Renegade Projects Network Forums
New ArmorTypes - Printable Version

+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (
+--- Forum: Ares General Discussion (
+--- Thread: New ArmorTypes (/showthread.php?tid=917)

Pages: 1 2 3

New ArmorTypes - pd - 01.12.2007

New armors were always wished for, instead I came up with a bugged immunity logic, which would only fulfill one of the purposes armors had (there's still damage percentages).

RP2 should feature true new amors. The question is in what way.

IIRC, VK introduced something like an [ArmorTypes] section which lists the new armors. Then on the warhead, you put EVerses with a list of damage percentages for each of the new armor types.

While the armor list is a good idea (it's not necessary, but good, see below), EVerses is a mess IMO.
I'd do it a pretty simple and overviewable way:
If you have an armor type called "Foo" and want it to be immune to a certain warhead, you'd put this on the warhead:

Note that I fixed WW's misspelling of "Versus", which I could avoid as well if you prefer.
The default versus value would be 100% as usual.

The [ArmorTypes] list could be avoided as well. It would create a new armor type once triggered on a unit (ie you put "Armor=Foo" on a unit, it will create Foo automatically if it doesn't exist yet).
However, that will make it all a mess like the whole WeaponTypes logic...

So, what do you believe is easier to use?
EVerses or this?
An ArmorTypes list or none?

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - DCoder - 01.12.2007

This way is better than EVerses, for sure.

However, although I don't mod any more, I find the lack of a centralised WeaponTypes and such to be counter-helpful, if only because it auto-loads stuff from places you wouldn't expect it to, and was the whole reason to have WEEDGUY in the first place. I think a centralised ArmorTypes is a good thing, if only for pedantic reasons. Autoload is a nice feature in actual programming (e.g. php5 __autoload()), yes, but in non-professional code, it only increases clutter and spaghetti. Not that there's anything programmable in INI, of course...

However, having [ArmorTypes] allows for easy future extensions. For example: With it, you can simply add a map action that changes a unit's armor to a different one, using an index in this list. Without it, you would need to change the action format to allow strings in unexpected places, which would be a lot more work, blow FA's brain to bits, and whatnot.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Black Shadow 750 - 01.12.2007

EVerses FTW

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Marshall - 01.12.2007

I concur with DCoder.

Versus.* and an ArmorTypes list

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Nighthawk - 02.12.2007

I'm with the Versus.Armor and the [ArmorTypes] list as well.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Bobingabout - 02.12.2007

stick with Verses for consistancy. i hope you're also keeping immunities, armours and immunities have different purposes

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Marshall - 02.12.2007

What useful purpose do immunities serve if we get new armor types?

I can only think of one - area effect weapon being able to target something it can't hurt.
Although admittedly some might find that useful.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Professor_Tesla - 03.12.2007

Nighthawk200 Wrote:I'm with the Versus.Armor and the [ArmorTypes] list as well.
I agree with this.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Blade - 03.12.2007

An immunity is a lot easier to implement when you want a unit to be immune to a specific weapon but react normally to all others. With armor you have to set the new armor versus on all weapons to be the same as an existing one apart from the one you want to be immune to. Armor is really there when you want several weapons to have a unique damage profile against a target, not for immunity.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Marshall - 03.12.2007

This could do with being able to set a default 'equivalent armor type' for new armor types. For example:




BulletsWH would therefore deal 110% damage to paper (because armor equivalence is 'none')
FlamethrowerWH would deal 500% damage to paper.

As for 'immunities being easier to implement for immune to a specific weapon' - it doesn't stop you targeting the unit with the weapon, so I would always choose to implement a new armor type rather than an immunity.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - pd - 03.12.2007

Pretty nice idea I must say!
Even better: completely doable.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Bobingabout - 03.12.2007

so.... you want me to change my immunities to armours... giving a tank and an infantry the same armour type...

i like my immunities better, and its not just that.

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - Marshall - 03.12.2007


Well all you'd need to do is:
for each armor type your immune units have.

Then set
for the one weapon.

There's not a lot of extra work and you get the added benefit of immune units not being targetable (particularly important for the AI which doesn't think about this)

And regarding what I said earlier about targetting immune units with an aoe weapon (if you wanted to do this), you'd just set Versus.whatever=1%

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - pd - 03.12.2007

Bobing, neither am I forcing you to use RockPatch2 if you feel it's too much work to adapt your mod to it, nor am I doing all these changes to piss you off.
Remember I started RP2 from scratch. Why should I implement two features, when one of them can emulate the other?

I know there will be a bit work involved to change a mod from RP/NP to RP2, but heck, ever thought of how much work it is for me to make it all possible? Tongue

RE: Feature Discussion: New ArmorTypes - IcySon55 - 04.12.2007

I agree with Marshall's method completely. Onward!