From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28506 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2004 23:37:25 -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 28494 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2004 23:37:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net) (81.228.8.110) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2004 23:37:24 -0000 Received: by av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4DF9937E43; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.177]) by av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C2637E42; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C5637E42; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:37:23 +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: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:42:00 -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/msg00967.txt.bz2 >Bullshit. And you know it. The argument about units "u1" and "u2" >pertained to _your_ scheme and not mine. Please stop twisting >things. Frankly, Eric, it seemed to me that you were doing that, by changing the subject to fire-at in the middle of our discussion. But perhaps this was a misunderstanding? Let's recapitulate: 1. You proposed a scheme for how to model hits against stacked unit in fire-into (not fire-at). I am referring to the section of your email 2 days ago that started "Let me clarify and expand upon what I think should happen wrt 'fire-into'". The scheme you proposed for distributing hits in fire-into is based on unit sizes and the total terrain area. 2. I pointed out a problem with this scheme, namely that it introduces the sizes of other units into the hit-chance calculations for a given unit. This is undesirable both for reasons of principle (hit chances against one unit should not depend on other units or their sizes) and practical reasons (it makes the calculations more complicated). I suggested that a better way to model random hits against a stack of units is to treat them as statistically independent objects and roll a dice for each one of them. I did not at that time discuss how to strike a proper balance between hit chances in fire-at (targeted shots) and fire-into (random shots) or between invisible and visible targets. I did discuss this elsewhere, in my reply to Elijah. The reason was that I focused on the issue at hand, namely how to best model hits against a stack of units subject to random fire (fire-into). 3. After pondering my comments, you claim that this way of modeling hits in fire-into is flawed because the basal hit-chance against a unit would be the same as in fire-at (your example with u1 and u2). You make a big deal of this, and the inference is that your scheme would not suffer from similar problems. This argument is incorrect for several reasons. First, I did not state that the basal hit-chances in fire-into and fire-at (or against invisible and visible units) should always be the same. That's your assumption, not mine. Second, these matters are irrelevant to the discussion we had, which was about how to model random hits against a stack of units. Third, as far as I understand, your area-subdivision scheme does not address these problems either, unless modified by further assumptions not described in your original proposal. I stand by my criticism of your scheme, but please do not take it personally. If I critisize an idea it is not to put somebody down, but to initiate a constructive discussion. And I do think we had that in this case, right until we got side-tracked into fire-at. We have always been able discuss technical matters on this list without getting emotional. Let's keep it that way. And perhaps move on to a different subject. Hans