reaperrr
23.07.2010, 00:43:58
Fight 1:
#426 is not exactly a must-have, but it still sounds like a nice idea. If you upgrade your SW building your SW gets stronger, I like that idea.
#510: a purely visual enhancement, and could be a small nightmare to implement. Even if we assume the possibility to have two separate turrets is added, how should xxxxFLH be handled, to which of the turrets should it be assigned? and to which turret should which weapon be assigned? also, currently FLHs are calculated not from the center of the turret but from the center of the unit.
To top it all off, only a few units like battleships would use this.
So kill #510, it was nice in RA1, but I don't think it's worth the effort.
Fight 2:
#993: according to the comments, if EligibleForDelayKill= is promoted from BuildingType to general availability this should be doable with existing features, and it doesn't sound all that useful either way.
#323 can be emulated in some cases, but not all, and would be a nice feat so I'd say kill #993.
#426 is not exactly a must-have, but it still sounds like a nice idea. If you upgrade your SW building your SW gets stronger, I like that idea.
#510: a purely visual enhancement, and could be a small nightmare to implement. Even if we assume the possibility to have two separate turrets is added, how should xxxxFLH be handled, to which of the turrets should it be assigned? and to which turret should which weapon be assigned? also, currently FLHs are calculated not from the center of the turret but from the center of the unit.
To top it all off, only a few units like battleships would use this.
So kill #510, it was nice in RA1, but I don't think it's worth the effort.
Fight 2:
#993: according to the comments, if EligibleForDelayKill= is promoted from BuildingType to general availability this should be doable with existing features, and it doesn't sound all that useful either way.
#323 can be emulated in some cases, but not all, and would be a nice feat so I'd say kill #993.