From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3803 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2004 12:46:20 -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 3794 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2004 12:46:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net) (81.228.10.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2004 12:46:16 -0000 Received: by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6257B37E44; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:46:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp4-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp4-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.180]) by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF7737E42; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:46:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp4-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82F837E42; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:46:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:09:00 -0000 To: Eric McDonald From: Hans Ronne Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00958.txt.bz2 >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