AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 4a - December 12, 2010

[Franciscus]

Absolutely. I am in mid-1863 in a CSA grand campaign with this patch, and it's great. No major bug whatsoever, only the few very small glitches reported here in this thread.

It has been a slug fest in Virginia, with strong incursions by the USA AI in the Shenandoah, and a Wilderness-style series of battles in 1862. Now I am invading the North, but have been repulsed...
In the west, I occupied all of Missouri and Kentucky and even captured Cincinatti . But now I am backtracking because the AI sailed a fleet down the Mississipi and is besieging Memphis.

Great fun

[drhet58]

Thanks for the quick replies...appreciated.

I have Vista, should I still run AACW in XP compatibility mode with new patch?

[Franciscus]

Thanks for the quick replies...appreciated.

I have Vista, should I still run AACW in XP compatibility mode with new patch?

I do not know about Vista. I have AACW installed in a Windows 7 laptop and it runs fine, no compatibility mode was needed. I would recommend though that you DO NOT install AACW in the default directory but in a custom one (ie, C:\Programs\Ageod\AACW, for instance); if not, there maybe issues in Vista and 7 in finding saved games, etc.

Best regards

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Farseer]

I run 1.15 on Vista without compatibility mode for XP (or anythinge else) and it has worked flawlessly without any tweaks whatsoever. I did, however, install the game in a non-default location which I always do with my games. I have read others having had problems, but I don't know why they had them and not I. Everything just works fine and I see no reason 1.16 won't work as flawlessly when the final release is presented.

[caranorn]

I run 1.15 on Vista without compatibility mode for XP (or anythinge else) and it has worked flawlessly without any tweaks whatsoever. I did, however, install the game in a non-default location which I always do with my games. I have read others having had problems, but I don't know why they had them and not I. Everything just works fine and I see no reason 1.16 won't work as flawlessly when the final release is presented.

No problem running this beta on Vista without compatibility mode...

By the way, I'm having the best game of AACW ever and haven't run into any problems yet, just to say how good this patch is. I just wish things like detailed battle reports from RoP as well as landing from moving ships from WiA could be included. Then again the ammount of testing that would probably require makes it clear it won't happejn before AACW-II...

[oldspec4]

Quite reassuring re:Win 7. My old Dell laptop had another failure again... this time the sound... after 5 motherboards over a 7 year period, it was time to put it out to posture and no more Dells for me. New laptop will have an Intel i7 6 core processor requiring Win7 to fully utilize so I was having some anticipatory reservations regarding Win7.

I had the same reservations some months ago moving from XP to Win 7 64.

I have not experienced any issues w/ games nor stability w/ the operating system itself.

[Ethan]

Looking forward to calling off sick at work and locking myself in my room for a while to do a full campaign!

I think it's a great idea... But a little dangerous!

Greetings!

[richfed]

As far as I can remember, I have played AACW on Vista and then Win 7 without any problems - never used compatibility mode. The game performs great. The saved game issue is really not an issue; one just has to realize the difference between these two operating systems and XP. The game finds the saves.

Gray, I believe you will love Windows 7. I use 64 bit ultimate version. Very smooth; very stable. Ageod games play fine.

[Franciscus]

Continuing a bit OT, re: 7/Vista, let me say that although I have had no major problems I also have not seen any real advantage in 7 vs XP in gaming or work (XP also can handle multicore CPUs, which BTW no game that I have take advantage of) - and WW1 had major problems in 7 precisely due to the way 7 handles multicore.
My main gaming machine is a XP desktop hand-built by me and it will keep on running XP until either my mobo burns or I find a game that I want that's not XP compatible.

Regards

[caranorn]

Continuing a bit OT, re: 7/Vista, let me say that although I have had no major problems I also have not seen any real advantage in 7 vs XP in gaming or work (XP also can handle multicore CPUs, which BTW no game that I have take advantage of) - and WW1 had major problems in 7 precisely due to the way 7 handles multicore.
My main gaming machine is a XP desktop hand-built by me and it will keep on running XP until either my mobo burns or I find a game that I want that's not XP compatible.

