Page 2 of 2

RE: Planned Improvements to the Cargo model??

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:25 pm
by Dan109
ORIGINAL: Doctorwarthog

The ability to transport (land, airdrop) actual units is something I'd love to see one day. IE so I can place a unit near an military base for example, and then tell it to board an aircraft or a ship at that base. But I do understand it would be a complex and tedious thing to implent into the game.

Well, if we get an SE_AddCargo function in the future, scripts can be written to allow loading with a variety of conditions, and can faithfully remove the real units from the map. I haven't tried it yet, but SE_MsgBox could be used to display choices and the buttons original intentions can be hijacked to allow a player to make a choice. Only 3 buttons on the window though - it's a shame that a more generic construct for this function wasn't put in to allow you great dialogue with the scenario. I'd be happy with being able to have 3 genetic buttons and a data entry window. You could therefore display several choices, enter the one you want, and the 3 buttons can be used to NextPage, PrevPage, or Exit the pages of choices.

RE: Planned Improvements to the Cargo model??

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:37 pm
by temkc5
19 - The AAV-P7/A1 is an amphibious troop transport(connector capable) used by U.S. Marine Corps Assault Amphibian Battalions to land the surface assault elements of the landing force and their equipment in a single lift from assault shipping during amphibious operations to inland objectives and to conduct mechanized operations.

Could the diamond shaped port access technology be applied to this vehicle
and
be placed in the docking well

19+ Just placing AAV-P7/A1 in the docking well would be a big help

RE: Planned Improvements to the Cargo model??

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:24 am
by Grazyn
I posted it in the feature request thread but this is probably the better place, is there a way to search the cargo list for a specific name? Or is it planned in the future?

RE: Planned Improvements to the Cargo model??

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:15 pm
by tjhkkr
Like Grazyn said: this seems to be a good place to discuss this...
I hope I am not stepping on your post Dan109...
Is there a way to add cargo via HTML (not lua)... I think I saw MikMyk do that with aircraft.
Speaking of which, I am looking for that posting... does anyone know where that is?

RE: Planned Improvements to the Cargo model??

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:19 am
by temkc5
Bump

Any updates from the developers?

RE: Planned Improvements to the Cargo model??

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:28 am
by SunlitZelkova
I think an amphibious model and at least somewhat more refined land model is needed in conjunction with what was said here.

Currently, all infantryman fire 7.62mm MG bursts, and even though there are units with only one guy in them- namely the Infantry Sec (Observation Post), and in the CWDB, Medic (x1), there is no "Generic 9mm Pistol" or something to that like in the database for them (units with 1 x personnel, or units that would have pistols) to carry. Also, despite only having 1 x personnel in them, these mounts are treated more like vehicles, as they can be "damaged" and then "repaired". With ground vehicles, there does not seem to be any difference between basic AP and HE shells, as these are equally capable of killing tanks. Finally, some of the infantry units are confusing- regular infantry platoons, with 4 x Infantry Sec (7.62mm MG/Unguided Anti-Tank Weapon), should have 16 personnel in them, according to the cargo information, but they only have four 7.62mm MGs between the individual infantrymen. Finally, APCs and trucks cannot carry infantryman. Tanks technically could also carry them hypothetically.

Amphibious vehicles- namely the AAV-P7/A1 and LVT series- should theoretically be able to drive on land and support the infantry they carried, but can only work as transports in the game right now. There are a number of amphibious vehicles that are either modelled solely as land vehicles or solely as watercraft, and this should be rectified.

I hope this doesn't count as reviving an old thread, as temkc5 bumped it, and upon seeing it I wanted to make some comments.