Paratroopers?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Paratroopers?

U-boat
So what is the deal with paratroopers now that the code has been changed? What property? Also can it be used in nonCombat? Without attacks?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
i'm begging Kev to keep backwards compatibility right now...

i'm certainly not going to update 100 maps, no way no how


in the future it will HOPEFULLY look like this:

isStrategicBomber = can bomb stuff and if you also have paratroopers tech then you can also carry "isInfantry" and "isAirTransportable" units

isAirTransport = can NOT bomb stuff and if you also have paratroopers tech then you can also carry "isInfantry" and "isAirTransportable" units

isInfantry = can be carried by air with paratroopers tech

isAirTransportable = can be carried by air with paratroopers tech



Optionally, we might have these also:

isJustStrategicBomber = only bomb stuff, no transporting

isGroundTransportable = can be moved by something with blitz if you have the mechanized tech (currently handled by isInfantry)

Blitz = can blitz through territories, and if you have mechanized tech you can also carry an isInfantry or isGroundTransportable with it

isJustBlitz = can blitz through territories (but no transporting)

isGroundTransport = can Not blitz, but can transport isInfantry and isGroundTransportable units IF you have the mechanized tech
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by U-boat
in other words

lets say you have a property that currently does 2 thing: feature A and feature B

and you want to atomize this property, and unlink these features

but you also want to keep backwards-compatibility with current maps

then you need to do 3 things:

keep the old property, it will still do A and B

create a new property, only does A

create a new property, only does B



keeping the old property is key, because without it, you lose all backward compatibility
and you have to keep the old property doing all the functions it used to


(i'm not going to update approximately 150 different xml's, we have to keep backwards compatibility for sure)
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

U-boat
so what are the properties CURRENTLY
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
the current properties are the ones for 1.2.5.4

there is no new stable or unstable out yet
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Veqryn wrote
i'm begging Kev to keep backwards compatibility right now...

i'm certainly not going to update 100 maps, no way no how
AW, C'MON!

This is a tough one and I'm kicking it around to see what can be done.  The initial implementation of paratroops was pretty much hacked together (as evidenced by the many bugs I had to work).  The new way of tying it to a property is a much more maintainable path.  

I can certainly understand the aversion to updating the maps (again).  If only that stupid game company hadn't caused problems and we could host more maps with the engine....

My main concern with retaining backward compatibility is that some unexpected change or mod will really frack things up.  

Anyway, at the moment, I'm considering creating a conversion script that could automatically convert people's xml games.  I'm not sure exactly how I'd suggest implementing it- run automatically with game execution, have it be able to be kicked off through the engine UI, have people download and run it on their own, etc...

If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by U-boat
U-boat wrote
so what are the properties CURRENTLY
Currently (as in with the latest stable release), it's entirely controlled by the unit properties isInfantry, isMarine, and isStrategicBomber.  You can probably see right away that causes some problems- 'what about transporting a tank with some aircraft that CAN'T bomb', etc...

In the unreleased version, I've created a couple of new unit properties called isAirTransport and isAirTransportable.  This way any unit can be carried by any other unit- even though I named it isAirTransport, it's really only named that way to establish a loading behavior different from sea transports.
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
kev,

i don't see how having an attachment that does A and B, become 3 different attachments (first doing A&B, second doing just A, third doing just B) will create any bugs.

one other issue in support of maintaining backwards compatibility, is that there is only 1 folder for maps
and any maps that i have for 1.2.5.4 i will also have for the unstable and future stable.  

our online community will crucify us if we force them to re-download everything, and then keep separate games for each engine.


on a side note, the new property still requires paratroopers tech to be turned on for it to actually transport anything, correct?

and will there be a property that allows transporting units with airtransports during non-combat move?
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Dan Slayer
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Veqryn wrote
in the future it will HOPEFULLY look like this:

isStrategicBomber = can bomb stuff and if you also have paratroopers tech then you can also carry "isInfantry" and "isAirTransportable" units

isAirTransport = can NOT bomb stuff and if you also have paratroopers tech then you can also carry "isInfantry" and "isAirTransportable" units

isInfantry = can be carried by air with paratroopers tech

isAirTransportable = can be carried by air with paratroopers tech



Optionally, we might have these also:

isJustStrategicBomber = only bomb stuff, no transporting

isGroundTransportable = can be moved by something with blitz if you have the mechanized tech (currently handled by isInfantry)

Blitz = can blitz through territories, and if you have mechanized tech you can also carry an isInfantry or isGroundTransportable with it

isJustBlitz = can blitz through territories (but no transporting)

isGroundTransport = can Not blitz, but can transport isInfantry and isGroundTransportable units IF you have the mechanized tech

Hi Veqryn!

