Known Bugs

[Fyron]

*urgently bumps post*

[Captain Kwok]

Am I detecting a sense of humour here?

[Wolfman77]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41. When using a robo miner (or one of the other two robo units) in a field or planet with a rating of 250% to 300% the field will drop to 249% on the next turn. It also appears you only receive resources as if it were 250% and no more.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is not a bug IIRC. This is simply the standard value decrease of a planet/field when you remote mine it, no matter what the amount you get from it. It always drops by 1% each turn.

I believe Planets are set with a max value of 250% in the setting text. I could be missing some of the details you mentioned but I'm assuming it was a planet created from an asteroid field. I noticed that if the asteroids are over 250% the new planet will have matching stats until mined or has resource facilities built on it. Then it drops to 250%. Minus 1% if you are mining it, leaves 249%. If you were to change the max planet value to 300% they wouldn't do this, but then value improvment plants would improve planets to 300%. Also destroying the planet before mining it should keep it to just the normal 1% per turn, if you don't want or can't use the planet.

[Fyron]

I expect that asteroids with a value of 278% that I create a planet from or mine with robo miners will have a value of 278%. Remote mining an asteroid has absolutely nothing to do with with max planet values, but with max asteroid values. Enforcing the max planetary value on created planets is one thing; enforcing it on objects that are in no way planets is another matter entirely. It violates this logically expected behavior, thus it is a bug. Or at the very least, it is a poorly coded algorithm that needs to be revamped, which is similar to a bug.

[Q]

Completed AI counter intel projects will act as offensive intel against the targeted empire (AI counter intel projects are targeted, which is impossible for human players to do) and deplete the counter intel of the attacked empire.

[Slaughtermeyer]

When playing simultaneous games against humans, if you give an attack order against a specific ship and the other player changes the name of the ship that same turn, the attack order will not be executed.

[Slick]

Slaughtermeyer said:
When playing simultaneous games against humans, if you give an attack order against a specific ship and the other player changes the name of the ship that same turn, the attack order will not be executed.

Interesting. Looks like a minesweeping attack base ship can go anywhere without being attacked so long as its name is changed each turn and it doesn't accidentally move into a sector with an enemy ship/fleet...

This one looks kinda bad. I guess it's too cumbersome to rename lots of ships each turn, but still...

[Alneyan]

And can you say "Stellar Manipulation vessels that cannot be caught up, including Star Destroyers"? I know I could have used a trick like that to save several SM ships from certain destruction...

[douglas]

IIRC from the time I took 3 homeworlds by demanding tribute, none of the AI's sent back acceptance messages - their responses were all original gift/tribute proposals that just happened to include what I had demanded, and I had to send back my acceptance before getting them. None of my demands included "Any" items, so no counter proposal should have been necessary.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I have demanded surrender and got it. Not sure if it was with the latest patch.