Spring RTS Engine

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.

I think there have been restrictions on giving units to the enemy, but these can be further expanded if necessary. It's very stupid to have units fail to do their previous orders and makes .taking a player later in game more burdensome than it needs to be.

Also, stuff under construction doesn't get transfered either. IMO, it should; there's no good reason not to have them transfer.

how about "Continue doing stuff if transferred to Ally"

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.

unfinished buildings cant be given to allies.

No one said so, are you suggesting that to be changed?

AF wrote:unfinished buildings cant be given to allies.

That's what I said, and what I feel is pointless.

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.

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.

You clearly miss the point entirely... 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.

if its impossible to contiune buildques in factories, they be cleard at least.

LordMatt wrote:

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.

You clearly miss the point entirely... 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.

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.

ZellSF 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.

O TEH HORROR!!!!!!11111 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?

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.

O TEH HORROR!!!!!!11111 Surprised U MIGHT OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO TURN SOMETHING OFF WHEN U .take.

O TEH HORROR!!!!!!11111 Surprised U MIGHT OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO TURN SOMETHING ON WHEN U .take.

LordMatt wrote: Why are there always silly naysayers when I suggest a bug fix or improvement?

You have an opinion just like everyone else. Get used to people not agreeing.. This is the internet after-all.

Phail. You always have to turn everything on currently.

How about a dialogue box pops up, saying "XYZ just gave you some shit, do you want it to be in the same on/off state as he had it?"

Bonus points for the patch maker who uses that exact terminology.

TBH the right solution is sharing turns stuff off and erases queues (or possibbly puts them on wait), and .take'ing doesn't touch command queues or on/off state at all.

see, now that's why Tobi is an admin. cus he has brains smart.