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

["John Wheeler" <jdwheeler42@xxxxxxxxx>]

[bursig - Sat Sep 20 13:48:42 2003]:

> Hi All
> 
> I must sorry all that I start this transport discusion and don't take 
> part of this (state of my health is still far from stability :) )
> 
> > Currently there are two flags: F_CARRIER and F_MISSILE_CARRIER.  These
> > 
> > *seem* to work as so:
> > 
> > C  MC
> > 0  0    ground units transporter
> > 1  0    air & missile transporter
> > 0  1    missile-only transporter
> > 1  1    missile-only transporter
> > 
> > I'd rather see them done as completely independent flags:
> > 
> >    F_LAND_CARRIER
> >    F_SEA_CARRIER
> >    F_AIR_CARRIER
> >    F_HELO_CARRIER
> >    F_MISSILE_CARRIER
> F_PARA_CARRIER
> With this we can allow make paradrop from "carrier" or other sea/land 
> transport.
> 
> Ok but returning to transport code...
> 
> 1) Disbanding transport.
> I like simple solutions then lets forbide disbanding transport that 
> carry units. Players should unload all units manualy before disbanding 
> transport.
>
> The only problem will be when transporter is disband by game (lack of 
> resources to support it), then all units should be unloaded or lost 
> (sea transport)

Both propositions sound perfectly reasonable to me.

> 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.

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.

-- 

++JohnWheeler