Sub XML Properties

Hepps

@captain-crunch The change's aren't meant to affect any map.... the purpose of this exercise is to potentially make some sub behaviors available independently of the all encompassing property of "isSub".

General_Zod

@hepps

Let me try again, hehe. I missed a key part.

Yes as point 3.a) goes, I agree. Most likely the logic behind it was, if it's "isSea", and has an attack value. Then it can potentially be killed (the preventing sub) , or if no destroyer present, at a minimum can force the preventing sub to make a choice. Fight the escort(s) to stop the amphibious landing, or submerge. Even if the escort is a sub itself.

So I guess a sub can be an escort, against another sub.

Just at first glance submarines don't fit the traditional escort mold, for amphibious landings.

I'm not sure, what exactly you mean on second part of reply.

Hepps

@general_zod What I meant by that is that it would be a worth while endeavour for us while we are examining these properties... to look at which of all these properties are compatible and which cause interference which each other.

redrum

Lots of good feedback. I've updated the first post trying to summarize everyone's posts so far.

General_Zod

@hepps
Yeah , I agree. They are a hodgepodge. It will be good to wrangle all submarine related properties into a more comprehensible state. From there we can analyze and review with more certainty. What is doing exactly what.

redrum

So I did some reading through the code to figure out what #8 actually does and found that it covers most of the differences between classic and revised:

Subs can travel through enemy sea zones except if enemy destroyer is present.
Subs have the option to submerge rather than withdraw.

Also took a look at classic to determine what base sub rules are with no properties set:

First strike only on attack
Can't attack air units
Attacking subs can withdraw at end of each round to where naval units attacked from
Defending subs can withdraw at end of each round to adjacent friendly or empty sea zone

redrum

@Hepps I noticed that TWW sub rules are almost the same as ww2v3. Is there a reason you are using #9 and not using #10?

Hepps

@redrum I believe it had to do with how some units in SZ can change ownership. Ie Autraila turns into British. I believe... don't quote me as it was 8 years ago.

redrum

@hepps Interesting. Any particular reason you don't use #3 and #10 (Global uses both which I consider TWW closest to that version of A&A)?

Hepps

@redrum Can't remember exactly.... there was a good 4 months of muddling around testing behaviors back in the day. What we settled on gave us the results we were looking for.

Again, this tangle of properties is fraught with unexpected results when you are trying to use them. I remember going through 3 or 4 versions of subs while we were building.

redrum

@hepps Yeah, I'm trying to look from a historical view as well. It appears that at least a good chunk of them were originally created to capture sub functionality differences from classic -> revised -> v3:
WW2 Classic: none
WW2 Revised: 8 (should have 5 but code directly checks if ww2v2)
WW2v3: 2,4,5,6,8,10

I have a decent understanding of those 6 properties (2,4,5,6,8,10) and that the functionality they perform is needed to differentiate those 3 versions.

The other 4 properties aren't quite as clear to me (1,3,7,9). I think 3 is needed for global (maybe some other A&A maps as well). 1,7,9 I don't really understand what they are needed for and if they could just be removed.

Hepps

@redrum Bearing in mind that TWW uses the property "ww2v3" in it as well.

Just to further complicate matters.

Hepps

@hepps So then it may have been we needed to add 9 as a method of controlling that a sub could NOT control a SZ.

redrum

@hepps Yeah, there is both ww2v2 and ww2v3 properties which no one really knows what either of them do. I'd like to get to a point that we capture anything they control into actual properties that describe the functionality and then either remove them or just leave them as a shortcut (kind of like isArtillery just generates a supportAttachment).

Hepps

@redrum Well the whole thing is a documentation nightmare. We'd have to go back to every change log and extract any info detailing the many facets of the game... or dig through the code one by one.

Until we know precisely what each one achieves either individually or in combination with others.... I'd be hesitant to remove anything.

redrum

@hepps Yeah the ww2v2 and ww2v3 will pretty much have to be code investigation as no one really has a grasp on what they control and it isn't documented any where.