Author Topic: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread  (Read 34930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bluebreaker

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • B
  • Posts: 34
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #540 on: November 13, 2021, 04:01:49 PM »
Then I selected the Supply ship fleet in the naval organisation window, chose the military ships fleet as a target and chose resupply with own supply ships.
This is the part where you made the mistake. What you did here is tell the supply ship to resupply it's own fleet, which consist of just itself.

To resupply from ships you have two options:
1- The supply ship has to be inside the fleet that you want resupplied, with instructions to resupply own fleet. Join & Resupply Target Fleet order would work here.
or
2- The fleet that wants to ressuply targets the supply vessel (fleet) and give the order to Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship
« Last Edit: November 13, 2021, 04:03:36 PM by Bluebreaker »
 

Offline somebody1212

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 23
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #541 on: November 13, 2021, 04:40:43 PM »
Not sure if this is a bug, precisely, but it's certainly an inconsistency.

When designing a turret, it does not state the total rate of fire of the guns in the turret like it does when designing railguns/gauss. It only states the recharge time of the weapon, as it does when designing laser weapons (or anything else that only fires single shots). This makes it harder for new players to keep track of the effectiveness of their turret designs.

(originally reported by Whackem on the discord, who does not have a forum account)

Yeah, not a bug, and not inconsistent either. "ROF" in Aurora has pretty much always been a misnomer for recharge time, and you'll see the same when you design a railgun or Gauss cannon: you'll always see ROF 5, and the number of shots is indicated elsewhere.

It would be nice for turrets to display the total number of shots on the design screen but this is properly a post for the Suggestions thread.

I'm aware of what Rate of Fire means in Aurora, but there's most definitely an inconsistency in how weapons that fire multiple shots are displayed.

Gauss indicates the number of shots they fire next to the RoF:
Damage Output 1      Rate of Fire 6 / 5s     Range Modifier 60 000
Max Range 60 000 km     Size 1 HS  (50 tons)    HTK 1


Railguns indicate the number of shots they fire next to the damage:
Damage Per Shot (4) 16     Rate of Fire 25 seconds     Range Modifier 80 000
Max Range 1 280 000 km     Railgun Size 13.0 HS  (650 tons)    Railgun HTK 6
Power Requirement 48    Recharge Rate 10


Turrets do neither, and since the rate of fire isn't stated in the default Gauss naming scheme this has been catching a lot of newer players out:
Damage Output 1    Rate of Fire 5 seconds     Range Modifier 60 000
Max Range 60 000 km     Turret Size 4.26 HS  (213 tons)     HTK 4


I'll make a post in the suggestions thread.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discord.gg/TXK6qcP
 

Offline Velociranga

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • V
  • Posts: 7
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #542 on: November 15, 2021, 06:47:44 PM »
Quote from: Bluebreaker link=topic=12522. msg156767#msg156767 date=1636840909
Quote from: Velociranga link=topic=12522. msg156666#msg156666 date=1636435394
Then I selected the Supply ship fleet in the naval organisation window, chose the military ships fleet as a target and chose resupply with own supply ships.
This is the part where you made the mistake.  What you did here is tell the supply ship to resupply it's own fleet, which consist of just itself.

To resupply from ships you have two options:
1- The supply ship has to be inside the fleet that you want resupplied, with instructions to resupply own fleet.  Join & Resupply Target Fleet order would work here.
or
2- The fleet that wants to ressuply targets the supply vessel (fleet) and give the order to Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship

Well if that is the case I will have to move this to suggestions however I am still not sure.  With the two different ways of resupplying a fleet you've listed its not possible to initiate resupply from the supply ship side without it joining the fleet.  The supply ship either needs to be part of the fleet or needs to sit around and have the fleet needing resupply come to it.  This makes it quite difficult to automate the resupply of stations and any fleet you don't want to move.  If this is working correctly then I would suggest changing the name of the "Resupply with own supply ships" order when you have another fleet selected.  At the moment it is unclear that the order is to resupply the ships own fleet and not the target fleet. 
 

Online Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1417
  • Thanked: 438 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #543 on: November 15, 2021, 10:21:47 PM »
Quote from: Bluebreaker link=topic=12522. msg156767#msg156767 date=1636840909
Quote from: Velociranga link=topic=12522. msg156666#msg156666 date=1636435394
Then I selected the Supply ship fleet in the naval organisation window, chose the military ships fleet as a target and chose resupply with own supply ships.
This is the part where you made the mistake.  What you did here is tell the supply ship to resupply it's own fleet, which consist of just itself.

