From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5089 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2004 19:43:43 -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 5082 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2004 19:43:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net) (81.228.10.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2004 19:43:42 -0000 Received: by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id E4F6137E4B; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.181]) by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24E937E42; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF6637E46; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:43:40 +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 20:09:00 -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/msg00965.txt.bz2 >> 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? > >Right. And they should. OK. So your scheme doesn't distinguish between visible and invisible units. That makes your whole argument about units "u1" and "u2", which was based on one of them being visible and the other invisible, irrelevant to the issue at hand (how to best model hits against stacked units). The problem with visible and invisible units having the same hit-chance is something that we will have to fix regardless of what model we use for the fire-into action. It could all be handled by tables, as already discussed. And the same is true for the efficiency of targeted vs. untargeted attacks. We should not make things more complicated than they have to be by introducing other units and their sizes into the hit-chance calculations for a given unit. >>The key point is that targets of a random process (fire into a >> cell) should be treated as statistically independent objects. > >Right. I don't think we disagree on that point. Good. Let's forget about bringing the sizes of other units into the hit-chance calculations, then. Hans