From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16005 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2004 05:26:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15998 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 05:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.panix.com) (166.84.1.74) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 05:26:36 -0000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F752981C2; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kingdon@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i7I5QaR28468; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:30:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200408180526.i7I5QaR28468@panix5.panix.com> From: Jim Kingdon To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Eric McDonald on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:47:16 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) References: X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00947.txt.bz2 > I would add that this should only be applicable in the case of > firing. In the case of attacking, which seems to be a bit more > personal and up-close, I think the unit view should disappear > instantly if there is not a real unit to prop it up. Makes sense. In fact I was somewhat confused by all the discussion of percentages and so on, until I realized that people were talking about firing, not necessarily attacking.