To resupply from ships you have two options:
1- The supply ship has to be inside the fleet that you want resupplied, with instructions to resupply own fleet.  Join & Resupply Target Fleet order would work here.
or
2- The fleet that wants to ressuply targets the supply vessel (fleet) and give the order to Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship

Well if that is the case I will have to move this to suggestions however I am still not sure.  With the two different ways of resupplying a fleet you've listed its not possible to initiate resupply from the supply ship side without it joining the fleet.  The supply ship either needs to be part of the fleet or needs to sit around and have the fleet needing resupply come to it.  This makes it quite difficult to automate the resupply of stations and any fleet you don't want to move.  If this is working correctly then I would suggest changing the name of the "Resupply with own supply ships" order when you have another fleet selected.  At the moment it is unclear that the order is to resupply the ships own fleet and not the target fleet.

The join as subfleet function might help make this a little less painful, especially when you have multiple supply ships in play.
 

Offline ExChairman

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Captain
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 572
  • Thanked: 19 times
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #544 on: November 16, 2021, 01:01:23 AM »
Uhh, I seem to had my shipyards "kidnapped", they are all producing in Economics, but I cant find them on the map, they show up as an enemy shipyard in my Naval organization, but cant be targeted by tractor beams, weapons or marine attacks...  ???

Noticed it when I was in the process of sending repair yards to the front, the second repair area is also vacant but can bee accessed via Economics...

Veni, Vedi, Volvo
"Granström"

Wargame player and Roleplayer for 33 years...
 

Offline Velociranga

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • V
  • Posts: 7
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #545 on: November 16, 2021, 01:10:06 AM »
Quote from: Droll link=topic=12522. msg156805#msg156805 date=1637036507
Quote from: Velociranga link=topic=12522. msg156803#msg156803 date=1637023664
Quote from: Bluebreaker link=topic=12522.  msg156767#msg156767 date=1636840909
Quote from: Velociranga link=topic=12522.  msg156666#msg156666 date=1636435394
Then I selected the Supply ship fleet in the naval organisation window, chose the military ships fleet as a target and chose resupply with own supply ships. 
This is the part where you made the mistake.   What you did here is tell the supply ship to resupply it's own fleet, which consist of just itself. 

To resupply from ships you have two options:
1- The supply ship has to be inside the fleet that you want resupplied, with instructions to resupply own fleet.   Join & Resupply Target Fleet order would work here. 
or
2- The fleet that wants to ressuply targets the supply vessel (fleet) and give the order to Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship

Well if that is the case I will have to move this to suggestions however I am still not sure.   With the two different ways of resupplying a fleet you've listed its not possible to initiate resupply from the supply ship side without it joining the fleet.   The supply ship either needs to be part of the fleet or needs to sit around and have the fleet needing resupply come to it.   This makes it quite difficult to automate the resupply of stations and any fleet you don't want to move.   If this is working correctly then I would suggest changing the name of the "Resupply with own supply ships" order when you have another fleet selected.   At the moment it is unclear that the order is to resupply the ships own fleet and not the target fleet. 

The join as subfleet function might help make this a little less painful, especially when you have multiple supply ships in play.

It does make it a bit less painful but is still geared towards having a division of supply ships within a bigger fleet.  I'm trying to stay within the bug specification here because I am not sure if this is WAI and therefore everything I'm saying would be a suggestion.

But so far the supply ships work perfectly in the instances of planet to planet logistics, as a division inside a bigger fleet and joining a fleet to resupply it.  They struggle with orbital habitats/space stations and resupplying fleets without joining them. 
 

Offline Scout1

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 7
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #546 on: November 16, 2021, 06:46:24 PM »
The events log produces no combat text for fighters engaged in "search&destroy" and "planetary flak suppression" missions.  A "Combat summary" event is generated, but the event is blank.  I toggled the colors and background colors a few times *just in case* that was causing text to blend in, but nope. . .  just blank.

