• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Duplicate: attack indicator not always correct

  • Thread starter DeletedUser16126
  • Start date

DeletedUser16126

  • World:
    all
  • Browser and Version:
    linux, windows 7
  • Overview of the bug:
    In the latest update an indentification is given on which units can be attacked. Unfortunately this feature is not working correctly in case another own unit is already occupying the place that is needed for the attacking unit to reach the target.
    The logic to detect if a unit can be attacked shall also take this into account, and not assume that there are no units on the battlefield.
    the indicator is a nice improvement and really speeds up the manual fighting, it would be even more usefull if it was working correctly in all cases.
  • Screenshots:
  • How often this occurs:
    persistent
  • Urgency:
    medium
  • Preventative Actions:
    Non
  • Summary:
    The attack indicator takes already into account a whole range of parameters like movement, range landscape an the units special features of both attacker and target. But unfortunately one check to see if the location is available was forgotten.
  • I have performed a quicksearch of the forums using a select few keywords relating to my bug to see if it has already been reported:
    Yes, no bug found (but ot many bugs were in fact available, seems they have been cleaned up)
  • Have you tried fixing it by using methods listed in the thread pinned to the top of this forum:
    NO because this is a clear error in the calculation algoritm
 

DeletedUser16026

Rosletyne's link is correct, this has already been reported.
 

DeletedUser16126

Didn't check the reported/fixed, since it is not yet fixed.
Would rather assume to find it in the confirmed folder...
 
Top