Topic: Rivers and Bridges

11 — 20 of 22 Posts ‹‹ previous 1 2 3 next ››

GunChleoc Joined: 2013-10-07, 14:56 Posts: 3324 One Elder of Players Location: RenderedRect	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 16:07 How about having the concepts of "shallow water" and "deep water" as 2 different terrain types? Shallow water would be bridgeable by roads, deep water wouldn't be. This would make things easy for the game engine. However, we will need to think of something convenient for the editor so it won't take ages to design a river. Maybe we could have "shore" tiles for both deep and shallow water, which will be a mix between land and water terrain. Busy indexing nil values Top Quote

kaputtnik Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48 Posts: 2439 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 16:15 chuckw wrote: 4.) What about rivers greater than 2 tiles wide? I think this could be made with the current tilesets... 6.) Elevation changes are a challenge, but how would a real river behave in such conditions? There would be waterfalls and rapids that are not navigable. The responsibility of logical river placement must be placed on the map maker. 7.) Rivers by definition are moving water. Should the direction of the current be considered in the game engine as affecting traffic in any way? This would be a great effort... 9.) Is it logical to make bridges "buildable" only at fords? The game engine would not have to be altered to accommodate conditions not present originally in the map. The bridge graphics could just overlay the ford on the map. I think it would be currently enough, if fords could be made by the map maker AND if a road crosses water at a ford, the road turns to a footbridge (or a "busy" footbridge) This will cause enough work. I tried also making ford tiles as immovables, but they coudn't be placed on waterterrain because "water" do not allow placing immovables. Fight simulator for Widelands: https://wide-fighter.netlify.app/ Top Quote

kaputtnik Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48 Posts: 2439 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 16:34 GunChleoc wrote: How about having the concepts of "shallow water" and "deep water" as 2 different terrain types? Shallow water would be bridgeable by roads, deep water wouldn't be. This is a great idea Fight simulator for Widelands: https://wide-fighter.netlify.app/ Top Quote

wl-zocker Joined: 2011-12-30, 16:37 Posts: 495 Tribe Member Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 16:41 How about having the concepts of "shallow water" and "deep water" as 2 different terrain types? See in this context bug 951554. It would be really nice to have some more flexibility with water and coast design. On the one hand, gameplay would change (bridges, unpassable water etc.), on the other hand, some more graphics would make Widelands look better. What you have created so far looks very promising. "Only few people know how much one has to know in order to know how little one knows." - Werner Heisenberg Top Quote

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-28, 23:01 Posts: 1118 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 17:07 GunChleoc wrote: (...) would be bridgeable by roads, I don't like the idea of cheap bridges. Why don't we use desert instead? We have sand, we have roads on it - the same conditions. einstein13 calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/ backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/ Top Quote

kaputtnik Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48 Posts: 2439 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 18:02 einstein13 wrote: I don't like the idea of cheap bridges. Why don't we use desert instead? We have sand, we have roads on it - the same conditions. No, not the same conditions. While sand could be passed everywhere, water could only be crossed if it is shallow water. We have to consider, if we make bridges buildable by the player, there are some restrictions: Some maps may do not work, because there is not enough stone (material which is restricted but must be used for bridges) in it A new micro economie is created (worker: bridgebuilder; material like stone and trees) which makes the whole economie complicater. Needs much new coding IMHO (and i believe its really complicated because of the roadsystem and different width of bridges) Needs much work for graphicians (which are currently missing in the project AFAIK) Fight simulator for Widelands: https://wide-fighter.netlify.app/ Top Quote

chuckw Topic Opener Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23 Posts: 945 One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 18:18 kaputtnik wrote: ... Needs much work for graphicians (which are currently missing in the project AFAIK) Not missing, just rare. I see little people. Top Quote

kaputtnik Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48 Posts: 2439 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 19:23 Sorry, wrong wording Fight simulator for Widelands: https://wide-fighter.netlify.app/ Top Quote

chuckw Topic Opener Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23 Posts: 945 One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 21:16 kaputtnik wrote: Sorry, wrong wording No problem. I've been known to go "missing" for years at a time. I see little people. Top Quote

Tibor Joined: 2009-03-23, 22:24 Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia	Posted at: 2015-02-11, 22:03 I cannot imagine bridges too big enough to allow a ship underneath But I could imagine a ferry/wherry - that would work exactly like a carrier - carrying one piece of material between two jetties (immovables) built on close costs. No colonization possible, you would need to get onto opposite coast other way. A jetty would have virtual road to all jetties within radius 5 (f.e.) and the algorithm for goods transport would be exactly the same as for transport on land roads. Every jetty would have one ferry/wherry and would need special worker - wheryman. It would be also quite a lot to code... EDIT: jetty would have a work area also, and all other jetties within the radius would be accessible by ferry - providing there is on-water path. EDIT2: I was thinking a bit yet, so a ferry would be associated to virtual road not a jetty - just like normal carrier is. it would be produced in shipyard (be very cheap) and wheryman would go to shipyard and sail the ferry to its virtual road (=pair of two jetties). It would be very deep change in the code... Edited: 2015-02-12, 07:46 Top Quote

‹‹ previous 1 2 3 next ››