It also appears that fighters might not actually be engaging ground forces during these missions, although due to the complete lack of information I'm unsure.  (See edit)   I have fighters reporting catastrophic explosions but I do not know the source - I presume it is due to AA fire.

https://i.imgur.com/gUU6dxa.png

The fighters are equipped with pod bays(size 18), have multiple ground weapon pods(size 6 autocannon) in those bays, have a missile fire control, and the opposing ground forces are in active sensor range of a nearby fleet, being registered as an active contact.  The opposing forces appear to be losing ~100tons per 8-hour ground combat cycle, but that could simply be appears to be the consumption of logistics units.

I tried using SM mode to generate allied ground forces on the planet to see if their presence would cause the fighters' combat summary to appear.  It did not.  I did not test if including FFD in the SM-spawned allied ground forces would affect anything (but the fighters are on a search&destroy mission so it *shouldn't*. . . )

I also tried checking the "Show All Events" button, which produced no change.  Reloading from before the fighters were carrier-launched, and issuing new orders produced no change. 

A previous ground invasion was carried out in this save without any noted game issues.

Per the reporting guidelines: Decimal separator is a comma, date format was changed to shorten, this is a long campaign in the year 2109 (default start date).  No error text or other messages seen that would indicate source of any problems.  No mods, no database edits, only thing I've done is closed the game a few times without saving when I oopsie an order and get everyone killed.

edit: Apparently you have to set the FCs on fighters, which. . .  kind of makes sense? But I really feel like the game should tell you "Hey, buddy.  You're telling them to bomb, but they don't have permission to bomb anything.  You should fix that. " with a 5-second interrupt like an active fire control w/o a target.    The auto-assign is also not able to successfully select MFCs for fighter pod bays, but that's not a huge issue.    Although I now have the fighters correctly shooting at the ground forces, I still am unable to see any reports of AA fire.    Just fighters randomly exploding without apparent cause.  https://i.   imgur.   com/XTpyKgk.   png
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 02:59:09 AM by Garfunkel »
 

Offline Scout1

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 7
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #547 on: November 16, 2021, 07:34:12 PM »
(All above conditions, but different bug)

Fighters on ground attack assignments (search&destroy/planetary flak suppression) do not generate intelligence reports of ground units, although such could be pretty easily calculated by the player's hand with a large enough sample since pod weapons have directly comparable stats to ground units.

Orbital bombardment does not generate intelligence reports (although it *can* display unit names/etc).  The lack of intelligence information from orbital bombardment would seem intentional and reasonable.  The lack of intelligence information from fighters directly attacking units does not.  (WAD?)
 

Offline Scout1

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 7
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #548 on: November 16, 2021, 07:41:39 PM »
(All above conditions, but different bug)

Something very strange with ground attack fighters (search&destroy tasked).  These are equipped with 3 autocannons in one pod bay (one MFC).  They should have 3 autocannons x 3 shots = 9 shots per combat round.  Instead, they are delivering only 6 shots.  I have included an image showing the events log showing 6 shots per combat round *for every involved fighter* despite them being uniformly equipped for 9 shots per combat round.  Their attacks seem to be spread across multiple unit types, so it's not a matter of 1 MFC = 1 target either.  The cause for this is unclear to me.

https://i.imgur.com/XsQkWj2.png

Note that the organization window displays 'FB Warrior Knight 113', which is the highlighted line(+ one above it) in the events log. 
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 02:58:54 AM by Garfunkel »
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2252
  • Thanked: 684 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #549 on: November 17, 2021, 02:59:47 AM »
I fixed your Imgur links for convenience. It's an anti-spam function that will vanish once you have posted 10 times.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scout1

Offline Scout1

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 7
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #550 on: November 18, 2021, 01:24:04 PM »
I'm not sure where the "bug" begins here and what's intended and isn't.  There's some sort of undocumented mechanic in regards to ground force combat and being outnumbered.  Hits seem to be amalgamated and penetration fudged so that even swarms of conventional infantry can achieve 100% penetrations on maximum teched ultra-heavies if the outnumbering is bad enough.

Reproducible test setup: 10 SM-researched maximum-armor ultraheavy tanks vs TL3-TL4 NPR homeworld garrison of ~1. 1m tons (maximum penetration: 72 from the 'Bee Tank' medium vehicle with a heavy anti-vehicle weapon). 

Chance to penetrate per-hit for even the largest attack should be: (72/540)^2 = ~1. 777%.  Observed penetration rate: 30-70%, or more than 10x the expected rate. 

