安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
If this has already been suggested, sorry, reading 310 comments to verify is too much werk.
Edit: Also, if this radio/binoculars are added, maybe accuracy linearly increasing via communications should be partially dependent on social ability (besides maybe normal shooting/intelligence), should reward the forward observer who can communicate efficiently over the socially inept one...
I started a new colony and got to build mortars. I have a pawn with 19 intellect skill and the mortar accuracy is vanilla.
I tried disabling the mod, reload the game, put it back in the mod list, reload again and still no change.
Then, i tried going back to one of my old games when mortar were accurate. I loaded that game with the mods i had at the time just to be sure this wasn't caused by a new mod and accuracy is still what it should be with the mod.
After that, i tried loading my current colony with the mods i had with the old colony and the accuracy is still vanilla.
What do you think is happening?
Can you check Mortar Accuracy's options in Mod Settings? Are you using shooting/intellect for accuracy? I assume you have it set to intellect since your previous colony still works correctly.
Can you try unsubsribing+subscribing to the mod or force-quitting Steam to force Steam to grab the new update?
I would LOVE if you also added ability for it to show how long it would take a shot to land where you are targeting, I like leading targets myself.
I'm not too sharp on coding, but I feel like the implementation would just be a minor shifting around of whatever variables you've tweaked already to negate the cover.
I feel like height might be multiplicative? Something like a mortar might factor out like
projectileHeight = 1.5
projectilePayload = 40
mortarCoverNegation = projectilePayload * projectileHeight
"Mortars circumvent (mortarCoverNegation) % of an objects cover."
Which is of course 60.
Something like an early cannon might have a 1.0 or lower Height modifier because the payload has increased, however they're now firing mostly parallel to the ground and would have dramatic fall off. So maybe like
projectileHeight = 1.0
projectilePayload = 50
cannonCoverNegation = projectilePayload * projectileHeight
"Cannons circumvent (cannonCoverNegation) % of an objects cover."
You could even make some global variables to make this a little easier, like try and create broader values for the different tech ages. Each age has it's own payload value, meaning you just need to insert what you feel like the height would be for different weapons.
Of course there are damage and range increases even within given tech levels, but you don't need to change those. Damage, range, armor pen, etc can all stay the same. This is just about simulating whether or not an object has a high enough arc or a advanced enough round and firing mechanism to circumvent the cover in one way or the other.
This way you don't have to rework the entire cover system, I don't think.
idr the lexicon at all really but, something akin to that would allow support weaponry to still function as it should without completely negating cover.
I'm sure you get the point. My message was long af and I'm sorry about that. I hope if you've read this, it, if anything, gives you new ideas and things to think about!!
If cover does reduce blast damage, I can see an argument that mortars should negate part of this reduction if their projectile is exploding above the ground. I don't know if modern frag rounds are expected to explode on impact or slightly above the ground. Something to research.
This or add the posibility to graph the increase or type a function like: accuracy(skill)=max((10*skill),100) but this might be difficult to implement?
Near the cursor would be good I think, yeah