Important Dates

Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Seafaring

kraileth
Joined: 2010-03-14, 16:34
Posts: 59
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2010-06-07, 09:45

It would probably be a good idea to add a global switch in the map editor to allow/disallow seafaring. I don't know the map format and thus have no idea if there are reserved bytes or if something like this would break compatibility...


Top Quote
ixprefect
Joined: 2009-02-27, 14:28
Posts: 367
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2010-06-07, 10:49

I was originally in favor of letting "water roads" transport workers as well, but I've been increasingly convinced that from a gameplay point of view, it is better to not let "water roads" transport workers, so that small streams can act as a barrier to progress. This will be more difficult to implement, but I believe now that this is a case where implementation should definitely follow gameplay concerns.

As for all the talk about different water terrain types, I don't believe that's necessary. Instead, we could simply give map authors control over where harbors can be built. I believe that should be enough.


Top Quote
Astuur
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08
Posts: 733
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Frankfurt / Germany
Posted at: 2010-06-08, 14:08

Okay ... so you would have to build a warehouse on the island, and transport the tools there for creating workers.
Does this imply you would also have to build cattle farms etc. for beasts of burdon? (no transportation for these?)
It was the small rowing boat type to cross rivers and lakes, where you would not build a harbor, that made me think of an unpassable water terrain - but of you found a smarter solution, then all the better.


Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top Quote
ixprefect
Joined: 2009-02-27, 14:28
Posts: 367
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2010-06-08, 15:11

Astuur wrote: Okay ... so you would have to build a warehouse on the island, and transport the tools there for creating workers.

Of course, you couldn't actually build the warehouse on the other side unless you can get a builder there, which implies that you would either need a land road or a "big ship" connection, i.e. transportation via harbors.

So small rivers will still act as an obstacle, until you can build a normal land road to the other side for workers to walk on. Afterwards, you can use small boats ("water roads") as a shortcut for wares.


Top Quote
Tmk
Avatar
Joined: 2010-05-08, 18:06
Posts: 42
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2010-08-13, 18:12

I've read in the SeafaringImplementation that, besides ships for expeditions and trade, there could be small rowboats for water streets. One thing I'd like to discuss is what these rowboats should be able to transport. In Settlers 2, the rowboats could only transport wares but not workers, so that a real expansion beyond rivers was impossible because one needed an explicit land connection to be able to build and expand. Ixperfect mentioned that aswell. In my opinion, they should be able to transport workers. Widelands could restrict a too fast expansion beyond rivers and lakes by restricting the length of a way over the water and the lack of a second transporter, for example. Another thing to think about could be how flags could look like on the water, when wares and workers wait to be transportet from one section of a water way to antoher. Either the flags cost a stone (to have a kind of a platform) or one rowboat must wait for the other to come to the flag, for expample. What do you think about these ideas?


Top Quote
Gannaf
Joined: 2010-06-22, 00:10
Posts: 47
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Location: Germany, Bird Mountain
Posted at: 2010-08-13, 21:43

I think that the possibility to build flags on the water is excluded. Someone already made that clear. Someone also mentioned a maximum length for the way a small boat can cross. I think thats not necessary because long waterways are, according to their speed and with the condition of inability to build waterflags, extremely inefficient. So if a player wants to let a small boat cross half the map for every single ware it has to deliver, why not let him do so? If I remember corectly one of the main purposes of the game is not to restrict the player automaticly by the game too often. (<- Was that right?)


Top Quote
Tmk
Avatar
Joined: 2010-05-08, 18:06
Posts: 42
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2010-08-14, 15:27

I overlooked that there will be no water flags, excuse me. I agree with that then there should be no restriction to the length of a water road, the low efficiency of those roads is the price for the strategic advantage an expansion over water terrain costs. For me, the important issue is the ability to transport wares and workers over the water.

Edited: 2010-08-14, 15:28
Top Quote
Nasenbaer
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-21, 18:17
Posts: 829
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2010-08-14, 18:53

well I disagree here - simple question: if you were to cross the atlantic ocean in a rowboat for just one trunk, would you do this? face-wink.png

So a very big yes for restriction on length face-smile.png


Top Quote
Tmk
Avatar
Joined: 2010-05-08, 18:06
Posts: 42
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2010-08-15, 14:54

Alright alright, I wouldn't even cross the river Saale in a rowboat for, whatever it is... So, what is the proposal for the maximum length of a water pathway?

Edited: 2010-08-15, 15:01
Top Quote
EgyLynx
Joined: 2010-08-22, 08:51
Posts: 40
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2010-08-22, 09:17

I dont play Settlres II , but Settlres I test... well? is that caming at builb18? or ealier?


Top Quote