WaterState=

Not a duplicate, merely related. That other issue only deals with VehicleTypes and graphical changes, not functional ones.

That said, don't expect the functional changes to happen here either.

According to yourself, in the commit message
[Vehicle]WaterImage=APCW

to draw an [APCW] image. Rather limited for now, the limitations might be lifted in the future:
- [APCW] has to be declared as a [VehicleType], similar to UnloadingClass.
- This is a graphical change only! - changes to other properties such as Speed, Locomotor, or whatever will not take effect.
your current implementation was basically exactly this, you just limited it to only use the image.

WaterImage= is a flag taking a VehicleType to change the current vehicle's properties when it's in water.
The proposed WaterState= is a flag taking a VehicleType to change the current vehicle's properties when it's in water.

The only difference is the fact that the current implementation is limited in the attributes that can be overridden, while this request asks for full control.

I don't see how this isn't a duplicate - an extension of the already existing solution to #1030 should completely fulfill this request.

Funny, I don't remember GHOST being a technosexual. :)

Hence why he needs the extension...he's lacking the drive.

Edit: Let's approach this from the other side - are you proposing that, in a hypothetical case where this were implemented, we should have both WaterState=, taking a TechnoType that modifies all attributes of the current unit, and WaterImage=, taking a VehicleType that modifies select attributes of the current unit?

There is a very clear duplication there, imo.

Meh, I said I wasn't planning on making the functional changes work here either.

My point was that the other issue needs to be extended to all TechnoTypes before it can be considered a duplicate of this.

And my point is that this request is inherently a duplicate of the other issue, since its functionality is a superset of the other issue's.

No matter which point one subscribes to, the more important question is: Is anyone going to code this?
I'm not.

Something I just realised - you can already set up swim sequences independently of ground ones, so without the functional changes this is completely useless.