Page 1 of 1
Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:07 pm
by viberpol
I noticed a quirk like this:
Even if both places have fort at level 9 (should mean no more expansion), in one place there is a notice "Stop building fortifications" with no trigger to stop it.
There is no more level available. But some bases changed into "Build fortifications" correctly.
Does it mean the former fort is still being built (consuming my supplies)??
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:36 pm
by viberpol
Anybody?
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:49 pm
by Andy Mac
Not sre never seen that one sorry I dont think so but I cannot be sure
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:55 pm
by VSWG
What happens when you stop expanding the airfield in the second base for a turn? Maybe the fort expansion message will disappear, too.
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:11 am
by viberpol
Maybe I am not making myself clear... [:(]
The problem is with the first base - as you see all levels reached the maximum level.
Port at 5 (maximum), airfield at 4 (maximum) and forts at 9 -- is it really a maximum if there is a message "Stop building fortifications" as if it was still under the process of expanding.
It should be triggered back to "build fortifications" as in the base lower.
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:06 pm
by VSWG
Sorry, my bad.
To answer your question: I have no idea what's happening, but I wouldn't worry too much about supply consumption:
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Very nice data. The one restricting factor that I don't see, though, is supply levels.
Brad
Supply is, unfortunately, almost irrelevant... [:(]
In one of my tests (using WitP editor and my Template empty scenario) I created the following setup:
There was "dot" HEX with SPS 6 - 6.
I placed 50000 supplies there and one single EAB.
Both Airbase and Ports were to be constructed.
In just short 15 days the both Airbase and Port was 2 - 2 and spoilage was eliminated from equation.
From original 50000 supply there was left 35000 but it was more than enough to build that test HEX to MAX possible value because from that point onwards the supply demand was very small (to my huge surprise)...
BTW, after months of work the lone EAB was still 100% effective (1 squad here and there was disabling and enabling during that time but at the end all squads were 100%). Also fatigue was only 5% after months of hard work (and no rest).
Leo "Apollo11!
tm.asp?m=710121
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:13 am
by viberpol
ORIGINAL: VSWG
To answer your question: I have no idea what's happening, but I wouldn't worry too much about supply consumption:
Well, maybe you're right VSWG... [:D] I don't really worry about the supply consumption there. Just reporting some quirk and innacuracy here, on the Tech Support forum, where all "bugs" ang bugs are supposed to be reported... [;)]
I believe this kind of glitch beeing a extremely minor malfunction does not interest programmers.
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:56 am
by rtrapasso
This appears to be a display error - something appearing to be active (in this case) where it is not.
Unfortunately, there are more than one display errors in the game - they don't really affect much, and there are many, many, more important things to fix right now... these are voted on and ranked as to importance to be fixed, and similar display errors are not on the list.
RE: Stop building vs Build fortifications @ lvl 9
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:10 pm
by Charbroiled
This might be a pain to fix it this way, but....
if you click on the base....then go to "show bases of this HQ".....then stop all construction for bases listed, it might fix the graphical problem. You will then have to go back to the other bases of that HQ and reset what they were building.