Regards

That's another issue entirely. Had I had a choice for this laptop I'd have chosen XP over Vista. But as Dell no longer sold any laptops with XP at that time I had to go with Vista. Vista itself is unsatisfactory as a system for me with many stability issues, but so far none of those have affected any of the Ageod games I have installed (I have run AACW, NCP, WiA, RoP and RuS on this one so far, not sure whether I tried WWI on the laptop)...

[Alexander the Average]

I am playing the grand campaign with kentucky on 1.164a with the recomended settings. I am currently at the begining of the first winter.

The game has been progressing well with the AI giving me a lot more trouble in Missouri and Texas than previouly, they were spawning a lot of raiders into Texas and proving a real menace, whilst in Missouri they took Jefferson and Rolla, it doesn't look like i will be getting them back anytime soon.

I have captured Kentucky without a major battle after the Union declared an invasion.

In Virginia we danced around for a while, the AI preffering to slip its major force behind my frontline and beseige secondary cities. This worked once but was recaptured quickly after they decided to head for home.

My main concern has to do with the enemy leaving its artillery ungaurded or deploying it haphazadly, I have captured at least eight units that have just been left sitting around by themselves in the middle of nowhere. Of course the Union may be trying to slow my troops down by making them tow extra heavy artillery around.

The union still seems to leave a lot of units standing around in the snow as winter sets in, sometimes they are even standing in front of a town but choose not to seek shelter inside.

There are a few minor things i have noticed also

1. The text displayed when you have captured rifles or prisoners shows up as "hundreds". ie. you have captured 8 hundreds prisoners on the battlefield.

2. The army cards sometimes show up with a support unit as the picture instead of the general, this almost led to me going to capture what i thought was another gift artillery, only to discover that it had a resonable sized force with it, the main union army also shows up as being led by a medic.

Thanks for releasing a new patch for this great game

[Jim-NC]

Alexander the Average,

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy your time here and AACW.

[Southerner]

I just finished a full 2 theater campaign which ended in a stalemate on last turn January 1866. (this patch version)

Thing is ...I took 100% of all the yankee territory ( even the far western) and also decimated their fleets.

My national moral never got above 144 and in the final months, as I cleaned up ,even dropped to the 120s. Yankee morale stayed at 70 despite their being obilerated.

In all the previous patch versions I was able to win in 1863 at the latest.

Having said all that..it isn't a big deal. I don't need the game to tell me I won (I know it) and in fact it was nice to be able to play to the end without seeing the: You Have Won notice...But You can play on message.

Just wanted to point this out and wondered if others were seeing the same thing.


Really, the only true gripe I have ever had with this great game is the fact that enemy Commander Icons are left on the map even after the commander has been wiped out and he has a 0 Command Usage.

It is tedious to repeatedly check these when scanning the map to determine if they pose a threat.

[Citizen X]

Funny thing Southener. I just completed a Full 2 Theater Campaign by taking Bowling Green and Washington, thus sending the Union Morale in the cellar. April 1962 (faulty AI moves).

[Southerner]

Yep..I had those two objectives in the bag by April '62 also, but this time something obviously went haywire. It is usually just this time when the yanks throw in the towel but not this go 'round.

Go figure.


I'm starting a new camaign and for a change I plan on taking a purely defensive stance. I'm curious to see if I can beat back the full might of the invading hordes and win without sending my troops on a full tour of the frozen northland.

[caranorn]

Funny thing Southener. I just completed a Full 2 Theater Campaign by taking Bowling Green and Washington, thus sending the Union Morale in the cellar. April 1962 (faulty AI moves).

Same experience I had with my current game, just playing the other side. Taking Richmond, and a few other strategic cities I had a total victory (200 NM) by late summer 1862...

