@CrazyG Well, maybe Hepps is undecided if he wants to have seaplanes or wants to have airforce generals or navy admirals on aeroplanes, to kill them like Yamamoto.
For sure, he cannot have both...
Posts made by Cernel
RE: Global Dominance
I hope that you are not considering removing the ability to have an air unit use carrierCost 0? Even on maps with carriers with like carrierCapacity 3 and fighter squadrons with carrierCost 1, it would be nice to be able to have some special units land on the carrier with a carrierCost 0. Like if it symbolizes a single fighter, like a hero, a Jedi or maybe an air balloon or whatever
I think you are misunderstanding the matter. The matter is exactly that carrier cost 0 DOES NOT work that way you think. There are not "some special units land on the carrier with a carrierCost 0": they just don't need to land on any carriers at all, let alone taking space on them.
If carrier cost 0 would mean that you can land on a carrier, but taking no space on it (just like it correctly happens with transport cost 0 for sea transports), then, the behaviour would be that you still need carriers to land in that sea zone, just you would not take up any space on them.
How it actually works, instead, is that carrier cost 0 allows you to land on any sea zones, no matter if any carriers is there.
So, what redrum is saying is that 2 alternative behaviours are at stake:
The current behaviour that carrier cost 0 allows you to land on any sea zones, not requiring any carriers (carrier cost 0 means that you don't need carriers to land on sea).
The arguably most intuitive behaviour (and that would the same as how transports work) that you always need carriers to land, but carrier cost 0 would allow you to land infinite on any carriers, not taking up any space (carrier cost 0 means that you will take no space on the carriers you still need to land on).
So, to make an example, the question is: what is a carrier cost 0 air unit?:
A seaplane, able to land on the sea.
A very small aeroplane, taking virtually no space on any carriers it may land on.
(the seaplanes were very marginal in WW2, because the stuff needed to be able to land on sea compromises the ability of the aeroplane so dramatically that they are so inferior to other land-aeroplanes that nobody would want to use seaplanes for sea warfare, instead of aeroplanes and carriers; also, landing on the sea is not that easy, depending on the condition of the sea itself, and you still need some support service for refueling (which can be provided by submarines); still, units of seaplanes may be represented, in a very detailed map like Global Dominance; they would just need to be some more costly and very weak in combat...)
So, what you want to do, @Frostion , would not be enforced with the current engine as, in your example, "Like if it symbolizes a single fighter, like a hero, a Jedi or maybe an air balloon or whatever", that fighter/hero would be just able to land on the sea itself, not landing on carriers for free, as you are interpreting it.
An argument in favour of 1, would be that having 1 still allows the players to know the rules and self restrict themselves following 2 (the mapmaker would just need to write in notes that some units can land on sea, but you must take care to only end movement where you have a carrier).
This is exactly what I was saying. I was warning the mapmakers around here that want to use this probably unintended behaviour that they might incur in the problem that, at any point in the future, a developer would see the current behaviour as just a bug, and change the engine so to restrict air to only land on carriers, even when taking no space on the carriers they land on.
My vote would be either leaving all as it is, since some mapmakers appears interested and the "seaplane" behaviour cannot be considered surely a bug or, better, having cost 0 still requiring a carrier to land, but adding a special property like "isSeaPlane" then, when true, allows that air unit to land in any sea zones and disallow it to land on any carriers; this would also solve the problem that, I'm guessing, cost 0 might land on empty sea zones, but might still land on actual carriers, if they are there, and, then, those carriers might be allied ones, moving it as cargo, during their turns.
Also, I want to clarify that I've never noticed nor experimented with any air units having carrier cost 0; so, here I'm just trusting what @CrazyG is saying.
RE: Player Bonus Settings Revamp
@Black_Elk @Cernel I'm thinking of just removing the attack/defense bonuses as I don't think they really make much sense. It would unbalance most maps pretty extremely. I really think income/production or initial bid is the best way to give the AI some bonuses that are pretty intuitive.
I agree with removing those, tho you might want to make a topic about it, asking if there is any AI player around that will miss them. I would still suggest to substitute them both with
AI bonus dicesides : it lowers the dicesides used for the AI by the same amount
tho, if it is not too much work, as it would be like making the AI luckier, with no hard distortions. It would be like, we all have the same powers, but the AI rolls 4 sided dice and you roll 6 sided dice.