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...


  • Admin

    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?


  • Admin

    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 🙄


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @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 🙄


  • Admin

    @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