Reduced Visibility Table?

Reduced Visibility Table?

[Elijah Meeks]

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)?

Also, does anyone know a way to set unit ACP to 0 on
creation?



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>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)?

DEF_UU_TABLE("see-chance", uu_see,
	"chance for a type of unit to see another type at a distance",
	uusee, constuusee, 0, 100, TABHI, TABINT)

DEF_UU_TABLE("see-chance-adjacent", uu_see_adj,
	"chance for a type of unit to see another type in the same cell",
	uuseeadj, constuuseeadj, 0, 100, TABHI, TABINT)

DEF_UU_TABLE("see-chance-at", uu_see_at,
	"chance for a type of unit to see another type in an adjacent cell",
	uuseeat, constuuseeat, 0, 100, TABHI, TABINT)

>Also, does anyone know a way to set unit ACP to 0 on
>creation?

Depends on what you want to achieve. If you want your unit to be unable to
do anything just set acp-per-turn to 0. If you want your unit to be unbound
by acp (e.g. in building) set acp-independent to true.

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Bruno Boettcher]

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?

i would relly like to use the subs to act as spies and make some
commando operations, but since allready a fighter barrage can detect
them, it makes not much sense....

-- 
ciao bboett
==============================================================
bboett@adlp.org
http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Lincoln Peters]

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!


-- 
Lincoln Peters <sampln@sbcglobal.net>

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>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?
>
>i would relly like to use the subs to act as spies and make some
>commando operations, but since allready a fighter barrage can detect
>them, it makes not much sense....

True. If you fire into the dark you may hit enemy units that are sitting
out there, even if you cannot see them. Which makes sense. If we were to
make invisible units invulnerable as well, they would become way too
powerful.

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Stan Shebs]

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

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>>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.

Actually, this raises a philosophical question. Should a ZOC be ignored
just because the unit is invisible? I'm not sure. Think about a black hole
making its presence felt way before it is seen. Or infantry hidden in the
woods preventing you from moving forward.

A related problem is posed by the user area layer that is used by the
advanced unit code. You may find that you are unable to use a certain cell
because another advanced unit is using it, even though the latter unit is
invisible to you.

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Lincoln Peters]

My two cents follows:

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 15:42, Hans Ronne wrote:
> >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.
> 
> Actually, this raises a philosophical question. Should a ZOC be ignored
> just because the unit is invisible? I'm not sure. Think about a black hole
> making its presence felt way before it is seen. Or infantry hidden in the
> woods preventing you from moving forward.

That should probably be left to the game designer.  In the case of
infantry hidden in the woods, the units entering the cell would know
that something is out there simply because it would be shooting at
them.  However, in the case of an unseen stealth bomber, it seems
reasonable that no presence should be felt, and only the stealth bomber
(assuming it can see whatever is entering its cell) could initiate
combat.

> 
> A related problem is posed by the user area layer that is used by the
> advanced unit code. You may find that you are unable to use a certain cell
> because another advanced unit is using it, even though the latter unit is
> invisible to you.

You might not be able to see the unit that is using the cell, but
shouldn't you be able to see that the cell is used and act accordingly? 
There would have to be *something* tangible there in order for the other
unit to use the cell.

-- 
Lincoln Peters <sampln@sbcglobal.net>

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>> A related problem is posed by the user area layer that is used by the
>> advanced unit code. You may find that you are unable to use a certain cell
>> because another advanced unit is using it, even though the latter unit is
>> invisible to you.
>
>You might not be able to see the unit that is using the cell, but
>shouldn't you be able to see that the cell is used and act accordingly?
>There would have to be *something* tangible there in order for the other
>unit to use the cell.

That was exactly my point. In the tcltk interface, it is only your
inability to pick a certain cell that tells you somebody else is using it.
In the mac interface, the small map in the advanced unit popup (similar to
the city map in civilization) has a colored square on cells that are used
by enemy units.

