This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Xconq project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
How is attacking a ghost unit any different than a miss?
Because we are dealing with a failed task here, not a failed action. We
never get to the point where we attack the ghost unit.
OK, then we agree on that point. That does, however, rule out the acp penalizing scheme as a possible solution.
If a unit does carry out an attack which is unsuccessful, yes. But if it
only gets as far as contemplating an attack (task execution) which never
happens,
I don't think it should be penalized. Thinking about doing something is not the same thing as doing it.
P.S. I think the real problem here is that real units instead of unit views
are being checked at a point (task execution), where only unit views should
be checked, since that is all the AI or the human player should ever know
about.
References to real units should be strictly limited to the action code where things do happen. Anything before that is AI code (or interface code), and should be treated accordingly.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |