Author Topic: ownership of non-strategic objects (Read 1262 times)

Ghastly · « **on:** September 04, 2007, 10:29:34 AM »

I don't believe that it does, but I don't know enough about it to be absolutely sure - and a search didn't turn up anything, so I'm sorry, I need to ask you guys:

What (if any) are the ramification of which country or field is assigned ownership of any non-stragegic objects placed in the terrain (for example, a bridge)?

The terrain is for Main Arena style play.

~~and TIA.~~

NHawk · « **Reply #1 on:** September 04, 2007, 11:11:09 AM »

Absolutely none.

IE: Tank town is country owned and it has no effect on it.

Ghastly · « **Reply #2 on:** September 04, 2007, 12:40:27 PM »

Once again, thank Nhawk!

I thought that that was the case, but ... sometimes the very worst assumptions you can make are the ones that seem the most reasonable.

!

BlauK · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2007, 01:19:48 PM »

However, if one has the "protect objects" (or something like that) flag on (like they are on at MA), only the enemy countries can destroy those objects... in other words, friendly objects cannot be destroyed.
If the objects don't have a dead shape it would not matter.

rogerdee · « **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2007, 02:41:52 PM »

bridges if i am correct dont have dead shapes?

so how would you make bombing the have any affect and could you make them able to be bombed by everyone?

EG bridge is to a island with a town on enemy gvs are assalting the town and the base.The home side want to bomb the bridge to stop the enemys assess can this be done?

Denholm · « **Reply #5 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:23:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlauK
If the objects don't have a dead shape it would not matter.

I'm not certain if you were trying to convey the point that not having a dead shape means the object will stay the same when it is alive or dead, if you weren't then please excuse my post. I'm not familiar with AC3D, yet in the Blender that is a totally different thing. If an object does NOT have a dead shape, it will disappear when it is "destroyed".

Ghastly · « **Reply #6 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:39:07 PM »

For my purposes, I'd like them to be indestructable. Since I'm using the built-in bridge objects and can't change them - and wouldn't know how if I could - what settings do I need to change to prevent them from being damaged/destroyed by anyone regardless of which side they are logged in on?

(Essentially, the opposite of RogerDee's question - he want's the home team to be able to burn their bridges as they retreat, and I don't want some boneheaded numbskull - regardless of side - to be able to grief the rest of the player by blocking GV access to the front lines. )

No hurry, as I have several more hours of laying rivers at a minimum before I need to worry about the bridge settings.

BlauK · « **Reply #7 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:40:44 PM »

Denholm,
my mistake... naturally they would just disappear. Disregard my previous thought

rogerdee,
AFAIK if you want to enable equal ability to destroy the one and same object for every country, you have to switch "protect objects" off in the arena settings.
So basically I suspect that if one wants an equal situation at MA, the object has to be defined indestructible... instead of allowing other than the owning countries to destroy it.

On SEA or AvA maps objects like bridges can be assigned to the 3rd, unused, country.

BlauK · « **Reply #8 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:43:47 PM »

Ghastly,
if you are making a MA map, I would first check with HTC whether the new CT objects (bridges, rivers, etc) are ok.
IIRC, they should not be used on MA maps.

Denholm · « **Reply #9 on:** September 04, 2007, 03:46:31 PM »

Would be VERY strange if they were not allowed since they are available in the TE and everyone has been requesting them. Plus with the new river tiles... why not?

Easyscor · « **Reply #10 on:** September 04, 2007, 10:31:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
Would be VERY strange if they were not allowed since they are available in the TE and everyone has been requesting them. Plus with the new river tiles... why not?

If you try to use the rivers or the new city objects you'll be disappointed because they don't work with the current road, rail and barge system. You can place road0 over any of these in the TE to see what I mean.

I wish we knew what was going to change, the new city objects and the river tiles or the old road system. Either way, it plays havoc with a lot of things we want to do, such as an active rail yard for example. It makes me wonder if the strat system we've become used to will be disabled in CT, but I'm just speculating.

edit:

I would not use any of the above objects except possibly the rivers and then only if no prebuilt road crosses them. As for tank town, check with htc before you include it and ask what settings they want, though NHawk probably knows.

Ghastly · « **Reply #11 on:** September 04, 2007, 10:56:16 PM »

RuhRoh...

I'll have to check with Roy. I'd assumed that because they are available in the TE, they were OK to use.

To tell you the truth, I thought they weren't on the older maps because it's a seriously time consuming PITA to lay them all out, and make sure they don't clash with anything - not because they shouldn't be used.

Doh.

Easyscor · « **Reply #12 on:** September 04, 2007, 11:03:51 PM »

Take a look in the TE, then just don't let your rivers run where the 'roads' would cross them. They'll still work, but they'll look terrible. And don't forget that when a new version comes out that requires a rebuild, your roads will be 'default' built and might cross the rivers unless you plan for it in advance.

Ghastly · « **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:22:53 AM »

Thanks gents for all the helpful input!

For the record, I've been told that there are no prohibitions against using the river tiles and bridge components in a map intend for use in the MA - just that there are no guarantees that they will work as intended or desired, either.

So I'll keep all that in mind and work around the limitations as necessary when necessary to achieve the desired effect, if possible - although I am leaning towards dropping the longer river I'd intended to place in order to keep the number of exceptions down.

I will definately hold off laying and cleaning up any more of them, though, until I get all the fields placed and can do a full strat build, so I can see how much goopy poo I'd be "stuck" cleaning up and/or working around.

~~Guy~~

Ghastly · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2007, 10:16:00 PM »

Quote

Take a look in the TE, then just don't let your rivers run where the 'roads' would cross them. They'll still work, but they'll look terrible. And don't forget that when a new version comes out that requires a rebuild, your roads will be 'default' built and might cross the rivers unless you plan for it in advance.

Now, I'm really confused by the phrase in bold ... what do you mean? Unless you are referring to something I don't know about "default built" means a segment of rail or road that's 10 miles long placed vertically down from the field or strat - regardless of whether it's land or water they are placed upon.

Surely you don't mean that someone is going to do that at some point to an MA terrain?

Or are you referring to something else?