Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)

[Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks@yahoo.com>]

> to the space of the entire cell and not to the
> localized region 
> ("subarea", as you called it) where the unit is
> located. Now this 
> means that if I do a 'fire-into' on a cell that has
> an unseen unit 
> unit of type "u1", then the probability of hitting
> it is 
> determined by its hit chance (and any modifiers to
> that). So, assuming no 
> modifiers on the hit chance, and assuming that type
> "u1" has a 75% 
> chance of being hit by type "u2", type "u2" being
> the type which 
> is firing, then there is 75% that the unseen unit,
> "u1", will be 
> hit.
> 
> So far, so good. Now, to throw the wrench. Now
> suppose that "u1" 
> is seen, and "u2" does a 'fire-at' on "u1". Again,
> the probability 
> is 75% that "u1" will be hit.   Ooops, no good.
> 
> The problem here is that 'fire-at' assumes that the
> target is 
> being aimed at and applies the hit chance on this
> assumption. 
> Then, you are coming along, and claiming a different
> 
> interpretation of the hit chance when it is being
> used by 
> 'fire-into', where aiming is no longer being
> considered. We must 
> be able to differentiate between the two cases.
> 
> I see two ways out:
> (1) Assume that 'fire-at' has a 100% hit chance and
> apply any 
> modifiers to that chance. This is, however,
> inconsistent with the 
> way attack works, and makes little sense, IMO.
> (2) Use the method I proposed.
> 
> Maybe there are others, but these are the two that I
> see.
> 

The problem with a static solution for applying
fire-hit-chance and hit-chance to unseen units is that
it may be the case with certain attacks but not all. 
The best way I can describe this is through examples:

I have an artillery battery and I'm firing it at an
Infantry company up on a hill.  It's fire-hit-chance
is 75%.  That's fine.  But let's say I'm firing where
I think there's an infantry company.  Indirect fire is
a different method of fire, with different principles,
at least in enough cases to warrant consideration.  

Now, if I have a unit-view that turns out to no longer
represent a real unit, then this isn't a mirage, but
faulty intelligence.  A mirage or a dummy unit is
something I can see and verify to be there and should
best be represented by a unit.  A unit-view without a
corresponding unit (and, really, any unconfirmed unit
view) simply means I have reason to believe a unit is
located in that hex (and in the case of there not
being a corresponding unit, I'm wrong), which wouldn't
be the case with a unit I can see but rather a unit
that I think to be there and am firing at indirectly
(Tanks behind smoke, platoons behind hills or in
cover, newly cloaked starships, all of which I would
not fire at directly).

Likewise, in a fantasy game, if an invisible unit
attacks me, I'd like to have a unit-view, a la
Nethack's 'I'.  Maybe it's still there, maybe it's
not, but when I attack a supposed enemy, it's
different than when I attack one I know to be there. 
Again, illusory enemies would be better represented by
units (Hmmm, illusory enemies...  Sounds like I need
to add more units to Opal...).

So I think this particular problem would be best
solved with new indirect-fire-hit-chance and
indirect-hit-chance tables.  This way I could say that
a unit representing an individual with a bolt action
rifle would have a worse chance than an artillery
piece firing explosive shells to hit a unit that it
can't see.  Then you could extrapolate the
indirect-fire-hit-chance table into a system of
hitting other units within a hex, something I believe
would be better suited and allow for more dynamic
simulation of hits to stacked units than the current
system.




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail