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

[Hans Ronne <hronne@comhem.se>]

>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.

The problem of visible and invisible units currently having the same
hit-chance, which you used as an example, is indeed important, as is the
question of whether targeted attacks should have an inherently higher
hit-chance. See my reply to Elijah for some comments. I fail to see how
your area-subdivision scheme would address this, however. Presumably
visible and invisible units would still have the same size in the terrain?

My basic objection to this scheme is that it introduces other units in the
cell (and their sizes) into the hit-chance calculation for a given unit. I
did my best to explain what the problem is, as I see it, and have little to
add to that. The key point is that targets of a random process (fire into a
cell) should be treated as statistically independent objects. Otherwise, we
will open the door for all sorts of weird interactions.

Hans