Burn baby, burn

[Assasin]

If we did make BURN part of part of the normal attack, the attack damage would have to change. Maybe 4-5 for the Fire Drake, and then 6-5 for the Inferno Drake. Do you think this is too much?

[CyberJack]

I pointed out in another thread http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 9670#69670 that there might be some difference between magical fire (fireball, etc) and plain-old-fire (Goblin Pillager's torch); and added somewhere that I thought of the Drakes' firebreath as more like the magical type: very hot, but only for a few seconds. Hence the instantaneous damage, but no long-lasting effects.

This proposal is just the opposite; less immediate damage but it continues over several turns. Hence, it can't be the same kind of fire. So, as an in-game explanation, let's suggest that some Drakes have discovered a mixture -- maybe resinous plant oils with a caustic or acidic mineral -- that can be ignited and propelled with their fire breath, and which will stick to the target. In short, they've invented napalm.

For the game mechanics, I'd see this as an alternative attack for the more powerful Drakes; probably the Fire Drake/Inferno Drake line. Perhaps 8-2 for the Fire Drake, rising to 8-3 for the Inferno Drake, making it only ~half as powerful as the normal attack and thus preferred only in special cases (like when the enemy's going to run away & hide).

Logically, the damage should probably decline geometrically; but I think it would be better for gameplay to make it an arithmetic progression, because:

1. the geometric progression is too steep: over half the bonus damage is done in the following turn, so if nothing is done about it before then, it probably isn't worth doing anything about it, and conversely
   
   an arithmetic progression gives the target time to avert a significant portion of the damage, thus requiring a bit more strategy on both sides.

I'd suggest this: 8 immediately (per hit), plus 5/4/3/2/1 (per target, not per hit) during subsequent turns. Thus a target that immediately (on its own turn) finds treatment can avoid two-thirds of the bonus damage. Like poison, however, I think this bonus damage shouldn't kill, if only to avoid issues with XP. And that will simplify the coding: units only ever die in combat.

We'd need some careful definition of how the effect is cancelled; which terrains count? And what's the effect of being next to a healer/curer?

[CyberJack]

A Fire Drake could BURN, and an Inferno Drake could SCORCH, which would be a better version of BURN. BURN could do 8 damage, and SCORCH could do 11 damage.

The word 'scorch' would suggest less damage than 'burn', indeed barely more than 'singe'. Compare a merely scorched newspaper or garment with one that's been burnt!

Also, 'singe' and 'scorch' suggest dry radiant heat, not at all applicable to a napalm-type attack that clings to the target for ongoing damage. Alternative suggestions please ...

[stillnotelf]

Char is the obvious choice....possibly too strong, though.

[drachefly]

ignite

[Neoriceisgood]

The awnser is obviously Ignite.[/b]

[stillnotelf]

I think there's a causality problem with ignite, though...FIRST you ignite something, then it burns for a while, and then it is charred. Perhaps "ignite" could be the lower level ability, and "burn" the higher?

(That said, Char implies more damage than either of them, but it also isn't actively on fire, so the put-it-out-with-water aspect wouldn't make sense anymore.)

[Bander]

Does this mean that a unit is actually on fire or that the burns on their body are still hurting them? Because beong on fire for more than a few hours would probably kill you :)

[Assasin]

That's why it would only last for one turn, and it does a lot of damage because it can kill you. I always thought of the Drake fire being like the Dragon's. It isn't magical, it's natural. Their bodies produce it naturally, and they have learnt how to "breath" it.

[CyberJack]

Does this mean that a unit is actually on fire or that the burns on their body are still hurting them? Because beong on fire for more than a few hours would probably kill you

Did anyone actually read the first of my two posts above? The long one? Suggesting that this attack could be a form of chemical warfare, using an inflammable sticky caustic or acidic mixture that causes both normal (i.e. thermal) burns immediately and chemical burns for hours afterwards. And of course it can only be neutralised or washed off by application of copious quantities of water ...

Oh, and the word is not ignite.

'char' is a bit closer, since that can describe a slow burning process as well as the end result of same. It might do, but it's not really quite right. I'd call it 'napalm' if that wasn't so totally OOC; likewise 'greek fire' (which in any case hasn't been verbified in the same way).

[CyberJack]

That's why it would only last for one turn

This whole thread is about an attack form that lasts more than one turn. Or at least I thought is was ...

But since you proposed it in the first place, I guess you must know what it was supposed to be about

[Assasin]

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.

Instead of char, how about incinerate, or toast, or scald, or how about cremate?

[CyberJack]

I always thought of the Drake fire being like the Dragon's. It isn't magical, it's natural. Their bodies produce it naturally, and they have learnt how to "breath" it.

For a delightful pseudo-natural-history of draconian species, I recommend The Flight of Dragons, which explains how they evolved to fly and breathe fire

[Assasin]

That's why it would only last for one turn

This whole thread is about an attack form that lasts more than one turn. Or at least I thought is was ...

But since you proposed it in the first place, I guess you must know what it was supposed to be about

We were disscussing that, but I thought that most people liked the idea of it doing a lot of damage in one turn

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

[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.

To a Drake, it's pretty low-tech.

Q: What do dragons use tar for?
A: Chewing gum

A species that has an internal fire or breathes fire might easily discover how tasty certain plant resins or natural hydrocarbon deposits are.
[aside]
hmm ... pine resin to a drake might be like catnip to a cat; which would make high-altitude forests very interesting places for them
[/aside]
Then they might realise how much damage a carelessly-spat gobbet of burning resin can cause

c.f also Anne McCaffery's dragons, which have to chew 'firestone' in order to breathe fire. Or The Flight of Dragons, in which Peter Dickinson suggests that both flight and fire-breathing are byproducts of a metabolism that uses extremely strong acids (even human stomach acids would be pretty nasty to get on your skin!) and produces large amounts of hydrogen gas. Maybe the 'napalm' attack is simply the drake spewing its digestive acids at the target (there are real animals that do pretty much this).

Naturally-evolved chemical warfare is actually pretty common on Earth; so I see no reason why the 'low-tech' drakes shouldn't have it, either built-in or cunningly thought up by some draconian da Vinci