So some constructive criticism of the ai. The ai has become very adapt at conducting strong raids deep into enemy territory and even manages to escape from what used to be death traps. But the ai no longer seems to value static defense of important positions like Richmond. With only one or two dug in corps in Richmond the CSA ai could have halted me for at least another year (by my last turn I had 2 divisions in the Shenandoah, 7-8 in the Richmond area, 1 on the Peninsula and 1 at Norfolk, so the offensive group around Richmond wasn't very strong yet). Instead of having a strong force facing my main army the ai had at least three divisions besieging (and regularly assaulting) my fort at Norfolk and two facing my small division at Fort Pickens), not to mention a 4 Texan/Arkansas brigade raid against Fort Leavenworth and 1-2 divisions raiding central Missouri (those ai raids of course paid off somewhat as in my last mobilisation I raised two fresh divisions in the Trans-Mississippi for just one on the Seaboard). So generally, the ai seems to strike at weak spots, but avoids pitched battles, even to defend cities that will cost a lot of NM. Somehow the ai needs to be tought the value of entrenching again as a frontal assault against a level 4 or better fortified position, maybe even across a river, can be very bloody and an inferior force has good chances of holding such a place for a while...

So, I still find the game under this beta very enjoyable. During the first year even a challenge. But once the tide turns it turns a decision is achieved much too fast. I could never even fully start my fort hoping campaign along the Seaboard (required as the CSA ai now builds a large number of ironclads in coastal areas, making the use of monitors in blockading squadrons and invasion fleets a necessity, which means securing coastal waters (note though I encountered these ironclads in groups of 4-5 several times they never engaged my in my opinion inferior forces with at best only protected frigates and weaker units)) or launch an invasion along the Mississippi and Tennessee rivers...

My next game will be with all settings in favour of the ai set to maximum. Though I fear the increased detection values might lead to even more cautious ai behaviour...

[Pocus]

But you know now that the AI settings have been rechecked and there is never a combat advantage given to her.

[Franciscus]

Same experience I had with my current game, just playing the other side. Taking Richmond, and a few other strategic cities I had a total victory (200 NM) by late summer 1862...

So some constructive criticism of the ai. The ai has become very adapt at conducting strong raids deep into enemy territory and even manages to escape from what used to be death traps. But the ai no longer seems to value static defense of important positions like Richmond. With only one or two dug in corps in Richmond the CSA ai could have halted me for at least another year (by my last turn I had 2 divisions in the Shenandoah, 7-8 in the Richmond area, 1 on the Peninsula and 1 at Norfolk, so the offensive group around Richmond wasn't very strong yet). Instead of having a strong force facing my main army the ai had at least three divisions besieging (and regularly assaulting) my fort at Norfolk and two facing my small division at Fort Pickens), not to mention a 4 Texan/Arkansas brigade raid against Fort Leavenworth and 1-2 divisions raiding central Missouri (those ai raids of course paid off somewhat as in my last mobilisation I raised two fresh divisions in the Trans-Mississippi for just one on the Seaboard). So generally, the ai seems to strike at weak spots, but avoids pitched battles, even to defend cities that will cost a lot of NM. Somehow the ai needs to be tought the value of entrenching again as a frontal assault against a level 4 or better fortified position, maybe even across a river, can be very bloody and an inferior force has good chances of holding such a place for a while...

So, I still find the game under this beta very enjoyable. During the first year even a challenge. But once the tide turns it turns a decision is achieved much too fast. I could never even fully start my fort hoping campaign along the Seaboard (required as the CSA ai now builds a large number of ironclads in coastal areas, making the use of monitors in blockading squadrons and invasion fleets a necessity, which means securing coastal waters (note though I encountered these ironclads in groups of 4-5 several times they never engaged my in my opinion inferior forces with at best only protected frigates and weaker units)) or launch an invasion along the Mississippi and Tennessee rivers...

My next game will be with all settings in favour of the ai set to maximum. Though I fear the increased detection values might lead to even more cautious ai behaviour...

I have long found that to have the most enjoyable experience against the AI, the trick is to NOT exploit her weaknesses.

