v152 and v153 updates
21 changes, including:

• Fixing a bug where M28 wouldnt build mass storage if player 1 was an M28 teammate who died
• Fixed several issues relating to shared armies (message should only display to the person clicking the button; air staging should release M28 controlled units even if they haven't been toggled to have control; non-M28 controlled friendly units shouldnt be reclaimed for mass)
• Land experimentals that cant kite should be less likely to retreat from an enemy experimental
• Fixed a bug where M28 would incorrectly consider the enemy to have no naval threat
• Torpedo launchers should no longer be built in response to an enemy engineer
• Transports should be more likely to be built, and introduced 'engineer support' transport logic so if a plateau wants an SMD and has no t3 engineers one should be airlifted over

Acknowledgements

• Radde – Various replays (which were the basis for the majority of changes)
• Marlo – Highlighting issue on fort Clarke assault where some of the M28 ACUs would suicide into T1 PD
• Cleo – describing some issues with shared armies mode where M28 would reclaim friendly units.

Back in my days we had Galactic War and Zep xD

^ Yes

If you believe you have encountered a smurf, please report it, and we will investigate.

https://challonge.com/pv32te0x

@Nuggets said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:

I know its a bug, but apparently its okay and also being ignored or thought to be not fixable = accepted over the years

It is fundamentally not a bug however. It would be a bug in a game like Starcraft II or Wacraft 3 where projectiles are guaranteed to hit (on even terrain), even when they visually completely miss. That's a choice those games made.

A unique selling point of this game is the simulation. A simulation in which things can miss. That the SMD should not be one of those is understandable. Now, it is on top of the base of the target. Next time it is on the outer edge of the SMD. Can it still have a 100% accurate interception rate? No, it can't. Everything is simulated, things can miss or not be on time, that is what being a simulation means.

There's a few approaches to reduce the chance that the event happens:

• 1. Make the hit box of the strategic missile larger. This does have the side effect that, without additional adjustments, the impact effects do not visually touch the strategic missile anymore.
• 2. Make the anti-missile more maneuverable, by for example increasing its turn rate. This allows it to correct itself faster.
• 3. Adjust the trajectory of strategic missiles so that they're more 'linear'. The curve when it navigates towards the terrain is quite significant, it is that curve that can make an anti-missile miss. This can have various, unexpected side effects (!).
• 4. Fire multiple anti-missiles when consuming an ammo. These projectiles can only hit the one strategic missile. This allows them to approach the strategic missile from multiple directions, especially if you randomize their initial trajectory. After testing, messes things up.

These suggestions only reduce the chance of missing. The game is a simulation, there's no guarantee. It already barely happens. And with these chances you reduce the chance even further when the strategic missile is aiming right on top of your SMD, like in the example.

At the end of the day, if you go closer and closer to the limit of the SMD the chance that it fails to intercept increases significantly. You'll still have wasted an anti missile because it can't reach in time. Or perhaps even fired two like in the example.

edit: finally found the word I was looking for. In game design land this is coined as emergent behavior. But in this particular example, the kind that you'd rather not have .

@Hammer_Time Try a different browser without any extensions enabled.

@Yevpatiy From what I can see this account has been properly linked. Feel free to contact us in the FAF discord if you need further tech support.

Never heard of this being possible to fix. I always thought it was some unfixable bug