Burn baby, burn

[CyberJack]

And, please stop placing links to books for sale. I love books, but I can't buy them because I have to save money

Well, I've summarised the central idea in the last post, just from memory. For more details, I could dig my copy out of storage and scan a page or two

Anyway, can't you just find the book in your local public library? Or ask them to get it in for you?

[Assasin]

Oh, so their spitting "fire acid". Now I understand what you were talking about. So it's like a flame thrower. That would do damage every turn, like poison, but you would probably die in about 20 min. of it. That's why I was saying a lot of damage in one turn. How about a random amount of damage? Is that possible?

[stillnotelf]

c.f also Anne McCaffery's dragons, which have to chew 'firestone' in order to breathe fire.

IIRC, they don't actually breathe fire, they just burp out phosphine by digesting phosphine-containing minerals...phosphine has a habit of igniting spontaneously in oxygen.

I'd like to reiterate that the one-turn-of-damage version is much simpler (KISS) than a multiturn progression, and more realistic given the timescale of Wesnoth.

Has anyone considered modifying a current Drake with this ability and then distributing it in a custom multiplayer era? You can do that, right?

[CyberJack]

c.f also Anne McCaffery's dragons, which have to chew 'firestone' in order to breathe fire.

IIRC, they don't actually breathe fire, they just burp out phosphine by digesting phosphine-containing minerals...phosphine has a habit of igniting spontaneously in oxygen.

I'd like to reiterate that the one-turn-of-damage version is much simpler (KISS) than a multiturn progression, and more realistic given the timescale of Wesnoth.

Has anyone considered modifying a current Drake with this ability and then distributing it in a custom multiplayer era? You can do that, right?

In WML, with difficulty (the main difficulty is keeping track of multiple victims over a number of turns). In the game's C++ code, dead easy, as most of it would be modelled on or even shared with the code for poison, which already does multiturn damage.

As for the "realism" of the timescale .. WINR! But if a one-on-one combat can go on for several days, then so can damage from poison & chemical burns. And it's not a lot of damage; it inflicts over a nominal 4-hour period less damage than a single sword or spear thrust might do instantly.

IRL, victims of fatal burns usually die of loss of blood and other fluids rather than simple combustion, since flesh is quite difficult to ignite but damaged cell walls continue to leak for quite a long time. They *don't* miraculously recover in four hours!

But ... WINR.

[stillnotelf]

Yay for using both realism and WINR as arguments at the same time...Also, immediate victims of burns commonly die of lung problems (smoke inhalation) as well as fluid loss. The MAJOR killer of burn victims is infection, it's incredibly hard to keep microbes out without skin...

I think we need to clarify the "verb tense" of this new ability: it is "burned", as in past tense, and the damage comes from the wound, or "burning" as in "still on fire"?

In the former case, it's more of a health problem, like poisoning. A receding multiturn progression makes perfect sense...BUT the whole "put it out in water" thing doesn't. This would basically be a new type of poison.

In the latter case, it's an active fire, and only immediate, next-turn damage makes sense. I think that this could come in two flavors:
A) Does damage at the start of the controller's turn, with no way to block it. This would be useful to use when you want the defending unit to be low on HP so that it is unlikely to attack the next turn. Alternately, this version might perhaps carry less damage, but then force the unit to have 0 moves for the turn, ENSURING that it can't attack the next turn.
B) A more powerful version that could be put out by water. Here, the other unit's controller has a choice between saving a big chunk of HP by going swimming, or "holding the line" and taking the damage.

I think the latter option opens up a lot of interesting tactical possibilites.

[CyberJack]

Oh, so their spitting "fire acid". Now I understand what you were talking about. So it's like a flame thrower.

Maybe. I tend to think of the drakes' main "fire breath" weapon as like a flamethrower or the weedburner that I use in the garden, but the difference is mostly in the nature of the "fuel". A weedburner uses butane or propane, and so the burning stops as soon as you turn the flame off or move it away; WWI flamethrowers used low-viscosity liquid fuel so the fuel that had hit the target would continue to burn for quite a few seconds; later (WWII+) flamethrowers often used fuel thickened with napalm which could physically burn for several minutes. This "ongoing damage" attack for the Drakes would need an even stickier (but not as inflammable) fuel; but because it wouldn't be possible for any fuel to physically burn for that long (it would all be used up after only a few minutes) I was assuming a compound that would produce chemical burns until washed off (for the multiturn effect), after the initial damage caused by the physical burning of the compound on impact.

That would do damage every turn, like poison, but you would probably die in about 20 min. of it. That's why I was saying a lot of damage in one turn. How about a random amount of damage? Is that possible?

Yes, but not necessarily desirable; no other Wesnoth weapon does "random" damage. Combat timescales aren't realistic anyway, so you should consider the duration of this effect in relation to how long a one-on-one combat typically lasts and scale appropriately. After all, this attack does less damage during a whole turn (however long that is) than a single hit from a spear or sword (and there can be up to 5 of those each turn!)

[stillnotelf]

no other Wesnoth weapon does "random" damage.

ALL weapons in Wesnoth do random damage, if you look at the attack as a whole instead of each damage-bit. If you wanted burn to act randomly, it could be coded to be something like a "1-15" magical fire, so that it will do on average 10-11 damage per turn.

[CyberJack]

I think we need to clarify the "verb tense" of this new ability: it is "burned", as in past tense, and the damage comes from the wound, or "burning" as in "still on fire"?

Neither. As in, "nasty sticky caustic (or acidic) compound clinging to you and creating additional damage each turn (not just from the burns inflicted initially), but not 'on fire' in the sense of combustion".

In the former case, it's more of a health problem, like poisoning. A receding multiturn progression makes perfect sense...BUT the whole "put it out in water" thing doesn't.

