From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18610 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 04:42:29 -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 18464 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 04:42:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net) (81.228.8.110) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 04:42:25 -0000 Received: by av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 456E237E47; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:42:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.178]) by av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D1937E42; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:42:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp2-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3578637E42; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:42:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <412172EE.9010102@phy.cmich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:48:00 -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/msg00919.txt.bz2 >What I also meant is that it sounded to me that you were suggesting the >use of overrun, which would imply engaging _all_ units (or, as many as >the attacker had ammo and ACP for) in the cell, would it not? Not at all. This is how the current overrun code works (at least in model 0), but it is one of the things that I propose to change. One attack with 1 acp and 1 round of ammo should hit one enemy unit, not all of them. >>I've given it some thought, >> but I don't think it is a big problem in any existing game. Units that you >> really would like to hit with a high priority, like cities, frequently >> occupy an entire cell. > >True, but this is not always the case. With what you are proposing, I >could always escort tankers with destroyers, and ruin a sub's day >because it would be unable to target the tanker. Not good. Well, to turn the argument around, naval escorts would for the first time work in Xconq. You would be forced to take on the escort before you could hit the valuable target. You would also for the first time be able to group high-offense and high-defense units together, and know that the former would benefit from the latter's defense. Just as in Civ2, where you would group chariots together with a fortified phalanx, to give one example. My feeling is that it would make most games more fun to play. You would certainly have to give much greater attention to tactical unit deployments than with the current code. However, if you want to have a game where subs primarily hit tankers, there should be ways to achieve that. What would happen if subs only can hit tankers? Should the presence of units that it cannot hit at all block an attack? I don't think so. Interestingly, there was a very similar problem in the first version of Civ2, where putting a bomber on top of a city would make it immune to ground attack. This was of course fixed in the first patch. These are important questions, and how the target selection is done is clearly the key point. Just picking the unit with the highest defense value might be too simplistic, I agree with that. Perhaps the hit-chance against different units should also play a role. >Model 1 uses attack and defense values, but model 0 has much more to >consider, such as range, hit chance, protection, damage, minimum HP >against a given unit type, etc.... This is how model 0 attack originally worked. But it now uses computations (real_attack_value, real_defense_value) that are just as complex as those in model 0. >At this point I would suggest that a 'defense-order' unit property might >be called for. That way we can let 'stack-order' pertain to unit views >as was intended. And this also gives the advantage that the game >designer can rank for himself/herself what units defend first rather >than trying to fight with a calculation. I agree. However, I suspect that this is what the stack order was supposed to be used for, though it was never implemented. The stack order has no practical consequence right now, so we could certainly give it a role in a reworked combat code. My concern with the unit view code was trying to maintain a faithful copy of the stack order for unit views. However, I am not sure if this is necessary or even desirable, which is why I didn't make it a high priority. >And, I think that 'defense-order' should only apply in conjunction with >units than cannot do selective attacks. I do think, as I have already >argued, that the ability to do selective attacks should be kept though. I agree that it would be nice, though getting rid of unit pointers in the AI code would be even nicer. However, I asked myself yesterday: when did I last use a unit-specific attack in a real game, i.e. walk up adjacent to a unit, and then put the cursor on top of it, followed by pressing 'a'. It turned out that I couldn't even remember, which I suspect is fairly typical for the average Xconq player. I know that I tested this functionality a few times when i was debugging the Mac interface, but this is about it. Clicking on a unit is so much easier. Hans