From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
To: Hans Ronne <hronne@comhem.se>
Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>, <xconq7@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:23:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408171350340.31318-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <l0313030abd4789d945b2@[212.181.162.155]>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
> >And of course if the view isn't cleared, the AI (or less-intelligent
> >human player :-) ) could keep shooting over and over at the mirage
> >aka decoy, which is exactly what the crafty Xconq player wants to
> >be able to set up, heh-heh.
>
> Right. The question of when to clear the view is actually quite tricky.
> Should a single failed action do it? I don't think so. But there has got to
> be a point where even a stupid AI realizes that it is shooting at a mirage.
In the case of firing, I think that a percent chance of the
mistake being discovered was suggested. The percentage would take
care of this problem as it would remove the unit view.
> Another thing I thought about is to gradually let a unit view fade away as
> it ages. The views have a dating mechanism, but it is currently not used
> for anything. The corresponding thing for the AI would be to make a unit
> view a less attractive target as it ages.
I like this idea.
> There is also the problem of what should happen if the targeted unit is not
> there, but something else is sitting in the cell instead (not an uncommon
> situation). My feeling is that fire-at should somehow default to fire-into.
Unless the code in the Dec 29 patch is failing, this is what the
Tcl/Tk interface should be doing. However, I do not feel that this
is the correct answer; the only reason I implemented it that
way was because the attempted fire mechanism didn't exist.
> The probability of hitting an unseen unit should not be affected by the
> fact that you think you are shooting at something which is not there.
Why? Surely if you were firing at an individual unit, then the
chance of another just happening to be in its place coupled with
the chance of hitting the substitute unit should be smaller than
the hit chance of directly aiming at the substitute unit.
> I agree that tactical level games would be the most affected ones. As I
> mentioned in a reply to Eric, I think that tactical unit deployment
> (putting a phalanx in the same cell as a chariot to protect it) would
> become much more important than it is now. But this should make most games
> more interesting.
And would ruin an important aspect of others.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-17 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-16 21:53 Hans Ronne
2004-08-16 22:14 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-16 22:43 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 0:33 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 1:13 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 1:39 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 2:21 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 4:28 ` Jim Kingdon
2004-08-17 5:17 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 18:00 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-18 5:26 ` Jim Kingdon
2004-08-18 11:11 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 16:14 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 0:35 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 1:16 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 1:46 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 3:03 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 3:56 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 1:30 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 2:52 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 2:53 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 4:42 ` Jim Kingdon
2004-08-17 16:37 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 4:48 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 16:42 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-18 10:56 ` Jim Kingdon
2004-08-17 11:06 ` Stan Shebs
2004-08-17 15:29 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 16:01 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 18:57 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 20:38 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 21:55 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 23:42 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-18 0:49 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-18 4:59 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-18 15:28 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-19 6:37 ` Elijah Meeks
2004-08-19 12:46 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-19 16:46 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-19 13:09 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-19 16:05 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-19 20:09 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-19 23:37 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-20 1:42 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-20 3:29 ` Clearing the Air (long) Eric McDonald
2004-08-20 15:26 ` Stan Shebs
2004-08-18 5:30 ` Major bug and what to do about it (long) Jim Kingdon
2004-08-18 12:52 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 18:23 ` Eric McDonald [this message]
2004-08-17 18:47 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 18:59 ` Eric McDonald
2004-08-17 19:39 ` Hans Ronne
2004-08-17 21:14 ` Eric McDonald
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44.0408171350340.31318-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu \
--to=mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu \
--cc=hronne@comhem.se \
--cc=shebs@apple.com \
--cc=xconq7@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).