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Elijah Meeks]

Thanks for those tables, that's exactly what I'm
looking for.  As to ACP, I guess I wasn't clear, I'm
wondering if there's a way so that a newly created
unit has -1 ACP (Like a unit you've placed using the
designer), rather than starting with full ACP.  

--- Hans Ronne <hronne@comhem.se> 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)?
> 
> DEF_UU_TABLE("see-chance", uu_see,
> 	"chance for a type of unit to see another type at a
> distance",
> 	uusee, constuusee, 0, 100, TABHI, TABINT)
> 
> DEF_UU_TABLE("see-chance-adjacent", uu_see_adj,
> 	"chance for a type of unit to see another type in
> the same cell",
> 	uuseeadj, constuuseeadj, 0, 100, TABHI, TABINT)
> 
> DEF_UU_TABLE("see-chance-at", uu_see_at,
> 	"chance for a type of unit to see another type in
> an adjacent cell",
> 	uuseeat, constuuseeat, 0, 100, TABHI, TABINT)
> 
> >Also, does anyone know a way to set unit ACP to 0
> on
> >creation?
> 
> Depends on what you want to achieve. If you want
> your unit to be unable to
> do anything just set acp-per-turn to 0. If you want
> your unit to be unbound
> by acp (e.g. in building) set acp-independent to
> true.
> 
> Hans
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>Thanks for those tables, that's exactly what I'm
>looking for.  As to ACP, I guess I wasn't clear, I'm
>wondering if there's a way so that a newly created
>unit has -1 ACP (Like a unit you've placed using the
>designer), rather than starting with full ACP.

No. make_unit_complete calls compute_acp which is the same code that
recomputes the ACPs at the start of each turn. So there is no way to make
the unit wait until next turn before it gets its ACPs, if that is what you
want.

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Eric McDonald]

Hello,

On 1 Dec 2003, Lincoln Peters wrote:

> > enemy units in the same cell?
> 
> You can make any unit exert zero ZOC (Zone of Control). 

I thought it was -1 to make a unit exert only ZOC over itself, and 
0 to make it exert over its cell. I use -1 ZOC in Bellum to create 
the very effect Elijah is asking about.

> 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!

And I have seen cases where an undiscovered unit that could 
normally be attacked by the unit trying to enter its ZOC instead 
simply blocks the entering unit rather than starting combat with 
it. I think this is a bug, and it is on my list of things to do.

Eric

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Eric McDonald]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Eric McDonald wrote:

> the very effect Elijah is asking about.

Ooops, I meant Bruno. It's been a _lonnng_ day at work.

Eric

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Eric McDonald]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Stan Shebs wrote:

> 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.

As long as we have Stan's attention :-) and we are talking about 
plan and task code, I do recall Hans seeking comment on the 
rationale for broadcasting tasks in the network code. Also, while 
we're on the subject, why is there some entanglement between what 
I believe Peter referred to as "referee code" and "AI code"?

Eric

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Bruno Boettcher]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:26:02AM +0100, Hans Ronne wrote:
> >since reading this.... is there a way to let those units coexist with
> >enemy units in the same cell?
> >
> >i would relly like to use the subs to act as spies and make some
> >commando operations, but since allready a fighter barrage can detect
> >them, it makes not much sense....
> 
> True. If you fire into the dark you may hit enemy units that are sitting
> out there, even if you cannot see them. Which makes sense. If we were to
> make invisible units invulnerable as well, they would become way too
> powerful.
ah but i don't mean to make them invulnerable! i mean certain classes of
ships have higher probabilities to detect those units, and i am not
against the fact that the units are hit by some chance when someone
fires into their cell, but i don't want them to be attacked automaticly
and thu detcted when an enemy unit enters that cell, that makes it way
to easy to detect them....

often i see this: my fighter barrage can't enter a cell? send some more
figthers there and ooops! ther the sub was and appears.... not the thing
i thought about...

