Bombers not firing after dropping a nuke.

[Nova Cygni]

Why do bombers which are returning to base after a nuke run fail to shoot at fleets? As soon as you tell them to go to a spot which isn't a base or carrier (ie a few metres away from their destination) they'll happily start firing away.

This, although correctable in game like the carriers-following-fighters thing, is wrong.

[torig]

Why do bombers which are returning to base after a nuke run fail to shoot at fleets? As soon as you tell them to go to a spot which isn't a base or carrier (ie a few metres away from their destination) they'll happily start firing away.

This, although correctable in game like the carriers-following-fighters thing, is wrong.

The carriers-following-fighters looks a bit more like a bug than the bombers not retargetting.
It keeps you on your toes and makes it so the person who's busy microing more/better will be rewarded
I at least have no issues with that bomber behaviour, none at all.

[Radiant Caligula]

Why do bombers which are returning to base after a nuke run fail to shoot at fleets? As soon as you tell them to go to a spot which isn't a base or carrier (ie a few metres away from their destination) they'll happily start firing away.

This, although correctable in game like the carriers-following-fighters thing, is wrong.

The carriers-following-fighters looks a bit more like a bug than the bombers not retargetting.
It keeps you on your toes and makes it so the person who's busy microing more/better will be rewarded
I at least have no issues with that bomber behaviour, none at all.

Carriers following targeting fighters actually makes sense and is not a bug. However it is quite pointless seen in light of the automated behaviour of combat zone fighters. If we were able to fully controll fighters, carrier behaviour would be logical as it would help us conserve fighters. Now we can only hope for no targets when transfering fighters from bases and between carriers. I hope they fix this in 1.43.

[Nova Cygni]

Carriers following fighters: if it is by design, why don't carriers always follow fighters in their bizarre attempt to save fuel? Instead they only follow fighters when they are targetting something, IE, when the carrier will be under most threat. Ergo, it is a bug.

Bombers not retargetting: yes it may well keep you on your toes, but do you really think that the designers and testers sat around a table and said "I think we should keep people on their toes and make bombers refrain from attack ememies after dropping nukes unless they are not specifically told to go to an airbase"? Of course they didn't, it is a bug.

BTW, these two things are my only complaints about the game - everything else about it I love, it comes as close to perfection for a strategy game as one has ever come and I have only a deep love for the people who made it real

[Radiant Caligula]

Carriers following fighters: if it is by design, why don't carriers always follow fighters in their bizarre attempt to save fuel?

for the very same reason they made the fighters behave the way they do. I don't think (actually I don't know) the fighter behaviour is a bug. But the reason why carriers follow targeted fighters is because that is when they most likely will run out of fuel, due to their active combat radius shortened by engagement. When they fly free, fuel isn't such a pressing issue and no need to follow. Hence it's not a bug.

I think they should change it, but I believe fighters do what they were designed to do...

[Chimaera]

Bombers not retargetting: yes it may well keep you on your toes, but do you really think that the designers and testers sat around a table and said "I think we should keep people on their toes and make bombers refrain from attack ememies after dropping nukes unless they are not specifically told to go to an airbase"? Of course they didn't, it is a bug.

Although this probably wasn't originally part of the design, ambigous 'bugs' such as this should be assumed to be. Unless IV actually say that this is a bug and plan to fix it, we can consider it a 'game feature'. For example, Bunny-hopping wasn't originally intended in Quake, but when the developers saw that this increased the skill required to play the game at a high standard, they left it in.

[Dash_Riprock]

While this is probably a bug, it would make sense if, when you launched a bomber, it had to either have a nuclear payload or a tactical one, and it couldnt change until it landed back on a carrier or airbase.

[Nova Cygni]

While this is probably a bug, it would make sense if, when you launched a bomber, it had to either have a nuclear payload or a tactical one, and it couldnt change until it landed back on a carrier or airbase.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Yes yes yes I know what you mean, but it is still meaningless in terms of Defcon.

