Bombers not firing after dropping a nuke.

[torig]

Nice bit of trivia there.

Psssst. It's fighter, not silo though

[NeoThermic]

Nice bit of trivia there.

Psssst. It's fighter, not silo though

Nah. See, back in the beta, we were forming tactics. Bombers would enter radar range before being shot at, and almost always by the nearby silo. Thus it was easy for us to see which ones did and didn't have nukes.

So I'm still correct

From the changelog for Beta 14:

- Game changes
- Bombers now move at a fixed speed regardless of what mode they are in.
- Bombers now have only 2 modes : Naval Combat and SRBM launch.
- Bombers will now try to land at Airbases or Carriers that have nukes

From Beta 11:

- Bombers will now change into the appropriate mode when you select a target:
Naval Combat mode if you click on an enemy ship
Nuke mode if you click on a city or ground target

Back in my day, we had to manually switch mode!

NeoThermic

[torig]

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.

NeoThermic

Well than I'm just not getting it
Surely you don't mean taking down bombers with silos?

Oh too bad the mode thing changed. I've ruined many a fleet-nuking because I retargetted a new position, accidentally clicked on a ship and toggled my bomber (which was in SRMB mode and ready to launch) back to naval combat mode

[NeoThermic]

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.

NeoThermic

Well than I'm just not getting it
Surely you don't mean taking down bombers with silos?

Yep! Back then most people did the idea of having your radar and silos on the edges of your country, ergo the second that a bomber appeared in RADAR range, it was also in silo range. No one had really got an effective tactic of mustering up a few fighters on the incoming bombers. Things really were different back then

NeoThermic

[torig]

Silly me. For some reason I assumed you were talking about launching from silos at incoming bombers.
While it's clearly the AA fire you're talking about.

[Montyphy]

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.

Um, no, it's not a fact that "we" agree. If we haven't posted it doesn't mean we agree with you, it means we either haven't read the thread or can't be bothered to respond.

[bert_the_turtle]

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.

Hmm, the connecting spectator bug I've seen has the IP showing in the network tools thing. It is quite easy to block the chat of a client that is not yet fully connected or at least force it to appear in the spectator channel. The server nows who is fully connected (the client only sends the player name then), and it knows who plays and who is spectator. So, this bug does not affect the dedicated server. The only problem is that doing the wrong thing may cause the chat sending client to never be able to send chat again in that session.
Edit: of course, a drive-by-chat-client could be implemented that logs in, pretends to be fully connected, sends a chat line, and disconnects again. You'll have to fish out the IP to ban from the logs then.