Is this a cheat or not?
-
I believe this mechanic functions as an exploit due to a flaw in the game's targeting and collision logic.
Currently, players can group a massive number of submarines (e.g., 80 units) and issue a spread order (Shift-G). If these grouped subs fight an equal number of ungrouped subs, the grouped side wins overwhelmingly—losing only 10 to 20 units while completely wiping out the enemy.
This happens because the game engine allows multiple units to occupy the exact same physical space, but its targeting logic only registers them as a single target. When the ungrouped enemy fires, all of their damage is concentrated on just one sub at a time. Once it dies, the remaining 79 subs are completely unharmed.
To mimic real-world physics, the game should handle this in one of two ways:
Collision Damage: Prevent units from stacking perfectly. If they try to occupy the same space, they should collide and take damage.
AoE / Shared Damage: If 80 subs are allowed to stack on one point, any incoming attack hitting that point should damage all 80 units simultaneously.
As it stands, this stacking behavior bypasses intended combat balance and acts as a major exploit.
-
This is known behavior and not considered a cheat. The recommended direct counter is groundfiring the stacked subs with ships that have splash damage, such as destroyers.
"Design is an iterative process. The required number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."
See all my projects:
-
Yeah this is an interaction that has been known for years. There were even balance mods which gave all torpedoes tiny aoe to prevent this. I won't speak for the balance team as I am not a member, but this would be trivial to fix if it were considered an issue.
-
Try making 2 t1 bombers and groundfiring the stacked submarines
frick snoops!
-
It isn't a matter if one can do it or not, would assert it is a cheat.
1.) No two units should be able to occupy the same physical space.
2.) If not group and i return fire i'm only aiming or able to target 1 unit, VS. the 80 shooting at mine, and the shift-g spreads the fire...Why if i have 80 subs and you grop yours, all min dye, and you may have lost 5 or 10...
A cheat isn't a cheat because people can or can't do it. The fact people are able to and gain an advantage that i'd assert is unfair. i.e. i lose 80 subs for you 5 or 10... So it doesn't matter if people are able to do it or not. does it go against the spirit of the game...? Sure seems like a cheat to me i'l gladly trade 80 subs for 10... I'll win that every day...
-
@ZooDoo4U How is it unfair if both players can do it and there is a clear tradeoff to doing it?
They stack 80 subs, you do splash damage and kill/heavily damage 80 units with a single shot (the tradeoff/risk of doing it)
Or, they stack 80 subs, you stack your 80 subs, you're both roughly equal on the fight.
I also don't see how something is a cheat just because it is considered unfair.
-
It's quirky behavior for sure, but such is FAF.
-
@maudlin27 Fair question. One of the overall design goals for Supreme Commander was to allow players to be commanders without requiring them to micromanage units. Given that you are in a large battle, I guess you could divert your attention to just your subs in one spot. But if you miss it, you will lose the sea faster than anything...
The question isn't whether both players can cheat; the point is that people shouldn't be able to. Two wrongs don't make it right... The fact that it works highlights a flaw in the game's logic and people may exploit it, as it only sees one sub in that spot. I would say a cheat is something that takes advantage/quick in the a deficiency within the game's logic that people may exploit. How is it not a cheat? Just because two people can doesn't justify a cheat? And just because one player did and the other not because they were busy elsewhere and exploiting a flaw in the game they get a HUGE unfair advantage. Oh that would be a cheat...? Explain how it is not a cheat?
-
Because it's an advantage that comes with an even bigger downside: if those subs get ground fired they ALL die.
My opponent attempting to sub stack has even single handedly won me a game, because I made 2 Corsairs, ground fired the stack, and he went from a slight advantage in navy to being able to do nothing but watch as I right click his HQ.
-
I also wish this wasn't a thing. Not to mention not all units have aoe (take t2 destros) so its not even like you can always counter this. And its not like such a feature cant exist (i think) because land units have collision and cant "merge" into each other.
-
It’s a fallacy to say that just because FAF is a macro focused rts that it means you don’t have to micro manage units. This isn’t an auto-battle game.
A cheat is by definition getting an unfair advantage through malicious means. None of that applies here. This is a hotkey that exists and a unit interaction that is intentionally kept. Factory attack move has a more reasonable argument to be a cheat than shift+g of navy units.
It’s a gameplay interaction that you think makes the game worse, so just explain that and how the counterfactual makes the game better instead of throwing extremes out that make your argument way worse because it’s just wrong.
-
Is it a unit interaction that is intentionally kept? I hope not! I would think that if this is fixable it wouldnt be in the game for navy units. Why not have this for land units aswell then?
-
Of course it’s intentionally kept, it isn’t very difficult to give navy units collision like land units. I’m even pretty sure it used to be part of old balance mods a decade ago like equilibrium if I remember correctly.
I imagine a lot of the reason it applies for navy is because of the dynamic of navy unit buildpower/infrastructure. A land factory with 50 assisting engies creates an unsolvable traffic jam unless you force create a path, navy units need even more room. If navy units had collision then it’s also going to be extremely painful to get navy units to move especially in tighter corridors that are much more common relative to unit size than land units see. Land units can already be incredibly painful in terrain where only like 3-5 units can move through at a time.
-
You are talking like navy units have no collision at all. They prob have the worst collision. Its only the shift-g command that enabled them not suddenly move onto the same position. I very much doubt its kept for the reasoning its a good feature, but because there is no better alternative because especially navy pathfinding is fucked. That is fine to me as long as the reason isnt "its a good feature so we keep it"
-
Because shift+g is a solution to bad pathfinding, it’s used all the time both in land and navy for that. Likewise with navy you can have 15 destroyers/battleships sit in the same spot after being made, but with land you’re going to create a traffic jam that stops your factory from producing and the units will also not be able to leave and likely lose their order due to perpetual engie bumper cars. It would be significantly easier to run into the issue of idle navy facs if they had land unit collision and required their own individual space like that.
-
Yeah so some with land facs you have to think how to place them to not create a jam.
Also naval armies are usually smaller than land. -
The problem is the jam just sort of always exists for big navy production because it’s much more of a given to have 60 engineers on a factory while land factories don’t run into that. This is especially true for something like ie skadi where you could be building navy in a cove or something like flooded tabula too.
While armies are smaller on a unit basis, the actual unit box of a battleship is closer to a t4 than a t3 unit and a destroyer is also like 3 t3 units in size as well. It’s really easy to run into a problem with pushing units through in a map that doesn’t have a senton style wide, obstacle free ocean to position in.
-
I'm honestly a bit confused by your arguments. Thats kinda how navy works right now. Batteships are so fat everything collides with them and gets stuck. It is only shift g that can circumvent this. Why cant normal move command do this then? According to that logic we should remove all collision from navy so that normal move command can do the same.
-
Normal move command obeys the collision box, subs aren’t any different
If you fully remove all collision then things like tempest are monstrously op because you now need to manually babysit everything so you don’t take quintuple dps from a random tempest or bs or exodus shot when you didn’t intend it.
-
@FtXCommando I would disagree. You obviously sound like you don't know what you are talking about as it isn't just me reporting it and other confirm it...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login