Unit Option Can Submerge/Hide for Land Units (Partisan/Guerrilla/Spy/Diplomat/Munition)
@Hepps Is this new feature allowing for blocking movement of air units? For example, can I specify that a fighter or a bomber have to end Combat Movement when entering a territory with a fighter in it?
I guess not, but wondering if the matter has been refactored as to generally set whatever blocks whatever (with air units default being blocked by none). If not, I tend to think this would be the way to go.
@Cernel So the goal is that isDestroyer units should cancel out canMoveThroughEnemies for sea/land/air units. I don't think most of the movement functionality has been extended to work fully with air units yet but it could probably fairly easily be added in now.
@Cernel So the goal is that isDestroyer units should cancel out canMoveThroughEnemies for sea/land/air units.
Ok, but in the moment air units can always move though, I suppose/assume that all these properties are completely pointless if assigned to air units (beside only making air units able to block non-air units).
The other item I wanted to discuss also with @Hepps, as being the original proponent of the feature, is what should happen when units get ignored in movement through land or sea territories. Should the territory be conquered by the units moving through or not? My preference is that a territory with a not capturable unit on blitz should never be captured by moving past it. How I see it is that if you are ignoring units in a territory, you are hiding from them while moving, so you should not take the territory they are defending under their nose.
For example, let's say that I make infantry/trenches ignorable by cavalry if alone, so that a cavalry can move through a territory with only infantry/trenches. Should the territory be conquered, while the infantry/trenches remain to the same ownership?
@Cernel Land territory capture when moving through would only happen if the territory is empty and the unit has blitz. So the cavalry in your example wouldn't capture the territory but could move through the territory with infantry/trenches to attack another territory. In theory, you could use this to create more of a defense in depth system.
@redrum Cool, and I agree. How about if in the territory there is an infrastructure that can be ignored in movement under a ruleset by which infrastructures block blitz. I assume, in this case, I should be able to move through the enemy infrastructure, when alone in an enemy territory, but, if doing so, the territory would not be captured (while both the infrastructure and the territory are captured if I switch to the v1 property allowing me to capture infrastructures by blitzing). Though this would also be related to the fact that, currently, if you just end combat movement into such a territory, you instantly capture it, while, by intended rules, it should be captured only during Conduct Combat (also relevant if that infrastructure is an AA gun, especially in case I'm moving one land unit into it and paratrooping the rest (which I may actually want to do in v3, since that game forbids me to paratroop during non combat movement)).
@Cernel Land territory capture when moving through would only happen if the territory is empty and the unit has blitz.
I'm assuming here you mean by v2+ rules, as in v1 (that is the default) you also capture territories with infrastructures only, not just empty ones (just making sure).
@Cernel Yeah, I mostly ignore the v1 rules as they are poor in general. But yes, we'd have to consider if only infrastructures. I tend to agree that I'd try to have it align to the existing rule set and how blitz works.
@redrum I disagree here. I'm mixed about the AA gun case, but never liked that a factory alone blocks movement of armoured formations, or whatever: definitely prefer the v1 behaviour of not blocking by units that are supposed to be useless for combat (there is also the edge case that you might place a factory just to block some blitzing, though this is practically not really happening).
@Cernel There are all kinds of issues one could argue are either right or wrong as they stand.
I think I would prefer if the mechanics being established did not interfere with existing established rules, but rather worked consistently with them. Then, looking down the road as how to circumvent those (perceived) deficiencies as a matter of an addition to the code as a separate idea.