From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6136 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2004 10:56:23 -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 6066 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 10:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av15-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net) (81.228.10.101) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 10:56:20 -0000 Received: by av15-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 5ACAF37E45; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:56:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.181]) by av15-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428C137E42; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:56:19 +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 E25DE37E42; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:56:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200408180459.i7I4xBr26570@panix5.panix.com> References: (message from Hans Ronne on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:48:29 +0200) (message from Hans Ronne on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:30:53 +0200) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:11:00 -0000 To: Jim Kingdon From: Hans Ronne Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00949.txt.bz2 >> What happens if you just move around in the ocean without hitting >> 'a'? > >If there is no submarine, then you expend an ACP. > >Whereas hitting "a" where there is no submarine doesn't cost you >anything. Right. >> It would seem more logical to me if it was the other way around, >> that is if direct attacks against invisible units were impossible >> while overrun attacks were possible. > >So "a" would only attack units you can see, but overruns would >possibly attack units you can't see? That sounds logical. That's how I expected things to work, since 'a' supposedly targets a selected and therefore visible unit. Maybe the attack command, too, is buggy in the tcltk interface. >From what you describe, it sounds like it defaults into an "attack-into" command when there is no visible unit to attack, and hits any unit that is present in the cell. This is actually very interesting, since it is similar to what I propose as a general solution for both the attack and fire-at commands. The only difference would be that this current buggy (?) attack-into is not triggered if the cell is empty. Under my scheme, an attack against an empty cell would always spend both ammo and acps, which would make all exploits of this type impossible. Hans