Armed, Dangerous, Military, Weaponized
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:35 pm
Started here Stealth Carriers Over-Powered?
In targeting, the default should be attacking "Dangerous" ships, which includes carriers with fighters and weapons. It does not include empty carriers.
As far as i got it Geoff wants to move more stuff into FOCS in the context of the targeting PR (or at least specify it using conditions).
The main question is which information we need in FOCS. If there are effects that depend on the information that there are enemies which could block. E.g. if you tried to break a blockade, it would be good to target enemy ships which would be able to block.
The reason i prefer this option is that the other option actually makes untouchable stealth bombers perfect blockers.Vezzra wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:48 pmSo, if a carriers fighter wing gets depleted in a combat, but the carrier survives, is within supply, will get its fighter wing reinforced and can resume combat the next turn, it still shouldn't be able to keep up a blockade, do I understand correctly? While I have a slight preference for the other option (consider a carrier in that case as being able to keep up/continue the blockade), because it seems a bit easier and simpler to me, we certainly can take that road.ensure empty carriers do not block enemies (even if they get resupplied) directly in the code which checks for blockade
This I do not understand, what purpose should that serve? That sounds like an assessment the AI needs to make of course, but not something we need to keep track of by means of ship classification or conditions like "Armed".[/quote]
In targeting, the default should be attacking "Dangerous" ships, which includes carriers with fighters and weapons. It does not include empty carriers.
What should go in FOCS or the backend is a very good question.Vezzra wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:48 pmAs far as the question if the classification of ships/determination of conditions like "Armed" should happen in FOCS or the backend C++ code I'm probably not the first person to ask. Personally I think such basic/essential classifications/conditions should be determined by the engine and not rely on FOCS, but here I'd like to hear the input of the other devs - Geoff, Dilvish
As far as i got it Geoff wants to move more stuff into FOCS in the context of the targeting PR (or at least specify it using conditions).