It seems reasonable to me. It always made sense that the listed chance becomes wrong when the target is partially obscured. I had thought it was simpler, however, that a partially obscured target is either always hit or always missed when the hit chance is over 100%. The truth is, I find, more like what it should be.
I have small concern with some trajectory issues, probably bugs. Sometimes the game seems to think a miss trajectory is a hit, or vice versa--like the 6 shots that went just behind the target I mentioned earlier. I don't recall as many hits that should have been misses for two reasons: one, it's hard to tell it really should have been a miss, and two, we're just too willing to accept it when the game works in our favor. But there have been times when I've had a soldier take quite a few shots from the same position, and repeatedly hit when their hit chance was very low and they weren't very close to the target. I've also seen some shots that don't seem to have had a line of fire and will hit anyway, or shots which the soldier claims don't have a line of fire but still hit when they are told to fire anyway. Usually these can be blamed on loftempset bugs or shortcomings, but sometimes I feel really convinced that the system doesn't always distinguish a hitting trajectory or a missing trajectory correctly.
I am curious: do some units have weird hitboxes that can make a hitting shot miss? If so, that's probably a good thing. I would then wonder if a sufficiently high number above 100% accuracy can help guarantee an actual target hit if such a trajectory is available, or is it possible-with some hitboxes-for a higher accuracy to have a lower chance to hit? (Imagine a unit that was a circle, a central hit is a miss.) Ideally we want the first option, not the second.