I dont understand, why you want get both kinds of properties? I mean, its most simply to differ the properties for each attribute... for example:

isStrategicBomber - only strat. bomb.
isAirTransport - only air transport unit

if you want to get both properties for the aircraft, then you give simply both properties for the unit! ;)

so along:
isAirTransportable - this unit can be transport with a isAirTransport unit

...without isInfantry or isParatroop... I mean, this is much easier...

for mechanized units the same:

isGroundTransport - can transport all transportable units
isGroundTransportable - can be transported with isGroundTransport unit

canBlitz - can Blitz, no transport function!

if you want both, so simply combine the properties!



another thing guys:

i've wrote this for some time ago. can you make the paratroopers landing BEHIND the enemy lines? i mean, this is very important! cause, i dont need paratroopers, which attack only the border territory - for this i can take simply mechanized or other land units... paratroopers are realy mightful if they can land behind the enemy lines...

greets
ds
Anyone, who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield, will think hard before starting a war.

Otto von Bismarck
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
dan, that may be fine for the future maps, but what about all the maps we have right now?

I count about 70 different zip files (maps) with approximately 150 different xml's inside them (games).

right now, a map that wants to have a paratrooper unit that is also a strat bomber simply has the code:
isStrategicBomber

so if we suddenly make it so that isStrategicBomber no longer transports paratrooping units, THEN suddenly you've broken backwards compatibility, and all those maps no longer work the way their maker's intended them.

This then means that you have to force everyone to download all the maps again, which also means you have to change all the maps again.


Also, comradekev,
if you are making a script file, your script file must be capable of unzipping all the maps that users have, changing the xml, then re-zipping them.
this is because 99% of the users have their maps zipped because they download them that way.  and you have to re-zip them because otherwise the user can download the map a second time and then will have 2 copies, which causes the game to fail because you can't have duplicates.

Have i convinced you yet?  I have more reasons if you want to hear them....


pls keep backwards compatibility
thx,
veqryn
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Dan Slayer
Veqryn wrote
dan, that may be fine for the future maps, but what about all the maps we have right now?

I count about 70 different zip files (maps) with approximately 150 different xml's inside them (games).
gg WOW! :) but i know this problem... i have allready from our mod 4 zips with "full package" and ca. 20 xmls...  

but i mean, for the future is better to simplify the functions (dont using combined functions!)

Veqryn wrote
right now, a map that wants to have a paratrooper unit that is also a strat bomber simply has the code:
isStrategicBomber

so if we suddenly make it so that isStrategicBomber no longer transports paratrooping units, THEN suddenly you've broken backwards compatibility, and all those maps no longer work the way their maker's intended them.
I know, I know.... we have paratroopers... ;) and paratropeble arty and at-guns...  :) you've helped me thereby..  

what about landing behind enemy lines?
Anyone, who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield, will think hard before starting a war.

Otto von Bismarck
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

U-boat
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
Or if you want thing to be transportable by planes but not ships.

Can someon also explain how I would make it so halftracks can carry infantry. Is is the isarmour property and the mechanized infantry tech still?


     
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by U-boat
did i forget to mention,

if I actually go and change a map to include isAirTransportable/Transport, then suddenly everyone using 1.2.5.4 will get java errors

so for example, this change will force me to add isAirTransport to ww2v3 1941, and 1942
and then everyone using the current stable will not be able to play the map, and will get a java error.....

so can we please keep backwards compatibility please?
its just a couple of OR statements (isAirTransport || isStrategicBomber)



re-uboat
uboat, you use blitz with mechanized tech, to transport anything with isInfantry (in the current stable)
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

U-boat
It's a shame we didn't make the properties singular instead of rule based from the beginning. So much more could be done by not having halftracks carrying troops attached to blitz and a tech.

I'm just ranting though.


     
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Veqryn wrote
if I actually go and change a map to include isAirTransportable/Transport, then suddenly everyone using 1.2.5.4 will get java errors
  That's a fair point.  If I were to go with my script conversion idea, it would onlt be downloaded/run in the event that someone installed a new release (unstable).  Otherwise, their local maps would remain unchanged.