When they fly free, fuel isn't such a pressing issue and no need to follow. Hence it's not a bug.

When there is a battle on, fighters die due to being shot, not due to running out of fuel. It is certainly a bug and until I get our beloved deities xander, montyphy, chris et al commenting, it is a bug. The fact that they haven't posted in this thread is surely confirmation that it is a bug.

Bunny-hopping wasn't originally intended in Quake, but when the developers saw that this increased the skill required to play the game at a high standard, they left it in

OK, so making it so that battleships need to be retargeted every time they destroy something, or so that bombers need to be told to go home after dropping a nuke would also increase the "skill level" and should be added? These things would just decrease the purity of the game, which I think is something that it aims for.

These two things (carriers following fighters, bombers not resuming naval combat behaviour) detract from the simplicity and functionality of the game. It is difficult enough, it keeps you on your toes enough, there is no need for exceptions to rules when the game is as pared-down, simplified and skillful as it already is. Imagine a sculptor creating a beautifully formed and perfectly proportioned work of art, with two jagged bumps in it.... surely, the craftsman would want to makes them smooth.

[Chimaera]

While this is probably a bug, it would make sense if, when you launched a bomber, it had to either have a nuclear payload or a tactical one, and it couldnt change until it landed back on a carrier or airbase.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Yes yes yes I know what you mean, but it is still meaningless in terms of Defcon.

When they fly free, fuel isn't such a pressing issue and no need to follow. Hence it's not a bug.

When there is a battle on, fighters die due to being shot, not due to running out of fuel. It is certainly a bug and until I get our beloved deities xander, montyphy, chris et al commenting, it is a bug. The fact that they haven't posted in this thread is surely confirmation that it is a bug.

Bunny-hopping wasn't originally intended in Quake, but when the developers saw that this increased the skill required to play the game at a high standard, they left it in

OK, so making it so that battleships need to be retargeted every time they destroy something, or so that bombers need to be told to go home after dropping a nuke would also increase the "skill level" and should be added? These things would just decrease the purity of the game, which I think is something that it aims for.

These two things detract from the simplicity and functionality of the game. It is difficult enough, it keeps you on your toes enough, there is no need for exceptions to rules when the game is as pared-down, simplified and skillful as it already is. Imagine a sculptor creating a beautifully formed and perfectly proportioned work of art, with two jagged bumps in it.... surely, the craftsman would want to makes them smooth.

xander and montyphy can be considered gods that walk among us, whereas Chris is the Creator. I think that part of the purity of defcon is the lack of automation and ease of use add-ons - ie; no unit grouping, no keyboard hotkeys. There are more serious bugs to sort out before this one - the sailing through land issue, and the whole sailibility issue. To target a problem which can be rectified with a bit of attention and concentration is hardly a 'bug' that needs to urgently be fixed. As far as I see it, if it doesn't affect game balance or aesthetics, then it isn't a bug - noone is going to win/lose a game based upon this issue, if they are fully aware that it exists.

[Nova Cygni]

Besides the inexplicably unfixed Bering Strait and some obscure problem with Australia, there are no problems in 1.43. This problems with fighters and bombers does affect game balance, just because we have learnt to play with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. There are plenty of games which I have played in and are being played right now which are being affected by these two issues; I hardly think you can call these bugs irrelevant to game balance.

[torig]

Besides the inexplicably unfixed Bering Strait and some obscure problem with Australia, there are no problems in 1.43. This problems with fighters and bombers does affect game balance, just because we have learnt to play with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. There are plenty of games which I have played in and are being played right now which are being affected by these two issues; I hardly think you can call these bugs irrelevant to game balance.

I actually like having my bombers return home safely. And only attacking other ships when I do tell them to.

