Topic: Ferries

31 — 40 of 124 Posts ‹‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 13 next ››

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-28, 23:01 Posts: 1118 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2018-07-29, 17:13 @GunChleoc: What about three types of water transport? Ships - allow to take multiple wares & workers at once; already developed Small boats - allow to take one (or two? - small amount) wares & workers between two fixed points (small buildings); developed in the future? Ferries - allow to take only one ware between two flags; currently developing That would solve two players problems: your about small building and king's about fixed route on higher distance. And I would like to see that possibility (if it is accepted from other players point of view). einstein13 calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/ backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/ Top Quote

GunChleoc Joined: 2013-10-07, 14:56 Posts: 3324 One Elder of Players Location: RenderedRect	Posted at: 2018-07-30, 09:41 If we call 2. ferry and 3. raft, looks plausible. Have a special flag with assigned route(s) for the raft Attach a small building to it to have it build 1 ferry per route instead. Or 2 ferries per route if it gets busy? The building could double as a warehouse and a production site - but we'd need some engine changes to pull that one off, since production sites and warehouses are mutually exclusive at this point. Edited: 2018-07-30, 09:44 Busy indexing nil values Top Quote

kaputtnik Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48 Posts: 2440 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2018-07-30, 17:24 Nordfriese wrote: kaputtnik wrote: The value of the length restriction is a matter of intention: On the map "The Nile" the distance between two shores is between 4 and 7 nodes. With a value of 8 one can build a port on the opposite shore and afterwards connect the shores with a ferry. So he could dismantle the ports again. The suggested requirement that there must be a road-connection between the waterway start/end flags would solve this. I´ll try to implement this when ferries work... Yes, i forgot about this requirement. But i guess it will be difficult to implement: What will happen if the road between the flags get destroyed? But i think you will find a solution Because this new feature will need a lot of testing, i am in favor of retargeting it to build 21... Fight simulator for Widelands: https://wide-fighter.netlify.app/ Top Quote

WorldSavior Joined: 2016-10-15, 03:10 Posts: 2094 OS: Linux Version: Recent tournament version One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2018-07-31, 14:40 kaputtnik wrote: Because this new feature will need a lot of testing, i am in favor of retargeting it to build 21... +1 Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote

Nordfriese Topic Opener Joined: 2017-01-17, 17:07 Posts: 1954 OS: Debian Testing Version: Latest master One Elder of Players Location: 0x55555d3a34c0	Posted at: 2018-07-31, 16:30 The branch is getting closer to being usable. The ferries are being built almost correctly but they stubbornly refuse to assign themselves to a waterway. Perhaps tomorrow they´ll be persuaded; first testing will (hopefully) be possible soon. The branch unfortunately contains an entire bug plague with such nice features as unremovable roads and absolutely broken saveloading, so there´s little hope of having it ready for build 20. It will need very extensive testing in any case. The suggested requirement that there must be a road-connection between the waterway start/end flags would solve this. I´ll try to implement this when ferries work... Yes, i forgot about this requirement. But i guess it will be difficult to implement: What will happen if the road between the flags get destroyed? Even if we only require start and end flags of waterways to be in the same economy, this problem can still occur (e.g. when ports are destroyed): Are two road networks connected only by waterways (no roads, no ports; so wares but no workers can travel between them) the same or separate economies? I´d say they are something in-between, but as I don´t fancy rewriting half the codebase to allow this, we have to decide yes or no here. The easiest and safest way to prevent problems here is to automatically destroy a waterway when its flags are in separate economies. This would look strange for players though. Top Quote

hessenfarmer Joined: 2014-12-11, 22:16 Posts: 2649 One Elder of Players Location: Bavaria	Posted at: 2018-07-31, 17:06 Additionally to testing it we will need to allow for the AI to build them. So definitly not b20 from my side. Looking forward to test it anyhow. Top Quote

GunChleoc Joined: 2013-10-07, 14:56 Posts: 3324 One Elder of Players Location: RenderedRect	Posted at: 2018-07-31, 18:22 We could also keep the restriction only for new waterways. Once a waterway has been formed, it can remain, even if other roads and/or ports get destroyed. For map design, this still means that you need to reach the destination by some other means first, and maybe that's enough? Busy indexing nil values Top Quote

Tibor Joined: 2009-03-23, 22:24 Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia	Posted at: 2018-07-31, 20:42 The main problem here is that ferry will be able to transport goods, but not workers (incl. soldiers) Imagine you have a constructionsite on newly separated territory - you will be able to transport construction wares there, but not a builder... But, you will be able to keep producing wares and transfer it to mainland, providing that the site is occupied in the time of split. Top Quote

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-28, 23:01 Posts: 1118 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2018-08-01, 07:22 @Nordfriese: I can imagine that in wide river you have separate single-tile islands in the middle of it. You can use them as intersection/middle flag for long waterway. If you prohibit building waterways to working economy, you can't do that. Also you can't make short 2-units length waterways on the shore, where the other part of the waterway is on the other island and this island is only a part of the bigger section of waterways. So I am against that prohibition. The second case is about moving workers/wares and making new territory working/accepting workers. Imagine you have a constructionsite on newly separated territory - you will be able to transport construction wares there, but not a builder... Yes that is right. And it is OK from my point of view. You have to build a port first to build anything. And if you have temporary split (no port space, no warehouse), but it is connected by waterway, the new economy is "ware accepting" but not "workers accepting". As I remember, this situation already exists in Widelands. If you conquer the enemy, often you split the entire empire into two pieces. One of them can contain no warehouse and the buildings and wares are still existing (and producing/moving). From my point of view it is not a problem to allow players using waterways then to move wares between those two parts. einstein13 calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/ backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/ Top Quote

Tibor Joined: 2009-03-23, 22:24 Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia	Posted at: 2018-08-01, 07:52 einstein13 wrote: . As I remember, this situation already exists in Widelands. If you conquer the enemy, often you split the entire empire into two pieces. One of them can contain no warehouse and the buildings and wares are still existing (and producing/moving). From my point of view it is not a problem to allow players using waterways then to move wares between those two parts. No, this is not analogous situation - once the economy is split into two parts no wares and no workers can be transferred between the two.. Top Quote

‹‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 13 next ››