"Wash it off", not "put it out".

This would basically be a new type of poison.

Yes. In fact the more this can share the poison code the better. Distinctive effects that can be implemented by the same code are ideal; in-game variety for not much coding cost

In the latter case, it's an active fire, and only immediate, next-turn damage makes sense. I think that this could come in two flavors:
A) Does damage at the start of the controller's turn, with no way to block it. This would be useful to use when you want the defending unit to be low on HP so that it is unlikely to attack the next turn. Alternately, this version might perhaps carry less damage, but then force the unit to have 0 moves for the turn, ENSURING that it can't attack the next turn.
B) A more powerful version that could be put out by water. Here, the other unit's controller has a choice between saving a big chunk of HP by going swimming, or "holding the line" and taking the damage.

I think the latter option opens up a lot of interesting tactical possibilites.

Yes. Like poison, but different enough that it applies in different situations, and creates different opportunities.

[CyberJack]

no other Wesnoth weapon does "random" damage.

ALL weapons in Wesnoth do random damage, if you look at the attack as a whole instead of each damage-bit. If you wanted burn to act randomly, it could be coded to be something like a "1-15" magical fire, so that it will do on average 10-11 damage per turn.

No, each weapon does a definite amount of damage (with modifiers) per strike. It's only the number of hits that's partly random.

You could define an attack as 1-15 if you wanted, but the variance would be quite small with that many hits; the probability of getting only 1 damage would be vanishingly small (which is why Cuttlefish are so much more annoying than Troll Rocklobbers).

[stillnotelf]

While the sticky-burny-acid implementation is certainly possible...I'm not sure what it has to do with the Drakes. I mean, the attack is called "fire breath", not "caustic breath". I think a caustic attack like you describe would fit much better with the Saurians* or perhaps Orcs** than with fire-breathers. If we had an insectoid faction, it would be perfect for them...

*I'm thinking of Pip the Minidrag here
**I'm thinking of Worf in that one Star Trek episode where everyone de-evolves

[CyberJack]

But the Drakes aren't that technolgically minded. They only think of armor, weapons, and fire. Naplam sounds more like somthing that the Dwarves would use

According to http://www.answers.com/topic/flamethrower, "primitive types of flamethrowers, consisting of hollow tubes filled with burning coals, sulfur, or other materials, came into use as early as the 5th cent. B.C."

So even for a species that's not intrinsically fire-using (i.e. us), it's not very high tech at all. But I like my previous answer better

[CyberJack]

While the sticky-burny-acid implementation is certainly possible...I'm not sure what it has to do with the Drakes. I mean, the attack is called "fire breath", not "caustic breath".

That's the drakes standard, existing attack. This is different: it's not "breath", more "spit". Or even "vomit".

Anyway, 'caustic' derives from the Greek for 'to burn', but in modern chemical terms it normally refers to strong alkalis. Hence I referred to "caustic or acidic", since either can produce tissue damage. We might suggest Drakes, like most creatures, secrete strong digestive acids internally. But since they "have an internal fire", their metabolism could instead use alkalis to break down whatever it is they eat.

I think a caustic attack like you describe would fit much better with the Saurians* or perhaps Orcs** than with fire-breathers.

Please read my previous posts on how a fire-based creature could evolve or discover this type of chemical weapon. Orcs and even saurians don't have sufficiently exotic biochemistry for a combustive/acidic (or combustive/caustic) compound like this.

If we had an insectoid faction, it would be perfect for them...

Maybe. I suppose you're thinking of bombardier beetles ...

*I'm thinking of Pip the Minidrag here
**I'm thinking of Worf in that one Star Trek episode where everyone de-evolves

Don't know either of these. Sorry.

[stillnotelf]

I have read your previous posts, I just think the ability is less fitting for fire-breathers and more for some other group. If they've already got the ability to breathe fire, why do they need to evolve a second form of defense? This doesn't sound like much of an offensive attack for a hunter, it would destroy the food, and something that high up the food chain hardly needs explicitly defensive weaponry.

I think a caustic attack like you describe would fit much better with the Saurians* or perhaps Orcs** than with fire-breathers.

Orcs and even saurians don't have sufficiently exotic biochemistry for a combustive/acidic (or combustive/caustic) compound like this.

*I'm thinking of Pip the Minidrag here
**I'm thinking of Worf in that one Star Trek episode where everyone de-evolves

Don't know either of these. Sorry.

Pip and Worf ARE examples of how humanoids or reptiles would have "sufficiently exotic biochemistries" to do this sort of thing.
Pip is from Alan Dean Foster's Flinx series of novels; it's a telepathic flying snake that spits a frivolously corrosive neurotoxin at its enemies, a spatter anywhere on the body is generally fatal, the face especially so. (I should point out that we have spitting cobras in real life...)
Worf is the Klingon on Star Trek, big badass warrior humanoid, and in one episode he mutates into a form which spits a similar caustic neurotoxin.

To further put this in perspective...Orcs and Saurians are allowed to exist, but only if they have "normal" biochemistries? WINR doesn't extend to the cellular level?

If we had an insectoid faction, it would be perfect for them...

Maybe. I suppose you're thinking of bombardier beetles ...

Yep.

[CyberJack]

If we had an insectoid faction, it would be perfect for them...

Go on. Propose one. It could be based on the Plated Folk from Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger series

[Assasin]

I'm starting to like the idea of geometrically decending damage done, ever since Jack said that thing on how battles don't last days. The random damage idea doesn't sound so good anymore. Lets say, a 5-4 attack for the Fire Drake with BURN placed with it. And then, the Inferno Drake could have a 6-5 attack with INCINERATE. Or, do you think that we shouldn't have another attack, and just stick with INCINERATE?