Units Fail to Complete orders after being Given or .take
Moderator: Moderators
Units Fail to Complete orders after being Given or .take
Whenever units are exchanged between allies they appear to retain their queues, but do not execute them. The classic example is factories that have units queued but will only build things queue after the transfer. I suspect that other orders are similar (I seem to recall guard orders failing as well). This behavior is an added burden on the player who receives the units, as he cannot rely on them to at least continue what they were doing when the previous player left. Because the units appear to retain their orders, but do not execute them, I argue this is a bug that should be fixed.
The reason they thon't contiune is so you won't give threm to your enemy and drain their resoruces. Especially with things as metal makers and other high power consuming.
All unis stops and turn of when given to a player to prevent an unexpected power failure.
Why they keep their building que is unknown to me, it's not very usefulkl and annoying pharhaps.
All unis stops and turn of when given to a player to prevent an unexpected power failure.
Why they keep their building que is unknown to me, it's not very usefulkl and annoying pharhaps.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
That's what I said, and what I feel is pointless.AF wrote:unfinished buildings cant be given to allies.
Also, would it be possible to set a factory to automatically give units to another player upon completion? So that way you get the economic burden and the other player can worry about using them.
You clearly miss the point entirely...ZellSF wrote:Yes, because everyone wants more ways their ally can screw up their plans.
I have a suggestion though, if it isn't already so, why not give units a wait command when given to other players? That way their actions can easily be continued.
In the vast majority of situations the other player is gone. You can always select all his units and hit stop after taking them. The fact is most of the times I .take a player or am given his units I want them to continue what they were doing, and I will change their orders as I see fit.
There's no warning if someone gives you units and so you might not always know that you suddenly have a new economy drain.LordMatt wrote:You clearly miss the point entirely...ZellSF wrote:Yes, because everyone wants more ways their ally can screw up their plans.
I have a suggestion though, if it isn't already so, why not give units a wait command when given to other players? That way their actions can easily be continued.
And I don't know what kind of games you're playing if the majority of the situations where you want to give stuff is when a player is gone.
O TEH HORROR!!!!!!11111ZellSF wrote: There's no warning if someone gives you units and so you might not always know that you suddenly have a new economy drain.
And I don't know what kind of games you're playing if the majority of the situations where you want to give stuff is when a player is gone.
U MIGHT OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO TURN SOMETHING OFF WHEN U .take. That is a far better situation than having to restart everything. YES, if a player leaves I want to .take his stuff, and YES if I .take his stuff I want it to continue what it was doing when he left it, and I will modify it as necessary. Similarly if my ally gives me his units for some reason. Why are there always silly naysayers when I suggest a bug fix or improvement?
Because there would be no way to avoid your allies screwing up your economy then.YES, if a player leaves I want to .take his stuff, and YES if I .take his stuff I want it to continue what it was doing when he left it, and I will modify it as necessary. Similarly if my ally gives me his units for some reason. Why are there always silly naysayers when I suggest a bug fix or improvement?
O TEH HORROR!!!!!!11111 Surprised U MIGHT OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO TURN SOMETHING ON WHEN U .take.O TEH HORROR!!!!!!11111 Surprised U MIGHT OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO TURN SOMETHING OFF WHEN U .take.
