Terms: unit name vs attribute - Resolved -

[Mahks]

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...

[Frostion]

Would the definition of a carrier not be "having isSea & carrierCapacity" ? At least as a minimum?

[Mahks]

@frostion You are correct!

[Mahks]

Fighters is another.

isAir & carrierCapacity I assume?

[Frostion]

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

[General_Zod]

@mahks

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

[redrum]

@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