From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32707 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2004 15:14:43 -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 32688 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 15:14:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 15:14:35 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7IF9QP6002197; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:09:27 -0400 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:11:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E726470045; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:28:00 -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: 18 Aug 2004 15:11:51.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[B065F7D0:01C48535] 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/msg00952.txt.bz2 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