Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Elijah Meeks wrote:

> Now, if I have a unit-view that turns out to no longer
> represent a real unit, then this isn't a mirage, but
> faulty intelligence.  

I think that Stan used the term "mirage" in a somewhat figurative 
sense, and didn't literally mean a mirage. The terms "ghost unit" 
and "mirage" apply to any unit view that doesn't correspond to the 
unit it purports to correspond to (excepting mistaken sightings) 
at the position of the unit view.

> that I think to be there and am firing at indirectly
> (Tanks behind smoke, platoons behind hills or in
> cover, newly cloaked starships, all of which I would
> not fire at directly).

Unfortunately, cells are not subdivided into smaller spatial 
regions in any literal sense. Even the scheme that I am proposing 
treats subregions as virtual and not having any distinct 
coordinates within the cell.

What this leads to is that if you see an unit view in a cell, you 
can attempt direct fire == aimed fire == 'fire-at' at it. If you 
don't see any unit view in the cell, but suspect there might be 
one, then you can attempt indirect fire == 'fire-into' at it. 
Indirect fire against spatial subregions is currently not 
supported and would probably require some additional 
work to add. 

> Likewise, in a fantasy game, if an invisible unit
> attacks me, I'd like to have a unit-view, a la
> Nethack's 'I'.  

Do you know which direction it attacked you from? :-)

> Again, illusory enemies would be better represented by
> units (Hmmm, illusory enemies...  Sounds like I need
> to add more units to Opal...).

:-)

> indirect-hit-chance tables.  This way I could say that
> a unit representing an individual with a bolt action
> rifle would have a worse chance than an artillery
> piece firing explosive shells to hit a unit that it
> can't see.  Then you could extrapolate the
> indirect-fire-hit-chance table into a system of
> hitting other units within a hex, something I believe
> would be better suited and allow for more dynamic
> simulation of hits to stacked units than the current
> system.

If we are saying that precision (as Hans called it) is not 
factored into 'hit-chance' and 'fire-hit-chance' already, then 
this might be something worth considering. Interesting idea....

Eric