From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11502 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2004 21:53:00 -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 11493 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2004 21:52:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2004 21:52:59 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7GLltP6020670; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:47:55 -0400 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:50:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B725870045; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:14:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Hans Ronne Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2004 21:50:18.0129 (UTC) FILETIME=[052F7810:01C483DB] X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00902.txt.bz2 On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote: > Now the ball returns to the AI, who should find something else for our unit > to do. However, the AI still sees the same unit view and doesn't know that > the task failed, so it sets the same hit_unit task again. If the action check failed because the unit view doesn't not correspond to an actual unit at the given position, then the task logic should make a callback to the AI or UI to remove the unit view, IMO. This would break the cycle. However, the unit should be penalized (in terms of ACP, material expenditure, etc...) for attempting the action on a "ghost" unit. I believe I have mentioned this before, either in private email or on the list. In that case, what motivated me to mention it was the fire-at-ghost-unit / fire-into cell case. I believe this was shortly after I made a fix so that one could not probe from cell to cell using the fire command to discover where hidden enemy units were. I will reply in greater detail to some of your other thoughts after I get home tonight. There is a lot to carefully examine.... Eric