Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6200) disbanding a transporter must move its cargo
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6200) disbanding a transporter must move its cargo

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6200) disbanding a transporter must move its cargo
From: "Rafa³ Bursig" <bursig@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 04:38:10 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > 2) Sub Transports
> > When we have 4 units :
> > A is land unit + F_MISSILE_CARRIER
> > B is sea unit + F_LAND_CARRIER (can't carry missile)
> > C and D are missile units (are loaded on A)
> >
> > Now what happend when we want transport A on B ?
> >
> > IMHO This should look like :
> > - transporter unit should have "current_payload" field.
> >
> > - Only  A should be loaded to B => A->transported_by = B->id (C and
> D
> > still should be loaded on A => C/D->transported_by = a->id) but b-
> > > current_payload should be inc. by 3 (A + C + D) == (1 + (A-
> > > current_payload)
> 
> Gee, how about assigning all units a weight and volume, and all
> transports weight and volume capacities? ;-)  I'm mostly joking, but
> for a version of freeciv that fully uses resources, that might not be
> unreasonable.

I use missiles as example and you can replace them other type of units.
Important is that B can't carry C, D but can cary A.
When we allow subtransporting we must secure that players don't cheat 
and load to sea transport (max load 8) 6 land transporters (max load 4) 
with 4 tanks each.

> Conceptually, though, I have a bit of a problem with your suggestion.
> MISSILE_CARRIER is a bit of a misnomer; it really should be
> MISSILE_LAUNCHER.  IRL the missiles on a sub have specific launch
> tubes; they're not just transported, they can launched from that 
> platform. When missiles are in a missile carrier, they don't take up 
> any more room than the missile carrier, but they do add weight.
> 
> Granted, this is a game, not a real life simulation, but that's kind
> of my point.  Since carrying a unit is already so abstracted, I don't
> quite see why stacking transports is necessary.
> 
> On a related note, I also have a problem with the whole idea of
> landing missiles; it seems like once they're launched, they should be 
> used up.
> 
> They can be transported from city to city via airlifts (since Radio 
> is a prerequisite for Rocketry), and loaded onto missile carriers
> (launchers!) there.

You have full right and I'm going to do this (my long time todo).

1) add paradrop ability to missiles ( patadorp range == current move 
range )
2) reduce normal move rate of all missiles to 0 - only airlift and 
transport land/air/sea can transport it.
3) you can launch missiles from transport/launcher, city and airbase 
(or we and new terrain special - silos base )

but first we must clean up current transport code and allow ships carry 
land missile launchers.

Rafal




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]