Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:34 pm Post subject:
Naval Transport
Subject description: I think it should be included
Hello everyone.
I'm very sorry if this has already been posted or if I posted it somewhere wrong.
I love DTA, it's awesome, but I do feel like the naval transport is missing. Being able to only transport across sea using chinooks is a bit ineffective. RA95 has the naval transport, is it left out intentionally? You could just give it to all factions like the chinook.
Also, the chinook seem to function quite strange in regard to unloading troops, not like it worked in RA, instead it just drops some of them when it touches down.
Thank you, and feel free to move/remove this post if it's posted somewhere wrong. QUICK_EDIT
We'd love to have naval transports in DTA, but the Tiberian Sun engine does not support them. The Chinook's weird infantry unloading behaviour is also because of the TS engine's limitations; it's as good as we can make it. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
I thought we found an air transport fix so we wouldn't need to use the carryall work around.
Hyper's air transport fix has some serious flaws that prevent it from being used in DTA. Most notably, if you unload the air transport while it's on a helipad and there's infantry inside, the unloaded infantry will disappear while still being "alive", preventing you from losing the game. So, DTA doesn't use the fix. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Even then the fix can't be used, because aside from the Chinook, there's no other way to transport vehicles over water. In other words, the Chinook needs Carryall=yes (to be able to pick up vehicles) and this is also what's causing the unloading issue for infantry. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
If the pad comes with a freeunit that is invisible and immobile, the pad will always be occupied. In such cases, all
the aircrafts will land near the pad. Pad could look like an ATC tower. Aircrafts have to be given unlimited ammo
as reload won't be available. By doing this, AI can have paradrop aircrafts too as it can take passengers when on
ground. Just a stray thought. QUICK_EDIT
Even then the fix can't be used, because aside from the Chinook, there's no other way to transport vehicles over water.
Then of course having 2 airtransports.
1 carryall which can transport 1 vehicle only (e.g. Cost=750)
1 helitrans for infantry transport (e.g. Cost=1000)
I think a helitrans with 8 or even 10 passengers would then also make it worth building it. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Why not instead have the Chinook air drop infantry like a badger bomber like in red alert?
While I don't know if that would be possible with the ts engine (Maybe make them airdrop?) but I think that would effectively solve the issue of taking a long time to drop infantry. Plus you could still use the transport for vehicles which is nice because players don't have to worry about using another unit to transport their forces.
Also increasing the amount from 5 to 10 would be extremely useful as players would not need to build as many transports to effectively use the contents stored inside. (Plus less air transports are easier to shoot down ). QUICK_EDIT
Why not instead have the Chinook air drop infantry like a badger bomber like in red alert?
Possible, but not without lots of bugs and bad user control.
-you have to force fire (only a dummy weapon parachutes infantry out)
-aircraft goes crazy when not loaded (bad bug, though this might be fixed with Hypers patch. Not sure since i only tested back then an unarmed transport)
-since we use carryall logic, the vehicle would be parachuted down as well when forcefiring on ground (so we would need again 2 different airtransports for vehicle/infantry) _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
I am glad to see my topic has started a debate. I'd love for transport to be somehow optimized if the engine at all allows it. it's quite ineffective atm .
I have another completely unrelated question: Is there any place you can see what the tech levels contain? You have tech levels 1-7, but I havn't been able to find anywhere stating what these tech levels allow to be built.
It hasn't been documented, so at the moment the best thing you can do is to just check it for yourself ingame or opening Rules.ini, searching for the unit or structure you want to know about (use the search function with Ctrl+F and then for example search for Name=Chinook to find the Chinook) and checking what value it has for TechLevel= (mind that the game balance has mainly been optimized for tech level 7 however). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I propose we make an undockable secondary Chinook that carries infantry with the fix, while removing the infantry capabilities from the other. QUICK_EDIT
not possible
Even if an aircraft has no building set on Dock=, the human player can still give it the command to land on a helipad anyway (like a force land on the pad). Thus causing the trouble with infantry that leaves and vanishes while landed on a helipad.
The current CarryAll solution is already the best gameplay, handling and logic wise that is possible in the old TS engine.
