Uber, I figured out how to get Subs to work... (I think)

Just saw what raevn posted as well - I guess there isn't! I suppose if a depth attribute is added and the models work as they do in the screenshot (parts poking up above the surface) it might work fairly well, as they don't need to go so deep. I guess as you said, we just have to wait and see...

It doesn't mean they haven't already done the automatic way via the bounding box - I haven't played around with naval enough to know.

From my brief look into the unit files, I did very much get the impression that something was meant to be there alluding to water depth, but I've not really had an in-depth (hurr) look either - you have way experience than me in that respect!

There is a "water depth" slider in the system editor now. It lets you make it as deep as you want.

I love how facepalm-worthy this thread is.
"Hey guys, I figured out how to make subs. We need to... wait for it... put them UNDER the water!"
Except, as a hack of hacks, you're only putting the model under the water.

If you ordered TA's subs to 'attack ground', they'd actually shoot their torpedoes towads the water surface, which they were beneath. The torpedoes would come up and out of the water and then fly through the air in a ballistic arc. The range was short, but sometimes enough to hit something close to the coast.

Like ships, TA subs also had drafts, so they couldn't cross shallow water. In fact, subs did tend to visibly clip with underwater hills floor on occasion, because they were deeper in the water than boats.

I think that's enough to say that TA DID have depth and underwater terrain. I'm not sure where you heard otherwise.

I didn't say TA had no depth, I was just saying that subs were essentially ships lowered below the waterline (eg., they didn't have their own layer). That's how they were implemented.

that's... basically how submarines work irl too

I'm sorry you feel it's such an idiotic suggestion, as it's exactly what Uber did with the implementation of the subs... they practically followed it to the dot.

Edit: You basically completely ignored part of the post and just commented on the fact the models would be under water, basically everything i suggested was put in the game the way I had said. I feel pretty good about that... either a super big coincidence, or Uber had seen the thread and though.. "Hey, maybe?"

They do have their own layer in PA, it's just that for positioning purposes that layer is treated as watersurface.

Which is exactly what I suggested they do.

I didn't know underwater subs in real life blocked ships from going overhead . Subs in TA blocked the area on the surface where they were. Because they were actually ships, just lowered.

It was not an idiotic solution, just an obvious and obviously flawed one. So obvious that its problems were already predicted in this very thread. And that's what really irritates me, because its problems are obvious, and because a better solution even for such obvious problems wasn't found or even speculated on. This "I'm helping!" attitude, if anything, looks like it held back real problem solving.

And people congratulating themselves for getting in the way has a tendency to tick me off.
Even if I'm easy to tick off.

By the way, WL_Underwater and WL_Seafloor have existed since 2013. They've had to, initially as support for Commanders that walked on the seafloor, and later Dox. So as far as I can tell, the faked out models really are the only suggestion of yours that made it in.

Incidentally, there's now a navigation type "underwater" and a sight type "underwater". I'm not sure if those are any different from the ships' "deepwater" and "surface_and_air" that units have already been using. Perhaps there's plans in the future to improve it and give subs a better implementation (though that could mean changing the models back).

Erm the commander walks on the floor, what I suggested was a new layer that was technically exactly the same as the normal naval layer except with a new name and such to that you ccould dicdictate which weapons fired at subs.

@stuart98 I seriously don't understand why you're liking all these posts when you liked the OP... xD

Really, this is probably best, so that we can't stack units (though it's not a bad kind of stacking) making the subs harder to see and potentially mashing the different icons.