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

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

Hans Ronne wrote:


>>We would then lose the ability to do selective attacks into a cell. 
> 
> If you mean the ability to pick what unit to attack first within a single
> cell, true. That is the price we have to pay. 

And it is a very hefty price for games in which players might rely on 
guerilla tactics against specific types of units, commando strikes 
against specific targets, etc....

What I also meant is that it sounded to me that you were suggesting the 
use of overrun, which would imply engaging _all_ units (or, as many as 
the attacker had ammo and ACP for) in the cell, would it not?

>I've given it some thought,
> but I don't think it is a big problem in any existing game. Units that you
> really would like to hit with a high priority, like cities, frequently
> occupy an entire cell. 

True, but this is not always the case. With what you are proposing, I 
could always escort tankers with destroyers, and ruin a sub's day 
because it would be unable to target the tanker. Not good.

>And you could always argue that it should be the
> defending side's privilege to decide what unit to send forward when a cell
> is attacked. 

In some cases. In other cases, as alluded to above, it most definitely 
is not (when an unit is being individually attacked).

>In effect, this kind of scheme might partially compensate for
> the AIs rather poor ability to defend key units.

Perhaps. But at what price?

> But it is
> still easier to find good interface solutions for two actions instead of
> four, which was my point.

This is true. But, I wouldn't consider it a selling point for what you 
propose.

> I'm not arguing that the multiple rounds of attack in combat model 1 should
> apply in model 0.

I know, but you were arguing that an overrun rather than an individual 
attack should always be used. That is what I am taking issue with.

>>>The third possibility is to always pick the best defender, on the theory
>>>that this is the unit that the defending side would send forward to meet
>>>the enemy.
>>
>>This could turn out to be a complicated calculation
> 
> Well complicated or not, the code is already there. See model_1_attack. 
>The
> question is rather how to improve it. But even a simple solution such as
> picking the unit with the highest defense value is far better (from the
> defender's point of view) than a random pick. And in fact we have an
> advantage in that the type of attacking unit is known at this point, which
> makes any calculation much simpler.

Model 1 uses attack and defense values, but model 0 has much more to 
consider, such as range, hit chance, protection, damage, minimum HP 
against a given unit type, etc....

At this point I would suggest that a 'defense-order' unit property might 
be called for. That way we can let 'stack-order' pertain to unit views 
as was intended. And this also gives the advantage that the game 
designer can rank for himself/herself what units defend first rather 
than trying to fight with a calculation.

And, I think that 'defense-order' should only apply in conjunction with 
units than cannot do selective attacks. I do think, as I have already 
argued, that the ability to do selective attacks should be kept though.

> I think spread damage could be easily implemented, perhaps as some kind of
> detonation-on-hit action. 

I would agree that it should be fairly easy. I have been holding back on 
doing it until I take care of the combat code modularization, but 
depending on how far I get with Wreckreation development, I may be 
tempted to implement it before then.

Eric