-- 
ciao bboett
==============================================================
bboett@adlp.org
http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Emmanuel Fritsch]

Bruno Boettcher a écrit :
> 

> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:26:02AM +0100, Hans Ronne wrote:
> > >since reading this.... is there a way to let those units coexist with
> > >enemy units in the same cell?
> > >
> > >i would relly like to use the subs to act as spies and make some
> > >commando operations, but since allready a fighter barrage can detect
> > >them, it makes not much sense....
> >
> > True. If you fire into the dark you may hit enemy units that are sitting
> > out there, even if you cannot see them. Which makes sense. If we were to
> > make invisible units invulnerable as well, they would become way too
> > powerful.

It is not invisible and invulnerable against all unit type, but again 
some kinds of units. For instance subs may not hit fighter, and may 
not be seen by fighter. Or Satellite may see ground units, but no 
hit may be possible from one to another, and the cell containing 
a satellite (even hostile) should allways be free for ground units. 

Or another example : aircraft should be able to jump over a line of 
small guerilla in order to bomb further. When I played xconq, bombers 
needed to destroy the first units to grab a hole in ground lines, as 
if ground units were ten thousand kilometer high.

The impossibility to jump over a continuous line of defender was 
a great limit of xconq, for at least all modern games where aerial 
and submarine operation are designed. Is it possible to solve this 
difficulty ? 

a+
  manu

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>And I have seen cases where an undiscovered unit that could
>normally be attacked by the unit trying to enter its ZOC instead
>simply blocks the entering unit rather than starting combat with
>it. I think this is a bug, and it is on my list of things to do.

That's a bug for sure. What were the circumstances? Did it involve connections?

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Hans Ronne]

>It is not invisible and invulnerable against all unit type, but again
>some kinds of units. For instance subs may not hit fighter, and may
>not be seen by fighter. Or Satellite may see ground units, but no
>hit may be possible from one to another, and the cell containing
>a satellite (even hostile) should allways be free for ground units.

This you can do with the tables in my first reply to Elijah.

>Or another example : aircraft should be able to jump over a line of
>small guerilla in order to bomb further. When I played xconq, bombers
>needed to destroy the first units to grab a hole in ground lines, as
>if ground units were ten thousand kilometer high.
>
>The impossibility to jump over a continuous line of defender was
>a great limit of xconq, for at least all modern games where aerial
>and submarine operation are designed. Is it possible to solve this
>difficulty ?

There is usually dedicated space for aircraft etc. in each cell, so this
should not be a problem. It could be a ZOC problem, however. It is also
possible that your unit is trying and failing to capture the invisible
unit. When you click in an adjacent cell, this is what the current unit
tries to do (the order is important):

1. capture any enemy unit present.
2. overrun the cell (move + attack) if an enemy unit is present.
3. attack any enemy unit present.
4. fire at any enemy unit present.
5. detonate itself in the adjacent cell.
6. extract materials from the adjacent cell.
7. if all of the above is impossible, move into the cell.

(see advance_into_cell in ui.c)

An enemy unit with a small but non-zero capture chance will therefore block
all other actions including a simple move into the cell. This is true even
if the enemy unit is invisible, since the code looks at real units rather
than unit images.

The above list of priorities is also the reason why you have to disable
capture and direct attack if you want units that can fire to do so at point
blank, and not just from a distance.

One way to check if you are blocked by attempts to capture is to do an
explicit move action instead, by chosing Move To from the Play menu. If the
unit can at all move into the cell it will do that rather than trying to
capture etc.

Hans

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Eric McDonald]

Hi Bruno, others,

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Bruno Boettcher wrote:

> often i see this: my fighter barrage can't enter a cell? send some more
> figthers there and ooops! ther the sub was and appears.... not the thing
> i thought about...

I think you are describing the same bug that I mentioned earlier.
Sometimes, attempted entry into a blocking ZOC does not trigger an 
attack when it should.

