Known Bugs

[Fyron]

How about:

32. Successful intelligence projects with specified targets (not with random targets) are neither automatically removed from the queue nor adjusted to a new target if repeat projects is selected. Points will continually be wasted on these invalid projects. This is most notable when the target is destroyed or otherwise no longer under control of the target empire as a result of the project.

[Slick]

I think that's a lot better; at least it's clearer. It is true that points will be wasted on the invalid project. To me, a player should use the event log and take appropriate actions for each entry. If he knows he has "repeat projects" selected, he should manually remove the project after he reads the log entry about the successful intel project. If he didn't remove the project once it succeeded, the next turn he will get a "failed" log entry for that project and that should key the player to remove the successful project from the queue. As far as the AI selecting a new valid target, that's probably better than wasting points on a dead project, but the AI is not known for his wise choices...

[Slick]

Another "not-really-a-bug-but-annoying" bug is that ship ID number affects many aspects of the game, some of them are a little screwy. Specifically Douglas performed some testing and found that Ship ID affects the order in which ships are repaired and some other aspects of the game.

Douglas also found some wierd ways that some Stellar Manipulation actions can be performed in simultaneous movement - and they possibly could be used as an exploit.

To read the actual discussion:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...&fpart=14&vc=1

[Spoo]

29. is a copy of 8.
31. is a copy of 15.

Add: Black holes can be created in a sector without a star (simultaneous game). The order to "create black hole" must be given at a star, but if your first order the ship to move, it will be able to create the black hole in a sector without a star. The star that the order was issued at will dissapear, but will not affect anything else in its system.

EDIT: Slick beat me to it.

[douglas]

Imperator Fyron said:
How about:

32. Successful intelligence projects with specified targets (not with random targets) are neither automatically removed from the queue nor adjusted to a new target if repeat projects is selected. Points will continually be wasted on these invalid projects. This is most notable when the target is destroyed or otherwise no longer under control of the target empire as a result of the project.

If the target is destroyed, by a ship bomb project for example, the project is automatically retargeted on a seemingly random basis (probably related to ship ID, but I'm not going to bother testing it). This could be a minor exploit in that it allows a player to have a specifically targeted project with a target he may never have been able to select otherwise.

[Slick]

I'm not sure if this can be reproduced; haven't tried:

Simultaneous turns.

I had no treaty with empire A; i.e. a treaty of "none".

In my turn log, empire A proposed a treaty, a Trade Alliance.

All in the same turn, I accept the Trade Alliance treaty, look at the "Empires" screen and verify that we now have a Trade Alliance and see the "message sent" for accepting the TA treaty, I then was allowed propose a Trade & Research Alliance, again I "sent" the message although one had already been sent this turn, I checked the "empire" screen again and now we had a Trade & Research Alliance.

This effectively let me change the treaty that was was proposed and then accept it all in one turn. This should not have happened. It should have taken another 2 turns to propose, then empire A accept the T&R Alliance.

[douglas]

Neural Combat Nets don't work. It's not just a display bug, either. I had two identical ships each with neural combat nets, one with 0% experience and the other with 50% experience, fight one very heavily shielded dreadnought. Almost all shooting happened at point blank range, where the base chance to hit in my test game was 25%. The hit rates for the two ships over the many combat turns required to bring down the dreadnoughts shields were well within reasonable random error of 25% for one and 75% for the other. I tested this in both sequential and simultaneous movement, using tactical combat for sequential movement.

[Fyron]

Were the ships in a fleet together for at least one turn before they went into combat?

[douglas]

Yes. Just in case the experience of the fleet imposes a limit, I trained the fleet and did it again. Once again, I got hit rates I would expect if the neural combat net didn't exist.

[CovertJaguar]

That's not cool.