Transportation of units

[Matthias Grimm <matthias.grimm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 04:15:26 -0500 (CDT)
Jonathan Koren <jkoren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > you may move it into the other transport. But this can't be done with
> > tanks on sea.
> 
> Yeah I know.  It forced me to add barrier islands.  I don't exactly like 
> it, but probably on the whole the "you can't both unload and load on the 
> same turn" rule is probably pretty good one.
> 
> I thought comet allowed you to load a hovercraft and place that loaded 
> hovercraft in a troop ship.  It doesn't.  However, in the game.  If you 
> load transport and load that transport onto another transport, the inner 
> transport is unloaded into the outer transport.  This is the same behavior 
> that happens when a loaded transport moves into a city.
> 
> There isn't a nesting of containment relationships in CF.  Everything is 
> inside the the outermost container.  If CF is going to allow cities to 
> preload containers, I think whether or not this functionality should be 
> extended outer containers to preload inner containers should be 
> considered.

Your example showed very well that a unit must be able to move from one
container into another container in one move. This would increase fexibility
of transports and make the gameplay a little bit straighter.

The loading of a transport inside another transport and then move it out
would be a good solution too becasue this prevents the player from making
impossible moves which the transport-transport move would allow. For
example: troop ship-aircraft would work at land but won't at sea. The
aircraft can't land on water so how would they do it? Throwing the tank
in the air ready for catching by the aircraft?

I think it would be nice to have it both. To have always the
'loading-inside-containers' and additionally allow the 'transport-transport move'
at land.

I wouldn't allow nesting of containers. This could become very confusing and
mouse click intensive in game play. Every transport could contain another
transport which again can contain a transport. This isn't very realistic and
difficult to handle. So I would prefer the container handling as it is with this
small exception I decribed above.