Support question

redrum

Not sure though I'm pretty sure this was discussed before.

IMO, while units are being transported they should NOT provide support.

Frostion

When I made the Caribbean Trade War map I wanted Admirals to have transport cost 0, be able to be transported around on ships and give the ships +1 attack and defence.

I ended up with admiral having to be a sea unit itself. I am still not happy with that solution, but I was not able to realise my original plan.

@redrum
What is it that would be inexpedient to have transported units give bonuses? I could imagine lots of uses.

Cernel

@redrum Land cargo providing support to its own ship has definitely nothing to do with the present engine, but would be interesting for pre-steam settings, as, back then, for example, a ship loaded with horses was much less powerful than a ship loaded with archers; however, this would not make for a really good representation as, back then, the cargo in the ships was the fighting element, and the ships themselves were most often captured, rather than sunk (this was by far the prevailing dynamics even during the Napoleonic times, as the guns of that era were more about softening the ships, to board and capture it, than destroying or much damaging them).

Cernel

@Frostion said in Support question:

@redrum
What is it that would be inexpedient to have transported units give bonuses? I could imagine lots of uses.

I would actually prefer the cargo being able to fight and take hits and the ships being capturable infrastructures able to take part in the battle, but I'm quite sure no developers will ever go that crazy.

Frostion

@Cernel
It would be cool if ship carried units could effect the transporting unit and battle. Like if a space ship was carrying a detachable "cloaking module", or Darth Vader who gave -1 attack/defence to enemies because of fear, or on an antique Galley a slave handler with a whip or a drum that makes the ship go faster

Also carried archers and catapults who fought on the ship. Maybe the ship could have a unit attachment that allowed this. Or the carried units themselves had an attachment that allowed it.

Hepps

@Frostion Yes this would be a cool feature with all sorts of applications. It would certainly be exactly what I want for this game.

And there really isn't a down side since you'd have to actually set these support mechanisms up intentionally and everything would run normally otherwise.

redrum

@Frostion Given the current system, I think units being transported should essentially be defenseless and not provide any attack/defense/support/bonuses to the transporting unit. The main reason is simplicity and avoiding strange situations where say you have a ground unit that can support air units (say some kind of AA unit). Now you transport that AA unit (think of it all packed up in cargo) and end up in a naval battle that includes planes. It would end up providing support to the planes even though its just being transported. I think its currently more intuitive that "transported" units are defenseless and not providing abilities.

IMO, if we want transported units to provide support/abilities/bonuses to transporting or other units in battles then we need additional parameters such as "providesAbilitiesWhileTransported" which defaults to false. Or create a separate system from traditional transporting units that would indicate they aren't cargo but really some sort of enhancement.

Hepps

@redrum That would be a very effective and simple system.

theredbaron

An idea I have would be to make the property more like, "canCombatWhileTransported." That way, in combat, it would be just like if the unit were a regular naval unit, except that it must be carried into the sea zone (in combat move phase) by a transport. Perhaps there would be some way to tell the engine to treat the unit as if it were not on a transport during combat phase.

This may (or may not) be a simpler way to code this. My idea of how the engine works (and what is simple to code) is mostly based on understanding the workings of XML, not the actual Java, so take my idea with a grain of salt. This may also exceed or differ from what @Hepps was proposing, though as @Cernel pointed out, this might be the most versatile solution with infinitely more applications. I think that this solution also would make what Hepps was proposing possible because if the unit is in the battle, treated as a regular combat unit, it should still be able to provide support.

Hepps

@theredbaron I am in support of whatever is most versatile over all. I am not as good at understanding the unintended effects of these kinds of changes.

My real skill is just stirring the pot and spicing it with the spices of new ideas.

Hepps

Our discussion in the GD thread just solved this problem. Instead of the Leader being carried as a land unit on a transport.... it can be designed as an air unit.

Then it can land on a surface vessel with a very limited carrier capacity.

CrazyG

@Hepps
Just keep in mind if you make in an air unit it has other air unit properites, including moving after combat and flying over enemy territories. For hulls its no big deal, since they probably only have 1 movement, but if you wanted generals with 2 or more movement its important to consider. It would be rather silly for a general to fly over a group of enemy ships

Hepps

@CrazyG Yah I hadn't thought of the movement related issues. DAMNIT!

theredbaron

@CrazyG Remember that MacArthur did this exact thing when he escaped from Corregidor. Just food for thought