

2) Allow the modder (if he so wishes) to add a global default for the PassThrough values of all buildings with Occupiable=yes, and then allow the modder to specify individual values as necessary.

I personally would go in and edit all the buildings as i saw fit if/when this function gets put in, but that's just me; I understand many people do not want to put in that much effort into thier mods.

If you have a better idea then feel free to go for it.

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

We could, of course, just stop trying to merge these two systems.

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

Postponed to Ares 0.5 as per community vote in forum discussion for issue #bug:778.

Revision history for this message
WoRmINaToR (worminator) wrote :

didn't you specifically say that this feature would still be scheduled for 0.3 regardless of the vote?

Revision history for this message
EagleEye (eagleeye) wrote :

Strongly support, and support push-back to 0.5

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

It's already at 0.5, nothing to push back there.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related blueprints

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.