From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17642 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 23:32:28 -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 17573 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 23:32:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 23:32:26 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB1NWQnc004369 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:32:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:32:25 -0800 Received: from apple.com ([17.112.74.134]) by scv1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB1NVoww008590; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:31:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FCBCF93.7070406@apple.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:43:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lincoln Peters CC: bboett@adlp.org, Xconq list Subject: Re: Reduced Visibility Table? References: <20031201221425.20869.qmail@web13123.mail.yahoo.com> <20031201231823.GH1378@adlp.org> <1070321096.9357.140.camel@odysseus> In-Reply-To: <1070321096.9357.140.camel@odysseus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00938.txt.bz2 Lincoln Peters wrote: >On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 15:18, Bruno Boettcher wrote: > >>On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:14:25PM -0800, Elijah Meeks wrote: >> >>>Is there a way to make units less visible--submarines >>>and spies, for example, that could only be seen by >>>adjacent units (Even if the other unit has a visual >>>range higher than 1)? >>> >>since reading this.... is there a way to let those units coexist with >>enemy units in the same cell? >> > >You can make any unit exert zero ZOC (Zone of Control). However, the >last time I looked at games that used this (which was before the new >pathfinding algorithm was introduced), units still tried to go around >invisible enemy units with no ZOC, even though they could not >theoretically see those enemy units! > Heh, it's very messy coding to have a unit be there and not there at the same time. AI, UI, plan, and task code should only ever iterate over the stack of images, never over the real units. Action prep sometimes needs to know, sometimes not, which is part of the messiness. Stan