public inbox for xconq7@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
To: Hans Ronne <hronne@comhem.se>
Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:14:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408171616520.31852-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <l03130303bd480ba4ce13@[212.181.162.155]>

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:

> >> >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.
> >>
> >>not a
> >> fire-at action against the unseen unit (which would be impossible by
> >> definition). So the hit chance should really be the same regardless of
> >> where the unit is located in the cell.
> >
> >Only if the other units are seen and we are treating 'fire-into'
> >as chosing a random target from among the unit views. In the case
> >where the other units are not seen, then this makes no sense.
> >Unseen units should be very difficult to hit (unless they have a
> >very large target cross-section relative to the size of the cell).
> 
>But this small chance would still be the same regardless of where
> the unseen unit is in the cell. 

Well, no kidding. I am not sure how the position of an unseen unit 
in a cell found its way into the this discussion. The only time 
the "position" of an unseen unit in a cell matters is if we roll 
the dice and the unseen unit is determined to be in the position 
where the ghost unit was at, in the event of a 'fire-at' at the 
ghost unit. In the case of a 'fire-into' (here meaning a random 
barrage into a cell), the position of the unseen unit is totally 
irrelevant.

>You seemed to argue above that we would be
> "directly aiming at the subsitute unit", but this is not possible if it is
> invisible.

Maybe the choice of wording made the meaning unclear. What I was 
saying that, if you see unit X and aim directly at it, then the 
chance of hitting it is determined by 'hit-chance' or 
'fire-hit-chance'. If you think you see unit Y, aim directly at 
it, but unit Y turns out to be a ghost and unit X happens to be 
in the same cell, then the chance of unit X being considered to be 
in the position of unit Y is really quite small in most cases, and 
thus unit X should not be hit with the same chance from the 
barrage intended for unit Y. Clearer or muddier?

Eric

      reply	other threads:[~2004-08-17 20:38 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
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 [this message]

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.4.44.0408171616520.31852-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu \
    --to=mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu \
    --cc=hronne@comhem.se \
    --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).