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: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408181057120.3525-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <l03130304bd485c2ec243@[212.181.162.155]>
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
> >But, this is where we differ, I think. The shell has to land somewhere,
> >and it is possible that _no_ unit sits where it lands.
>
> Of course. And it is also possible that the target unit is entrenched,
> protected by other units or the terrain,
Protection is already handled by other tables, and doesn't factor
into this argument, I think.
> I do understand the "Unit target area" scheme that you are proposing, or at
> least I think so. You would calculate how much of the total area is
> covered, and then use that to distribute hit-chances between the units and
> the empty area.
That is essentially correct.
> I see random firing of a gun into a terrain area as a statistical process
> in two space dimesions (we need not consider time here). The key aspect of
> this process is that the position of each hit is independent of both
> previous and coming hits. This means that a given unit (or subarea) has a
> fixed probability of being hit with each shot. This probability may depend
> on the unit's size, its protection, the terrain and many other factors. The
> probability may be anything from 0% to 100%.
What I think you are saying is that the 'hit-chance' or
'fire-hit-chance' probabilities apply against the entire space of
the cell and not against the local region that the unit is
located.
> Furthermore, it is important that the dice rolling is done in a random
> order, since we would otherwise favour hits of units at the top of the
> stack, particularly when each unit has a high hit-chance.
Sure. Of course.
> I hope this clarified my views.
Your argument was well made, and for a couple of minutes almost
had me believing that apples were oranges. However, apples are
still not oranges, and here's why:
According to you, if I understand you correctly and I think I
do, the hit chance applies to the unit as it relates
to the space of the entire cell and not to the localized region
("subarea", as you called it) where the unit is located. Now this
means that if I do a 'fire-into' on a cell that has an unseen unit
unit of type "u1", then the probability of hitting it is
determined by its hit chance (and any modifiers to that). So, assuming no
modifiers on the hit chance, and assuming that type "u1" has a 75%
chance of being hit by type "u2", type "u2" being the type which
is firing, then there is 75% that the unseen unit, "u1", will be
hit.
So far, so good. Now, to throw the wrench. Now suppose that "u1"
is seen, and "u2" does a 'fire-at' on "u1". Again, the probability
is 75% that "u1" will be hit. Ooops, no good.
The problem here is that 'fire-at' assumes that the target is
being aimed at and applies the hit chance on this assumption.
Then, you are coming along, and claiming a different
interpretation of the hit chance when it is being used by
'fire-into', where aiming is no longer being considered. We must
be able to differentiate between the two cases.
I see two ways out:
(1) Assume that 'fire-at' has a 100% hit chance and apply any
modifiers to that chance. This is, however, inconsistent with the
way attack works, and makes little sense, IMO.
(2) Use the method I proposed.
Maybe there are others, but these are the two that I see.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-18 15:14 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 [this message]
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
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.4.44.0408181057120.3525-100000@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).