VehicleCloning Logic

[Renegade]

Quite evidently, you did not understand my post, because had you done so, you would have noticed that, true to the name of the "Kennel Hack", I used dogs as an example, obviously not talking about normal dogs, because normal dogs in RA2/YR do not need a Kennel.

If you do not see the relationship between using dogs with kennels as an example for something called the "kennel hack", then I do not think you are mentally qualified to continue this discussion.

In addition, had you actually grasped my post as you claim, you would have noticed that I did not just mention "other YR infantry", but in fact made it a point to choose the named units in a way that shows that, already, very diverse types of units all exit from the same factory - or are you truly going to argue the average kennel hack unit is so outlandishly different from normal units that it could not be created from a factory that, under normal circumstances, manages to generate normal footsoldiers, female snipers, futuristic rocket men, genetically modified grey hulks, psychic warriors and domesticated animals?
The whole point of listing the diverse array of units already all coming from the very same building was showing that it is ridiculous to make yet another weird unit coming from there a large issue.

As I said - had you actually grasped my post, as you claim, you would have realized that.
Evidently, you have not.

[Bobingabout]

i been missing an interesting conversation here

the sensible way should be enough, since you're specifying a type, allied factories ans soviet factories are still all just FactoryType=UnitFactrory, the only distinction is between land and sea factories.

if you really want a distinction between allied and soviet dogs, just add anther type, Type=AlliedDog etc

and lol @ headcrab, maybe i can use that in my mod?



my "kennel hack" as you call it, is just a cheat way i found to force units to come from certain factories, its also useful to help stop AI building a GI as soviets if you fucked up on AIMD.INI. (my kennel hack, because i'm the 1 who put up the kennel tutorial on revora a long time ago, which is what ren and D are using as a reference)

if you add the new factory type tags, the owner= hack doesn't need to exist anymore, because it can be done with the new tag. infact, the new tag would be preferable, because the reason why i asked for it in the first place was to allow a seperate build queue for allied units and soviet units if you own both factories. (rather than sharing the same queue, and having a build time multiplier applied)

as for cloning vats, what would be better imo, is instead of a ClonedAt= tag, you should probably add a factory type array on the cloning vats, eg Factory=AlliedBarracks, SovietBarracks, YuriBarracks, AlliedKennel, SovietKennel, YuriHeadCrabFarm
that way, the new cloning vat would be able to produce stuff from all those types.

[MRMIdAS]

Well sticking with both Ideas, wouldn't it be better to have VehicleCloning=yes, then to have on the "special" unit you don't want to clone because it uses the kennel hack, Cloneable=No.

Then you'd have easy tags for vehicle cloning, an easy way to stop stuff being cloned, and as a bonus, a way to stop people with a cloning vat building 2 hero units.

[Bobingabout]

well, you could do, but, imo, adding new factory types is something seperate than new cloning vats. now i agree on a clonable=no tag, but, being able to specify factory types of a cloning vat would be useful too. but think of it this way:
navel units don't come from a war factory, and the only difference there is a type set by the navel=yes tag. would you want your vehicle cloning vat to spit out ships too? not really, so you'd have to have a factory type limiter, also you could make a ship cloning vat just as easily, though probably just do it the same way as war factories and shipyards are done now, with navel=yes

[mt.]

Quite evidently, you did not understand my post, because had you done so, you would have noticed that, true to the name of the "Kennel Hack", I used dogs as an example, obviously not talking about normal dogs, because normal dogs in RA2/YR do not need a Kennel.

Ahh sorry, it seems I have not read it fully. Sorry for the misunderstanding , a more customizable system would be a lot better for modders than one limited tag.

[MRMIdAS]

well, you could do, but, imo, adding new factory types is something seperate than new cloning vats. now i agree on a clonable=no tag, but, being able to specify factory types of a cloning vat would be useful too. but think of it this way:
navel units don't come from a war factory, and the only difference there is a type set by the navel=yes tag. would you want your vehicle cloning vat to spit out ships too? not really, so you'd have to have a factory type limiter, also you could make a ship cloning vat just as easily, though probably just do it the same way as war factories and shipyards are done now, with navel=yes

Thats what NavalCloning=yes would do.

[Bobingabout]

*bangs head on desk* its not just specific to navel! i was using navel as an example, since its a factory type limiter that already exists

[MRMIdAS]

*bangs head on desk* its not just specific to navel! i was using navel as an example, since its a factory type limiter that already exists

I know what you mean, it's just easier IMO to fully extend the cloning logic, rather than have a more complicated set of tags going:

VehicleCloning=yes
Naval=yes

because then ppl would go "but naval isn't vehicles"

It's basically me trying to idiot proof the logic.

IMO we shouldn't NEED a "limiter" other than Cloneable=no unles you plan to make 2 types of vehicle cloning buildings, one being a standard cloner, the other being a "super" cloner, to clone the stuff that the normal one can't.

[Bobingabout]

the thing is, you never know what the modder wants to do, so we should design new code we write assuming this, giving the modder the option to do, even idiotic stuff if they want to.

besides, if they're not smart enough to figure out why the navel=yes tag exists in the first place, they shouldn't be using it, same can be said with new factory types, or just about any other tags we come up with, even RP2 itself.

[Renegade]

the thing is, you never know what the modder wants to do, so we should design new code we write assuming this, giving the modder the option to do, even idiotic stuff if they want to.

besides, if they're not smart enough to figure out why the navel=yes tag exists in the first place, they shouldn't be using it, same can be said with new factory types, or just about any other tags we come up with, even RP2 itself.

Said by the man who can't distinguish between obsolete parts of anatomy and things related to the fleet.
Said by the man who favors a complicated solution over a simple one.

[Bobingabout]

I'm not saying i opose NavalCloning=yes, i'm just saying VehicleCloning=yes and Naval=yes makes a little more sense, maybe not to human logic, but to code.

[Renegade]

I am not promoting NavalCloning. I am promoting a solution that does not require adding a new special flag for every usage case you can come up with. How long to you think it takes until somebody comes up with AirplaneCloning? HeliCloning? MechCloning? SubmarineCloning? NonHumanCloning? SHPVehicleCloning?

There are too many special cases to generate a special flag for everyone. Just support a system that doesn't require them in the first place.

[Bobingabout]

maybe just CloningFacility=yes, and what it clones depends on the factory type. eg Factory=UnitType, and Naval=yes/no to control ships/tanks
yes, i chose CloningFacility=yes to make it different from Cloning=yes, as not to break the original, allowing you to run it without forcing you to add Factory=InfantryType, though you could just make the logic default to infantry.

[Blade]

How about just implement a simple logical version and let modders write their own dlls if they want uber unit clone factories.