Terms: unit name vs attribute - Resolved -
-
There are many references to submarine, transport, carriers etc.
I think these should be changed to the underlying attribute they really refer to ie:
- sub > isSub
- transport > isTransport
- carrier > having isSea & isTransport (I think)
There are others...
-
Would the definition of a carrier not be "having isSea & carrierCapacity" ? At least as a minimum?
-
@frostion You are correct!
-
Fighters is another.
isAir & carrierCapacity I assume?
-
All air units that can land on carrier would be "isAir & carrierCost" as I recall. I am not looking at unit stats in an XML, but I remember it as carrierCost. I am writing on my phone
-
There is no isTransport option. A regular sea transport defining options are transportCapacity and isSea.
@Frostion is correct on
@frostion said in Terms: unit name vs attribute:
All air units that can land on carrier would be "isAir & carrierCost" as I recall. I am not looking at unit stats in an XML, but I remember it as carrierCost. I am writing on my phone
-
@mahks Yeah, generally actual attributes should be referenced not "unit names/types" especially since in many cases units can have multiple (act as both a transport and carrier). Some of the challenge is that some "types" like carrier don't have a single unit option so its annoying to have to refer to something like "isSea & carrierCapacity > 0" rather than saying carrier.
Here are some common mappings:
- Transport: isSea & transportCapacity > 0
- Carrier: isSea & carrierCapacity > 0
- Sub: isSub
- Land Transport: isLandTransport (can use or not use transportCapacity)
- Air Transport: isAirTransport & transportCapacity > 0
- Destroyer: isDestroyer
