[Bug]Cancelling build fighter/bomber doesnt scuttle

So effectively you can build a fighter squadron , then once full , cancel it , and build a bomber squadron , then you will have both a Fighter squadron and a Bomber squadron even tho it just says 1/1 for strikecraft.

Is this a bug or on purpose?

 

 

 

9,805 views 23 replies
Reply #1 Top
That sounds like a bug :D
Reply #2 Top
Just want to confirm this is happening here as well. Appears to have something to do with the new code that deals with rebuilding more than one type of squad at a time.
Reply #3 Top
Another confirmation here. Although I don't even have to wait for the first strike craft to build. I can queue up the max number, then dequeue them and go for the other type, and the maximum number of both kinds will be built (eventually).

This happens for hangar defenses as well, but you have to make sure you do it after the hangar is finished building (you are allowed to queue strike craft beforehand, but it won't experience this bug in that case).
Reply #4 Top
Actually, the carriers will build and rebuild both types, so you don't have to wait for one squadron to be done before cuing the bombers. You can just select it, scuttle, and then select the other strikecraft, and both will build.
Reply #5 Top
Yep, I'd like add my own confirmation. I noticed this when I switched some light carriers to bombers from fighters, and then later decided to go back to fighters.
Reply #6 Top
Another confirmation here. Although I don't even have to wait for the first strike craft to build. I can queue up the max number, then dequeue them and go for the other type, and the maximum number of both kinds will be built (eventually).This happens for hangar defenses as well, but you have to make sure you do it after the hangar is finished building (you are allowed to queue strike craft beforehand, but it won't experience this bug in that case).
End of quote
The reason for this is that when you queue in advance the fighters don't exist yet. So the queue order is cancelled, but there is no unit to scuttle.
Reply #7 Top
i think it takes same time to scuttle fighters as if fighter loses it host ship...

IE, LONG.
Reply #8 Top
On a sidenote, shouldn't building strikecraft cost a little bit of resources? Some resource cost could be transferred from the carrier to the fighters/bombers and additional resources should be spent to replace destroyed ones.
Reply #9 Top
A particularly nasty exploit. You have to use it. You end up using it anyway when you switch up.
Reply #10 Top
i'm relatively happy with the fighters being free :p
carrier cruisers already cost quite a bit already
and having 4 cruisers each out 3 strike craft each
would be a rather drastic drain on resources
Reply #11 Top
Another confirmation here. Only maybe some more detail would help? It does not matter how long the first wing of strike craft has been building. If you change immediately, they both still build AND are maintained by the carrier/hanger/capital ship.
Reply #12 Top
i saw the same thing, fighters sticking around, but they did eventually go away in my game
Reply #13 Top
A particularly nasty exploit. You have to use it. You end up using it anyway when you switch up.
End of quote


Thats the big problem making mp games a bit undesirable. You cant make a gentlemans agreement to not use this exploit , as people will accidently use this exploit when switching.

This is why Ironclad should release a hotfix asap .
Reply #14 Top
Agreed. It's hard to play "house" rules, when you can activate the bug based on fleet-need/accident/greed. Even harder to enforce. You could threaten kicking them, but they need to lag first...
Reply #15 Top
It does make it particularly hard to test the balance of certain units when the whole game is thrown out of wack with a new superunit. I'd say that carriers easily eclipse the Illuminator as far as unbalanced goes with this bug.
Reply #16 Top
You can be a gentleman and dock the type of unit you don't want.
Reply #17 Top
I'm surprised we've not heard a peep from the devs about this. Or did they reply in another thread?
Reply #18 Top
I suspect we'll hear about it on the next change log.
Reply #19 Top
I'm waiting for this bug to be fixed to play the beta...As all the games i've done so far seem to devolve into the losing party abusing this bug to try and win :p.

-Drexion
Reply #20 Top
Is it possible that the AI is accidently doing this? My first two games with 1.o9 the AI seemed to WAY more fighters/bombers than his cap would have allowed; I just could not keep up. . . ?

Reply #21 Top
i've had that happened to me on my tec carrier capital ship. i thought it was auto fighter that was added for the carrier since it was hence a 'carrier'. but it was when i built a bomer that it came out. i was like cool, i thought my carrier already had a fighter squadron escort for free and then made a choice to whether to stay on fighters or go bomers with my free fighter squadron protecting my new bomer squadron.

if this is an exploit then its too bad for capital carriers, but if it is part of the beta then it would be neat to have a free fighter squadron for a capital carrier. that way your first bomer will have a cover for other fighters just incase or decide if you want to go full fighter spam for someone whos trying to do bomer runs.
Reply #22 Top
I only just recently noticed this was a big. At first, I just thought that my caps were generating their own fighter squadrons automatically, in addition to the bomber squadrons I chose. It seemed reasonable to me that way. Of course, this only seemed reasonable until I realized it applied to all carriers, not just caps. Obviously I don't think carriers should just get a free squadron each...
Reply #23 Top
actually i just played around with this glitch and it effects everything including the vasari scramble bombers ability.
I literally scrambled 15 bombers and i could keep going that really needs to be fixed.
then again they only last for about 1 min.