Author Topic: iff_defs.tbl and orders  (Read 353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Admiral Nelson

  • Resurrecter of Campaigns
  • 211
  • The GTA expects that every man will do his duty.
iff_defs.tbl and orders
I'm seeing an issue wherein in iff_defs.tbl the original campaign creator has created multiple entries for things like "GTA" and "PVN" and such to indicate which "faction," so to speak, different ships belong.  The trouble with this is that one can't seen to issue "protect my target" orders when targeting a ship with a different but non-hostile iff setting.  Is there a way to permit this?  I do see a flag called "support allowed" but the function of this flag is not documented.
If a man consults whether he is to fight, when he has the power in his own hands, it is certain that his opinion is against fighting.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: iff_defs.tbl and orders
This flag probably has something to do with the support ship.

It'd definitely be a good idea to give some control over which IFFs count as "friendly" for AI orders purposes.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: iff_defs.tbl and orders
I've added some explanations for the flags to the wiki.

The "Support Allowed" flag means that ships with this IFF can call a support ship when they are disabled; under normal circumstances, disabled ships in a wing self-destruct after a while in order to allow follow-on waves to spawn.
**** every cause that ends in murder and children crying. ― Iain Banks
Join the fun at the HLP IRC channel. Get the latest spam and gossip as long as it's fresh!

 

Offline Admiral Nelson

  • Resurrecter of Campaigns
  • 211
  • The GTA expects that every man will do his duty.
Re: iff_defs.tbl and orders
Thank you for the wiki updates.  Is it correct to say that not being able to issue "Protect my target" orders to friendly but different IFFs is a quirk of its current implementation?  If so, I'll just a note to the campaign calling it out as a known issue.
If a man consults whether he is to fight, when he has the power in his own hands, it is certain that his opinion is against fighting.