1.03-9b field training values incorrect?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1.03-9b field training values incorrect?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support >> 1.03-9b field training values incorrect?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.03-9b field training values incorrect? - 6/22/2020 4:36:05 AM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

It's been like this since I've started playing, from the very first release, is this working correctly? My understanding of the text for field training stratagem is that it should be -60% to attack ratings. It seems like it gives a +60% instead.. I haven't checked for defense.

LEFT TRAINING ON, RIGHT TRAINING OFF

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cspringer1234 -- 6/22/2020 4:38:23 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: 1.03-9b field training values incorrect? - 6/22/2020 9:06:29 AM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

Confirmed. The penalties were set correctly except for all unitgroup-att/def combi's except for Inf-attack.

Thanks for reporting this nasty glitch

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to cspringer1234)

Post #: 2

RE: 1.03-9b field training values incorrect? - 6/22/2020 7:56:33 PM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

It was a nasty one. I imagine it might make a pretty significant difference for everybody. If you didn't use it out of principle, the AI majors would still use it and you would be at quite a disadvantage. Even if they weren't using it directly against you, they would be using it against minors and such, giving the majors an advantage against minors they weren't supposed to have.

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 3

RE: 1.03-9b field training values incorrect? - 6/22/2020 7:59:53 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cspringer1234

It was a nasty one. I imagine it might make a pretty significant difference for everybody. If you didn't use it out of principle, the AI majors would still use it and you would be at quite a disadvantage. Even if they weren't using it directly against you, they would be using it against minors and such, giving the majors an advantage against minors they weren't supposed to have.

You know, we have been wondering why the Majors kept their units on "Field Training" in the middle of a war.
If one of the values was a bonus, that actually starts making sense...

(in reply to cspringer1234)

Post #: 4

RE: 1.03-9b field training values incorrect? - 6/22/2020 8:09:08 PM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: cspringer1234

It was a nasty one. I imagine it might make a pretty significant difference for everybody. If you didn't use it out of principle, the AI majors would still use it and you would be at quite a disadvantage. Even if they weren't using it directly against you, they would be using it against minors and such, giving the majors an advantage against minors they weren't supposed to have.

You know, we have been wondering why the Majors kept their units on "Field Training" in the middle of a war.
If one of the values was a bonus, that actually starts making sense...

That really depends on how Vic has them choose the Stratagem. Do they choose it based on the numbers the stratagem actually has set in the code, or based off some alternate code that says if fighting wimps, use field training, if fighting the human, use something else.

I'm really looking forward to the update though, maybe it will help with all the steamrolling the majors do over the minors. I've stopped playing in anticipation of the fix.

< Message edited by cspringer1234 -- 6/22/2020 8:11:22 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 5