Eric

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Eric McDonald]

Hi Hans,

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Hans Ronne wrote:

> >And I have seen cases where an undiscovered unit that could
> >normally be attacked by the unit trying to enter its ZOC instead
> >simply blocks the entering unit rather than starting combat with
> >it. I think this is a bug, and it is on my list of things to do.
> 
> That's a bug for sure. What were the circumstances? Did it 
>involve connections?

The circumstances are the ones that I mentioned to you sometime 
ago. An enemy Armor (undiscovered) on a road passing through a 
forest. One of my Fighters attempts to enter the cell occupied by 
the Armor; the Armor remains undiscovered and the Fighters do not 
attack it; instead I am told "Cannot enter blocking ZOC!" or 
something like that. Attempt to enter the cell from another 
direction with same Fighters, and, bingo, they attack the Armor. I 
saw other instances of this occuring, but this is the one that I 
clearly remember, since it is the one I mentioned to you 
[several?] months ago. I have not seen it in Bellum now that many 
unit ZOC's are set to -1 (as opposed to the default 0), but I 
have not played much Bellum by hand since making those changes 
either....

 Regards,
   Eric

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Lincoln Peters]

Could there have been more than one unit in that cell?  I've run into
that occasionally, but only when two or more enemy units are present in
a cell and I am only aware of the presence of one of them.  It's because
when the UI tries to figure out what you want to do, it sees multiple
small unit images when you see only one, and so you could easily click
on a part of the cell that, if you could see all of the units in it, you
would know to be empty (not filled by the several small unit images),
but looks occupied because you only see one unit (with a single large
image).

I would agree that it's a bug; the action the unit takes should be based
on what you see when you click on a cell, not necessarily what is
actually there.


Did anything I just said make any sense?

On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 18:22, Eric McDonald wrote:
> The circumstances are the ones that I mentioned to you sometime 
> ago. An enemy Armor (undiscovered) on a road passing through a 
> forest. One of my Fighters attempts to enter the cell occupied by 
> the Armor; the Armor remains undiscovered and the Fighters do not 
> attack it; instead I am told "Cannot enter blocking ZOC!" or 
> something like that. Attempt to enter the cell from another 
> direction with same Fighters, and, bingo, they attack the Armor. I 
> saw other instances of this occuring, but this is the one that I 
> clearly remember, since it is the one I mentioned to you 
> [several?] months ago. I have not seen it in Bellum now that many 
> unit ZOC's are set to -1 (as opposed to the default 0), but I 
> have not played much Bellum by hand since making those changes 
> either....
> 
>  Regards,
>    Eric
-- 
Lincoln Peters <sampln@sbcglobal.net>

Re: Reduced Visibility Table?

[Eric McDonald]

Hi Lincoln,

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Lincoln Peters wrote:

> Could there have been more than one unit in that cell?  

I checked for that by thoroughly scouring the hex and its vicinity 
with land units and air units following the obliteration of the 
enemy Armor. So I think the chances are low, though not 
impossible. Anyway, it would still be a bug because any other unit 
that could have possibly been in that cell would also have been 
vulnerable to the Fighters and hence should have been attacked....

>I've run into
> that occasionally, but only when two or more enemy units are present in
> a cell and I am only aware of the presence of one of them.

Yes, I have too. It can make firing into a cell a total PITA.

>  It's because
> when the UI tries to figure out what you want to do, it sees multiple
> small unit images when you see only one, 

Right. I believe that the xform_unit code in kernel/ui.c is 
partially responsible for this, or at least that's what I got from
looking at it when I was fixing a bug last week.

> I would agree that it's a bug; the action the unit takes should be based
> on what you see when you click on a cell, not necessarily what is
> actually there.
> 
> Did anything I just said make any sense?

Completely. Like I said, I have seen this behavior too. But I 
believe it to be a separate issue.

Eric