This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: The selective fire-at command
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: The selective fire-at command
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
> problems. The fact that nobody discovered that the command doesn't work for
> many years shows that it's a very subtle bug (or a seldomly used command).
I would say the former and not the latter. I have, in fact, used
this command to fire at a single unit so that a mouse click does
not accidentally advance into a cell (when the opponent exerts a
ZOC range of -1, for example).
I have also thought that I was firing at a select unit when more
than one unit was present in a cell before. Of course, I was
obviously under the delusion that my choice of target was being
hit, and did not pay close attention to where the firing lines
where being drawn. Mea culpa, I guess. But, the fact that I
thought I was using something, but was not, does not mean that it
is not useful.
Of course, when an unit with a large image is occupied, then it
obscures the entire cell, and so it is not possible to even click
on the edge of the cell to enter it. (Or this is my recollection
anyway.)
> I found it paradoxical, though, that those who argued that this is a very
> useful command which should be kept at all costs have never been able to
> use it, while I, who do have a selective fire-at command on my Mac don't
> find it particularly useful :-).
The sarcasm was not lost on me. However, I do not think we should
let it detract from the good arguments about the usefulness of the
command and its corresponding action. Nor should we let it derail
the 'fire-into' semantics debate, until that is all straightened
out. Also, as you pointed out, the attack command and
corresponding action did work as advertized, and so it cannot be
claimed that those who advocated it were using it under a
delusion in the way that I was using fire under a delusion.
These are important changes that are being discussed, and it
would be a pity if the arguments were swept under the rug because
someone was cast as a hypocrite of sorts.
Eric