Forum Archive. A read-only snapshot of the Warfare Incorporated forums (2003–2020), preserved for historical purposes.  ·  warfareincorporated.com
Warfare Incorporated Forum

Auto-attacking enemy towers
Author Message
Wizard
Established Forum User


Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 68
Location: Bristol, England
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:41 am  Post subject: Auto-attacking enemy towers

I have a row of missile towers belonging to player 2. Whenever I (player 1) move within range or even attack the towers, that just sit there. I have tried giving power to them but still no effect.

The only items on the map is

Player 1: A few ground solders
Player 2: 3x power stations, 5x missile towers

Do I need to set trigggers.? I can't see from the example maps how they are activated.


Thanks
SoLan
Very Active User


Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 183
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:37 am  

You do not mention a Surveillance Center as part of you level. I seem to remember that turrets require a Surveillance Center in order to work? In my levels the enemy turrets will fire at my units as long as there is enough power, and - I think - as long as I do not take out the enemy Surveillance Center.

--SoLan
claxbane
Site Admin


Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 331
Location: Seattle, WA
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:33 am  

That is correct. You do need a Surveillance center.
Wizard
Established Forum User


Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 68
Location: Bristol, England
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:29 am  

cool, thanks for that.

claxbane, could that be added as a check for "level correctness.??"

W
SoLan
Very Active User


Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 183
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 8:20 am  

I am not sure if non-functioning turrets can be considered an "error" when it comes to "level correctness". Getting a base to work is a challenge given in several existing levels, and getting the turrets to work by building a Surveillance Center might be a challenge someone wants to use in their levels.

--SoLan
Wizard
Established Forum User


Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 68
Location: Bristol, England
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:54 am  

Fair enough, good point, what about mentioning it as a 'warning' then rather than a 'error'.?