From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20650 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2004 21:10:33 -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 20633 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 21:10:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web13121.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.174.83) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 21:10:31 -0000 Message-ID: <20040818211030.85504.qmail@web13121.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.178.104.147] by web13121.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:10:30 PDT Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:37:00 -0000 From: Elijah Meeks Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) To: Eric McDonald , Hans Ronne Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00954.txt.bz2 > 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