The only other option would be a flying vehicle type, but that comes with issues as well (like no auto attacking by AA units on this flying vehicle). _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Honestly if a "fix" or overhaul is going to cause more issues than correct I don't see a point. While some ideas may very well bear fruit I can't see a way to implement such a thing with the information we have been discussing.
So far from my observation while it may be "possible" to work around the original issue, it however will cause substantial issues that will affect game play and balance in the over all game. (Like the air drop or second unit)
Even if a work around was discovered that perfectly solved every ones proposed issues it would still of course greatly impact game play which may result in the loss of the games current theme and style.
For example the artillery debate, while it was an interesting concept is was discussed and ultimately rejected simple because the proposed changes would as a result completely change game play.
Don't get me wrong I am all for change but we all have to understand that while "item A" is cool and interesting it may not fit with "item B".
Unless a form of homeostasis can be achieved that will not impact the current way the game is played I fail to see any room for innovation. QUICK_EDIT
interesting unusual idea.
would be worth a test.
Though i fear it will lead to other issues, like a tank standing on the helipad blocking it for incoming helis.
Not sure if FirestormWall even works on anything else than 1x1 Foundation.
It might also allow you to then build 5 helipads in a row.
\Edit
tested
wow, it really works.
FirestormWall=yes allows infantry to leave a docked helitrans.
It also still allows aircraft to dock there and being produced.
Even when units stand on all 4 cells of the building, the aircraft can still dock.
Only issues:
-no buildup anim
-needs special SHP frame layout like walls to show up ingame (easy to fix by copy pasting the frames)
-not sure how damage frames behave. i think they aren't working on this logic. (TS had damage frames in the firestormwall SHP but they were never shown ingame)
\Edit
Did some more tests
-normal helipad with Foundation=1x1 in hope infantry would be able to leave the building. Didn't work.
-Bib=yes without success. Bib makes it unfortunately only passable for vehicles.
-ExitCoord and GDIBarracks=yes in hope infantry would follow the barrack spawning logic. Didn't work.
-Passengers=5 in hope infantry would enter building. Didn't work.
So it seems FirestormWall=yes is the only way to make infantry leave correct a docked helitrans. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
I used to use FirestormWall on my flat airfields so units could move other them. Ares has since added a tag that has the same effect without the side effects tho. _________________
That's an interesting solution. I'd definitely consider using it in DTA as well, if it wasn't for the fact that we'd then need 2 transport aircraft for every single faction and a new Carryall unit would actually only be fitting for GDI.
Rather than doing that, I'd be even more in favor of making the Chinook unable to carry infantry so that players will have to just make it pick up an APC to transport infantry. That might help with the confusion where players don't realize that the Chinook is able to pick up vehicles (we've had a good number of people asking about how to transport tanks to other islands because they don't realize that the Chinook can do this). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
That's an interesting solution. I'd definitely consider using it in DTA as well, if it wasn't for the fact that we'd then need 2 transport aircraft for every single faction and a new Carryall unit would actually only be fitting for GDI.
Surely other sides getting Carryalls wouldn't be any less fitting than the Chinook magically lifting vehicles as it does right now though
Bittah Commander wrote:
Rather than doing that, I'd be even more in favor of making the Chinook unable to carry infantry so that players will have to just make it pick up an APC to transport infantry. That might help with the confusion where players don't realize that the Chinook is able to pick up vehicles (we've had a good number of people asking about how to transport tanks to other islands because they don't realize that the Chinook can do this).
It would just lead to more confusion because carrying infantry is the only thing that the Chinook does in TD and RA. People would build the Chinook, find out that it can't carry infantry and then just assume that the thing is bugged and cannot do anything.
I'd personally be fine with having a separate Chinook and Carryall for each side. Having the current Chinook transfer both vehicles and infantry (properly) would be the most optimal solution, but it appears to be impossible. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Let Hyper or Iran hack the exe to allow internal transports for all unittypes (working dropships and naval transports)
or
lets switch to OpenRA _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Surely other sides getting Carryalls wouldn't be any less fitting than the Chinook magically lifting vehicles as it does right now though
Chinooks lift tanks in real life as well and surely invisible ropes don't look nearly as "magical" as invisible rotors.
So I actually would say that giving other sides a futuristic VTOL Carryall would be less fitting. And while giving other factions a different kind of aircraft for lifting vehicles would be better, I'm not a fan of adding yet another helicopter with invisible rotors. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Considering that's a GDI unit, it wouldn't really solve the issue that only GDI would have a fitting Carryall unit, would it?
That's what I meant when I said that giving "other" sides a VTOL Carryall wouldn't be fitting earlier: VTOL is GDI technology (and too futuristic for Allies or Soviet). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I have to agree with Bittah, the adding and subsequent additional work of making "carryalls" for all the factions that fit with the setting and theme would be rather silly. Honestly compared to the "issue" and the proposed fixes and work around the debated topic seems superflous. I cannot see how adding an additional unit to fix a unit that already works as intended could be a viable choice to improve game play as the chinook is already a defined unit players are familiar with and know how to properly use.
The only way I can see any proposed changes being viable is if they retain the already established unit, as that would reduce the confusion to players. Suddenly giving them the option of building two units who for all intents and purposes should do the same thing is rather silly. Plus with established norms in the CnC universe its common to see factions that are not equal across the board. In tibsun only GDI had the carryall, because if Nod had one all they would have to do every map is make artillery and carryalls to win every map.
My question is why fix it if it isn't broken? QUICK_EDIT
yeah, you can "simulate" some kind of buildup with an ending activeanim. But since the building is instantly shown in ready state, the buildup would need to be right from the start big enough to cover the already ready building and then slowly go away to show the building under it.
Too much work for a hacky solution.
I think the OpenRA switch would be really the next big step for DTA. Especially when it then finally has the possibility to add all logics it needs
-naval and air transport (allies & soviets could get a big cargo plane instead of a heli)
-all superweapons from RA and TD
-no workarounds necessary for things like big area damage
etc _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
We'd love to have naval transports in DTA, but the Tiberian Sun engine does not support them.
Sorry to bump but I thought there was a way to make naval transports to work.
You have to edit the land characteristics, aka speedtype, to have a speedtype that can move on shores, but not the land around them and then have a unit with this speedtype be able to hold infantry (and use the old amphibious apc art changing logic.) QUICK_EDIT
What about just using the Amphibious APC thing as a basis and just make them buildable from the Naval Yard and War Factories? After all they were Hovercrafts... _________________ ~ Excelsior ~ QUICK_EDIT
There's really no need for that type of naval transport however, since the Chinook already fulfills that role and using a naval unit just to transport infantry is rarely preferable (and thus not worth the trouble it takes to implement it).
The main reason why people ask for naval transports is to transport vehicles over water and this is still impossible. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Sorry to bump but I thought there was a way to make naval transports to work.
Naval-Infantry transports: no problem
Naval-Vehicle transports: not possible at all and that's the main request of this topic.
btw, DTA already has Naval Infantry transports. It's the TD Hovercraft.
Several of my maps (Tiber, Dantes Desert, Africatorial, Frosty Lake etc) include them as civil transports, which the player can use to cross a river.
On some maps, you even get them as a buildable unit when capturing a civil tech center. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
The Chinook transfers vehicles quite fine and naval transports work for infantry only, unless it is actually a aircraft with carryall=yes but that has the same problem as the Chinook plus it looks odd when it carries vehicles over water. QUICK_EDIT
In Tiber map, when playing I saw a transport hovercraft that works simillarly like the trains in a few other maps. And suprisingly enough the hovercraft has the ability to move on water, so it might be possible for a naval transport vehicle. QUICK_EDIT
As mentioned above, it's not possible for vehicles to enter the transport.
And while it's indeed possible to make the transport hovercraft you see on Tiber buildable, the implementation of naval units in DTA causes the path-finding amphibious units (units that can travel on both land and water) to be broken in the sense that they can't automatically navigate around obstacles such as cliffs, trees, rocks and so on (they'll just entirely refuse to move at all whenever there's an obstacle in their path). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Naval Transport
).
.