Dan Slayer wrote
Can you make the paratroopers landing BEHIND the enemy lines?
This will be controlled by a new game property.  I've written the current code such that it'll be a fairly simple addition when I get around to it.


U-boat wrote
Can someon also explain how I would make it so halftracks can carry infantry.
Starting with the next unstable, you can add isAirTransport to the halftrack as well as a transportCapacity.  They would then be loaded/treated similarly to an air transport (units would be loaded from the same territory), while retaining all their ground based restrictions (land only movement, blitz/or not, etc...).


Veqryn wrote
on a side note, the new property still requires paratroopers tech to be turned on for it to actually transport anything, correct?
 Yes, it's still required.  But that doesn't mean that a mod couldn't start with that tech enabled for any/all players.  That would relieve U-Boat's concerns about wrapping it in the tech.
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

U-boat
ComradeKev wrote
U-boat wrote
Can someon also explain how I would make it so halftracks can carry infantry.
Starting with the next unstable, you can add isAirTransport to the halftrack as well as a transportCapacity.  They would then be loaded/treated similarly to an air transport (units would be loaded from the same territory), while retaining all their ground based restrictions (land only movement, blitz/or not, etc...).
Should we just make it isTransport? Or is isAirTransport specific to a certain thing?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Sean Bridges
Administrator
In reply to this post by U-boat
One possible solution is to keep the current properties as is; isInfantry, isMarine means you can be carried by strat bombers, isStrategicBomber means you can carry.

We would allow another set of properties to disable these, allowing for future mods to have isNotAirTransportable, isNotAirTransport, along with isAirTransportable, isAirTransport to enable paratroops for more units.  This would keep backwards comparability, but allow flexibility for future mods, but at the price of complexity.


Do many mods use paratroopers?  Maybe breaking backwards comparability isn't that big a deal in this case.  If it only affects a couple mods, then I would vote for just breaking compatibility, but I haven't been following very closely.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

Veqryn
Administrator
1) isMarine
i don't know of ANY maps that isMarine that also use Mechanized tech,
so isMarine can be separated right now without any issues at all


2) StrategicBomber, isInfantry, canBlitz (Paratroopers and Mechanized Technologies)
the number of maps that use paratroopers and mechanized tech is equal to the number of maps that use V3 rules.  This is probably somewhere around the number 30 out of a total of 150 different xml.
i guess I can update them (after the stable is out)

3) all the rest should not break backwards compatibility.  if for the only reason that map makers don't want to type out 8 different attachments when all they want is an AA gun.



So, in conclusion,
kev and sgb, if you guys really want to, go ahead and break backwards compatibility (but only Paratroopers and Mechanized Tech)
don't both with a script, I'll update the map downloads
but I'll only update them after the next stable comes out, because if I update them now, noone on 1.2.5.4 will be able to play them (java errors for attachments that do not exist)

do NOT break backwards compatibility for the other things please (isDestroyer, isSub, isAA, isFactory, transportCapacity)
if you do decide to atomize those 5 attachments, please use the solution I suggested of creating new properties while keeping the original property the same and fully functional.
(i will revolt if backwards compatibility is broken on these 5 )
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by U-boat
U-boat wrote
Should we just make it isTransport? Or is isAirTransport specific to a certain thing?
Basically the isAirTransport(able) is different from the regular transports in that the units to be loaded must start in the same territory (and must not have moved) as the transporting unit (eg. loaded before takeoff).  

For sea transports, the land units move into the sea zone to signify loading.  The actual association (i.e. dependency) doesn't happen until the transport either moves, or the loaded units unload.  I believe this causes some faulty assumptions by the engine when it tries to make the association.  If necessary, I can explain further on this, but it's a bit tedious.  Just know that I've seen issues with it - at least in the post-stable baseline (I could have nerfed something with all the paratroop rewrites).

For airTransports, I have pop-ups that ask the player which units he/she wishes to load, and those associations are made there- right from the move panel.  I believe they're sticking with the units/transports throughout their moves.

Anyway, Veq please know that I'm seriously considering your thoughts on the subject.  When I have some more time, I'll probably email you and open an off-line discussion about it some.
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Paratroopers?

tysax22
I'm currently developing a game, and it would SUPER SWEET to have air transports! I noticed that this was about 3.5 years ago, and was wondering if Air Transports were ever coded into the game, since it was seriously talked about here in this thread.
12