From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18265 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 02:52:45 -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 18256 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 02:52:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 02:52:43 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20040817025243011004r97ie>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:52:43 +0000 Message-ID: <412172EE.9010102@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:53:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Ronne CC: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00914.txt.bz2 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