Case in point: My current grand campaign vs USA AI. In the end of 1861 and beginning of 1862 I am fairly sure that I could have captured Washington easily, as it was lightly defended. If I did, maybe the game would have ended, but I chose not to (if you want, you can roleplay in your head - for instance, it's dubious if that early in the war Jeff Davis would have authorized an attack in Washington). I was richly rewarded, because next the AI launched a vicious attack on Richmond and down the Shenandoah, that led in 1862 to a series of Wilderness-type battles (that I won).
Now I tried to pull my "Gettysburg" in 1863, and found Washington HEAVILY defended - I had to call a retreat back to Virginia. It's mid 1863. I know I will win in the end, but I am getting a blast.

[caranorn]

I have long found that to have the most enjoyable experience against the AI, the trick is to NOT exploit her weaknesses.

Case in point: My current grand campaign vs USA AI. In the end of 1861 and beginning of 1862 I am fairly sure that I could have captured Washington easily, as it was lightly defended. If I did, maybe the game would have ended, but I chose not to (if you want, you can roleplay in your head - for instance, it's dubious if that early in the war Jeff Davis would have authorized an attack in Washington). I was richly rewarded, because next the AI launched a vicious attack on Richmond and down the Shenandoah, that led in 1862 to a series of Wilderness-type battles (that I won).
Now I tried to pull my "Gettysburg" in 1863, and found Washington HEAVILY defended - I had to call a retreat back to Virginia. It's mid 1863. I know I will win in the end, but I am getting a blast.

I was doing that too to a reasonable degree. I was dragging my feet in front of Richmond for two or three turns thinking the ai would pull it's forces from Norfolk to reinforce Richmond. Didn't happen. Than I continued dragging my feet after taking Richmond thinking the ai won't sacrifice those troops besieging Norfolk. In the end I won because I didn't halt my advance entirely and even a few added NM were sufficient to end the war...

Really, attacking Richmond in a slow campaign where I first secured all important railroad centres isn't exploiting the ai's weakness. Had I done anything less I'd have had to stay on the defensive...

[Alexander the Average]

It's early 1862 and I have both of my Virginia armies besieging Washington, the AI is stuck with a pretty difficult decision but i doubt there is much they can do to rectify the situation. Idealy they should have never let me in to start with.

I can see why players would not have taken Washington to make the game last longer and be more enjoyable but it would be better if we didn't have to. A lot of people expected an early end to the war and this is exactly whats happening so i don't think its unrealistic.

Has anybody else had the AI throw its artillery and batterys out when you attack a sea fort? I captured a coastal art. and a fort battery from both fort monroe and ft. pickens the turn before i ended the seige by assault.

[Lew]

Question to other players: Is anyone else seeing substantially longer move times for forces that include separate Sharpshooter (Line Infantry movement) elements?

A force that would normally take 6 days to make a move might easily take 9 if I add a sharpshooter (or fail to take it out).

[von Sachsen]

Question to other players: Is anyone else seeing substantially longer move times for forces that include separate Sharpshooter (Line Infantry movement) elements?

A force that would normally take 6 days to make a move might easily take 9 if I add a sharpshooter (or fail to take it out).

Are they included in a division or separate within the force? If the latter, it is most likely because the is a larger command penalty, which slows down movement among other things.

[Lew]

Are they included in a division or separate within the force? If the latter, it is most likely because the is a larger command penalty, which slows down movement among other things.

Separate within a force. I have not done enough testing to know the effect within a division.

No, it's not due to command penalty. I've made sure of that.

[George McClellan]

This was released on meh b-day! So it must be lucky!

[George McClellan]

I would like to be able to see the battle in 3D on the battlefield *camera toggle* and click OK to return to the map. Isn't it great?

[George McClellan]

Question to other players: Is anyone else seeing substantially longer move times for forces that include separate Sharpshooter (Line Infantry movement) elements?

A force that would normally take 6 days to make a move might easily take 9 if I add a sharpshooter (or fail to take it out).

I thought that was normal!

[Rasher]

Any news on the final release date for this patch? I think someone mentioned middle of January. Thanks

Rasher

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Mirandasucre]

i suppose the last beta is going to be,the last official patch, the final legacy patch.....no problem with this, but personally, since i installed it, i got a piece of an african map ( from PON ?) that appears when i point the upper part of the screen......anyone experienced the same ?