@e33144211332424 For a game replay..

https://replay.faforever.com/17034400

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.

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...

@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?

@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...

@FtXCommando Ya i use shift-g for attacking other units, with subs it is different as one may stack the subs into one spot. If the group now attacks an enemy they only see one sub so 80 vs 80 subs the ungrouped will always lose. Generally it will be the grouped may lose 5 or 10 units. Sure seems like a cheat.

@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...

@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?

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...

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.

Thought there use to be an option to change the font size in the FAF client. But the font in the UI now seems like it is 4pt and simply can't read most messages...

Is there a config file where i could set the font size?

Game seem slow on accepting input/orders. Very noticeable when you see a bunch of T3 Bombers about to snipe your comm... Something appears to have changed in the last month or two when giving orders to units. So you see you comm is about to get snipped by bombers or tac missiles... So you select the unit, order it to move and, nothing the unit will die because the orders weren't carried out. This seems to have started a month or so back, never entered an issue, but it is really noticeable... As long as i've played, one could always have been able to select the unit and have it move immediately. It seems the delay is easily between 5 to 10 seconds now, and the units one use to save is now dead...

Why does that matter? The game allows watching live replays, even if delayed by a minute or three.. This is completely built in and allowed... I've seen a number of games where a team had no Aeon and my everything in my base(s), ya i had three separate bases all cloaked, even watch the replay to see what could be seen, (nothing). How ever each base systematically got arty'ed into oblivion, no probing fire all direct shots at three cloaked bases... One might lucky... Always thought allowing people to watch live replays even if delayed was a bad idea...

Might be me but the latest changes seem more than annoying and breaks the game play. Units like the tempest being able to be construction units, the game has always allowed and had them, why fix, change or break it now? Other notable change the unit hover to build mass extractors and hydro, and the latest removal double clicking an engineer on a mass to get storage around it. Can understand the problems with the "hover" ability but not for the dblclick to place storage. Could be wrong but thought the release notes mentioned fixes for game stability... How about not messing with the game and put it back to the original... The game got popular and i never remember having as many crashes and desyns as it appears there are now a days...

Might suggest detailing what OS, and the specific characteristics of you system. Running in a VM, Windows? Limited user account...? While hard to say but looking at the stack trace it looks more like a corrupt install of java more then FAF, and FAF is encountering the errors because Java is dorked up.