As for someone else mentioning the critical bug of sailable territories and subs getting where they shouldn't.
Get real. One can join a no-spectators game and be abusive in the chat. And there is no way to kick him.
Even with bert's dedicated server, there probably won't be, because as he's not connected, you don't see his IP (so can't block him out) and as he's not 'joined' you cannot kick him.
THAT, my friend, is a critical issue that should get the highest attention.
The subs exploits surely are severe issues, but not as bad as the "unknown" 'player' issue. I agree they are next in the list of bugs that need to be fixed, though

[Chimaera]

As for someone else mentioning the critical bug of sailable territories and subs getting where they shouldn't.
Get real. One can join a no-spectators game and be abusive in the chat. And there is no way to kick him.
Even with bert's dedicated server, there probably won't be, because as he's not connected, you don't see his IP (so can't block him out) and as he's not 'joined' you cannot kick him.
THAT, my friend, is a critical issue that should get the highest attention.
The subs exploits surely are severe issues, but not as bad as the "unknown" 'player' issue. I agree they are next in the list of bugs that need to be fixed, though

Fair enough. I have never experienced this "unknown player" issue.

[Radiant Caligula]

When there is a battle on, fighters die due to being shot, not due to running out of fuel. It is certainly a bug and until I get our beloved deities xander, montyphy, chris et al commenting, it is a bug. The fact that they haven't posted in this thread is surely confirmation that it is a bug.

???????????? + ?. Ok I think you argue for the sake of argument or that you won't compromise your own "infallible" conclusion.

Plenty of fighters survive combat. And if you micro the battle properly you might lose very few fighters. Their engagement reduces their fuel radius, hence they need carrier support if they want to return safely. It makes sense, even in the real world. If a fighter strays and is unable to get back to base on its fuel reserve, the carrier would most certainly rendez-vouz with it if an in-flight refueling option was not available.

If you are not capable of contemplating this, go on - continue calling the fighter/carrier behaviour a bug.

[torig]

As for someone else mentioning the critical bug of sailable territories and subs getting where they shouldn't.
Get real. One can join a no-spectators game and be abusive in the chat. And there is no way to kick him.
Even with bert's dedicated server, there probably won't be, because as he's not connected, you don't see his IP (so can't block him out) and as he's not 'joined' you cannot kick him.
THAT, my friend, is a critical issue that should get the highest attention.
The subs exploits surely are severe issues, but not as bad as the "unknown" 'player' issue. I agree they are next in the list of bugs that need to be fixed, though

Fair enough. I have never experienced this "unknown player" issue.

I only did two days ago. Only mistake I made is to not keep the server options open after spectators had been set to 0.
Right now, I'm thinking either there is a grave bug that can be misused, or the server host of that game cannot be trusted/was the spammer/was 'allied' to the spammer.

Well you know that a spec before synching is 'unknown' if he starts talking, right? In that game I'm talking about, we were bugged by an unknown (who could private message players) and amused himself by private messaging me the location of another player's subs etc etc.
Whether or not specs were enabled, under normal circumstances, a spec can never private message. So something is really buggy there
(Actually, I don't even it's buggy ; rather broken by design, but that discussion would bring up too much technobabble as it's been termed here before by others )

[NeoThermic]

When there is a battle on, fighters die due to being shot, not due to running out of fuel. It is certainly a bug and until I get our beloved deities xander, montyphy, chris et al commenting, it is a bug. The fact that they haven't posted in this thread is surely confirmation that it is a bug.

NOT A BUG!

Happy?

As for the actual topic quirk, I think I might know where this came about (although this is from memory!). In the betas there was an experimentation where as bombers with nukes would fly slower than their non-laden counterparts. As part of this experiment, bombers with a nuke would not fire upon ships, where as those without one would. The change was reverted because it gave a player a visual indication of which bombers had nukes and which didn't allowing them to manually re-target their silos in order to take the slower moving bombers down. If we call the original item a bug, then this is where it started. If we call it a feature, then it is undocumented, but then so are quite a few "features" of Defcon

NeoThermic