It's a glitch, I say!

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1441517730577.png (100.53 KB, 1512x772, 378:193, Untitled.png)

It's a glitch, I say! Keymaster 09/06/15 (Sun) 05:35:30 No.3911

So, interestingly enough Admin, there's this fancy new idea called free shipping! It involves sending your desired payload to a specific country, but you do something disastrous and forget to fuel your ships, which makes you lose some ships. HOWEVER, your precious cargo seems to have parted the seas and is still going to the country!

In other words, I goofed on an upkeep i thought i could pay for transportation of my cavalry cross-region, but my forces in one of my groups is still going, even without the ships to support them. Is this a feature that no one ever knew about/let out in secret, or is this not supposed to happen at all? >:?

>CLOPAdmin!cLoPONYr0c 09/06/15 (Sun) 08:23:10 No.3913

It's more overlooked, and the game doesn't handle what forces are on what boats anyway so this would be nearly impossible to comprehensively solve. Maybe I should automatically send back overloaded forcegroups? I don't know.

Keymaster 09/06/15 (Sun) 19:54:43 No.3914

>>3913

maybe you can code it to where it's a constant tick-loop where "If (carrying capacity < number of troops) -→ send troops back"? Just a suggestion. i have no idea if it will cause crashes or not.

>CLOPAdmin!cLoPONYr0c 09/07/15 (Mon) 04:59:15 No.3916

It just seems somewhat mean-spirited/"this game is hard enough already" to automatically send back forces that lose carrying capacity like that.

Keymaster 09/07/15 (Mon) 05:45:08 No.3917

File: 1441604708301.gif (17.55 KB, 511x341, 511:341, homestuck-gifs-photobucket….gif)

>>3916

The whole point of this game is to BE hard.

I mean, it's supposed to be an economic, political and war game simulator. So far, it's succeeding as that.

However, that doesn't mean that people (like me) shouldn't calculate better just because of something like this. I think I said enough as it is, but the decision is wholly up to you.

Ty!Hachibzla. 09/07/15 (Mon) 05:58:25 No.3919

>>3916

I mean is it really? We already have the mechanic where if you have rebels spawn on a war tick you instantly die if you don't have any defense. The game is punishing for even the smallest error as it can cost you loads of sat or resources.

And I mean you also clarify you need upkeep to keep troops in the rules and you also state they will poof if you don't have them, so why not be consistent,both mechanically and with the rules?

Honeycomb 09/07/15 (Mon) 09:36:33 No.3920

FWIW this is such an obscure and weirdly cool strat, I think you should just leave it in as is.

>CLOPAdmin!cLoPONYr0c 09/07/15 (Mon) 17:12:12 No.3930

>>3920

This, too.

I don't know. I'm kind of thinking about it, but I just don't want to put in (yet) another punitive mechanic at this point.

Tyrannis!Umbra9D7oU 09/07/15 (Mon) 17:29:40 No.3932

>>3930

I was originally going to comment that it seemed exploity, but you're really only saving on a small amount of gas by doing this (and maybe the cost of whatever weapon you'd have equipped?), and still spending the cost for the boats themselves and the carry capacity on the armor.

Tyrannis!Umbra9D7oU 09/07/15 (Mon) 17:31:03 No.3933

>>3932

Though, do you get to keep the armor after they disband due to lack of supply?

(Also you wouldn't be able to use this strat and be using tanks at the same time)

>CLOPAdmin!cLoPONYr0c 09/07/15 (Mon) 19:53:05 No.3936

>>3933

No. When stuff gets disbanded, you get nothing back.