Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)

[Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>]

>> 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