From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25617 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2004 16:05:12 -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 25606 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2004 16:05:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2004 16:05:10 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7JFxoP6002943; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:59:50 -0400 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:02:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C2870011; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:46:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Elijah Meeks Cc: Hans Ronne , Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) In-Reply-To: <20040818211030.85504.qmail@web13121.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2004 16:02:15.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[E53AA200:01C48605] X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0006 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00962.txt.bz2 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