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

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

Hans Ronne wrote:

>> How is attacking a ghost unit any different than a miss?
> 
> Because we are dealing with a failed task here, not a failed action. We
> never get to the point where we attack the ghost unit. 

I disagree. There is (or should be) an attempted attack carried out on 
the ghost unit. As near as I can tell, an attempted attack could be 
framed in terms of an action (which may, in turn, invoke other actions).

> OK, then we agree on that point. That does, however, rule out the acp
> penalizing scheme as a possible solution.

Only if you insist on thinking inside the box and are unwilling to 
develop additional machinery. I am suggesting an "attempted attack" 
action or something akin to an action.


> If a unit does carry out an attack which is unsuccessful, yes. But if it
> only gets as far as contemplating an attack (task execution) which never
> happens, 

It is not a matter of "contemplating"; it is a matter of "attempting". 
As I see it, anyway.

>I don't think it should be penalized. Thinking about doing
> something is not the same thing as doing it.

Exactly.

> P.S. I think the real problem here is that real units instead of unit views
> are being checked at a point (task execution), where only unit views should
> be checked, since that is all the AI or the human player should ever know
> about. 

I agree about 90%.

>References to real units should be strictly limited to the action
> code where things do happen. Anything before that is AI code (or interface
> code), and should be treated accordingly.

I agree 100%.

Eric