Quote:
Originally Posted by jivemi
Welcome PKH. I'd like to help you out, but I'm not quite sure as to your meaning(s). In the first paragraph, I presume you're talking about a situation in which enemy units have moved up during their turn, and one of your exposed units--that is, in the enemy's line of sight (LOS)--would be slaughtered if it fired at any one of them. The reaction (or "opportunity") fire would be devastating.
|
It's generally an issue where several units on each side have line of sight to each other. In this case it's pointless to shoot on the defensive since every attacker will shoot back at the firing unit. So the game gets very passive, and basically plays itself (when playing the AI). The problem as I see it is that every unit gets reaction shots vs. every other unit. It doesn't feel realistic, and makes defending very passive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivemi
What exactly do you mean by "Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance"?
|
It means exactly what it says. When a unit shoots, enemy units without a target gets a chance to shoot back at it with reaction fire (they will then have a target). Enemy units who already have a target also has a chance to shoot at it (switching targets), but at a reduced chance since they are already engaged with someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivemi
As far as units being more likely to fire at closer targets is concerned, I dunno how that could be arranged.
|
It would be arranged by measuring the distance in hexes at the time the reaction fire was to be resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivemi
And even if a unit IS closer when a particular firing sequence begins, it doesn't always follow that the closer unit is going to fire at all (its suppression might be too high to begin with, or it might be suppressed/damaged/whatever in the first round[s] of fire). So it would be pointless for op-firing units to hold fire in expectation of a better shot at a closer unit, if that unit won't fire anyway during that turn. As you can imagine, there's a whole bunch of variables at work here.
|
This was about reaction fire when a unit does shoot or move. It makes sense to me that a unit is more likely to switch to another target if the new target is closer, and less likely to switch to another that is further away. The way I see it, having a target in this game represents engaging it and also getting the benefits of incremental accuracy increases. It makes little sense logically or realistically to constantly switch targets.