Below is that test setup showing 2 combat rounds, with penetrations of 7/10 and 3/10 respectively. 

https://i. imgur. com/Wx6xoQm. png

Note that in both cases, the formation suffered 10 hits - exactly as many as units existed in the formation.  Although there are over 100,000 estimated enemy infantry and hundreds if not thousands of incoming shots(estimated).  The hits have been amalgamated in some way that is not documented, causing penetration to be artificially high.

Several additional examples have been seen showing similar results, including a super-heavy(racial AR: 108) drop of 250,000 tons in a live game which resulted in 100% penetration rates to the super-heavies across 1,600 attacks(1 combat round) despite maximum enemy penetration being 72.  (Penetration rate is not 100% in this example, but sufficiently high as to be way above what is possible by RNG).  Please see below image for an example (the super-heavies are called "Invasion Fortress 2110", the HQs and anti-air are medium vehicles with medium armor if such information is helpful).

https://i. imgur. com/y8dyUKg. png

The variable responsible for this seems to be the numbering of allied troops vs enemy troops.  Test setups with arbitrarily large numbers of ultra-heavies (sufficient to match enemy tonnage, or greater) produces closer to the expected penetration results, getting closer and closer the greater the ultra-heavy tonnage advantage is.  I've reviewed all the C# aurora postings and there is no mention of outnumbered attacks causing hit amalgamation or penetration changes.  As far as I am aware, the only penetration formula that exists is: (attacker penetration/defender armor)^2 = %chance to penetrate

Per the reporting guidelines: Decimal separator is a comma, date format was changed to shorten, this is a long campaign in the year 2117 (default start date).   No error text or other messages seen that would indicate source of any problems.   No mods, no database edits.  SM was used to add all relevant armor techs to player race during a game where noted.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1591
  • Thanked: 1079 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #551 on: November 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM »
Per the reporting guidelines: Decimal separator is a comma,

I would bet money that this is your problem. Your decimal separator needs to be a period in order for Aurora to work correctly.
 

Offline Scout1

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 7
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #552 on: November 18, 2021, 01:44:58 PM »
Quote from: nuclearslurpee link=topic=12522. msg156836#msg156836 date=1637263654
Quote from: Scout1 link=topic=12522. msg156835#msg156835 date=1637263444
Per the reporting guidelines: Decimal separator is a comma,

I would bet money that this is your problem.  Your decimal separator needs to be a period in order for Aurora to work correctly.

Sorry, seems to be some confusion over the terminology here. 

There's two distinct settings: Decimal symbol and list separator.  Decimal symbol is set to period, list separator is set to comma.  As is common in American parlance(I am in the US).  Has been set this way for years, checked it back in the vb6 days.  https://i. imgur. com/3WKhUr7. png

As far as I know these are the valid and correct settings for Aurora to work properly, and all saves and examples given have been with these settings.

This applies to all four previous posts.  I would edit them, but it'll just cause a mess of extra (extra!) spaces added everywhere.  If a mod doesn't edit them in the next day or so, I will.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1591
  • Thanked: 1079 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #553 on: November 18, 2021, 02:48:40 PM »
Okay.

I have looked over the screenshots for the last bug report. It looks to me like everything is probably working correctly "under the hood", as the number of penetrations seems to be reasonable given the intel reporting. The issue seems to be that the number of hits reported is a misnomer, and should more accurately be labeled "Number of units hit" and this number is capped to the number of units in the formation/element. Basically, there are no hidden mechanics or gameplay bugs, the error is in the UI which displays this information to the player.
 

Offline Silvarelion

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 56
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: v1.13.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #554 on: November 22, 2021, 04:38:59 PM »
Carrier Module blew up.  Tested it on two fresh installs.  Test ship was 100 Hangar bays, plus 100 Large Maintenance bays.  Test 1 had 2 out of 5 ships blowing up with 249 900+ MSP still in the tank after 20 days with a 3 year deployment, 4 year maintenance.  Second test, same ship set up, had a ship blow up in the first 5 day increment.

What you were doing at the time:  Training new carriers with parasites.
Conventional or TN start: Both
Random or Real Stars: Both
Is your decimal separator a comma?  No.
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? Easily reproduced.
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well.  Initial campaign was 70+ years, the two test campaigns were brand new.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath.
  ~The Mistake Not, Hydrogen Sonata, Iain Banks