AGEOD Forums

deleted

deleted

This is good stuff!

Good stuff, yes. But this is always a problem to invalidate saved games (imagine PBEM games), and I always do that very reluctantly (generally all patches are compatibles). Just to be clear, if the only problem is a change in alias, then current games should be ok as the region references are stored as a numeric, not an alias. And if you created a region, I believe you added it at the end of the list?

It would be better, if invalidation is expected, to first publish a patch fixing all bugs, and then providing a new patch with this kind of update.

Pocus wrote:Good stuff, yes. But this is always a problem to invalidate saved games (imagine PBEM games), and I always do that very reluctantly (generally all patches are compatibles). Just to be clear, if the only problem is a change in alias, then current games should be ok as the region references are stored as a numeric, not an alias. And if you created a region, I believe you added it at the end of the list?

We're in luck... No Saved game CTD after all.

After reading your comment regarding region references being stored as a numeric, I decided to give this a test. I had v1.13b installed on my desktop, so I initiated an 1862 scenario startup which actually places Magruder and his associated army units with him in the region I thought might cause the CTD (137 New Kent, VA). I then saved this game and moved the files to my new reworked installation using v1.13e RC8 and the latest data rework. Turns out contrary to my errant expectations that there is NO CTD. Yes, the new region is at the end of the list.

In this case I'm quite relieved that I was incorrect in assuming a CTD.

edit1> It should be noted that most veteran PBEM players are familiar enough with the game to know better than to update in the middle of their ongoing games. I suspect hardly any of them would do so unless the version they were already playing under had a serious issue that they wanted fixed without starting over. Only newbies would have a problem with this, but of course there are a lot of newbies. I do seriously try to avoid saved game issues. I guess we can keep the v1.13e xxxx designation after all.

edit2> There will be a little file manipulation necessary with Inno Setup, which I touched on with you the other day. We'll get into that in more detail when the time comes for a released patch (beta first as always).

lodilefty wrote:This is good stuff!

I agree - thanks (for what seems like the thousandth time) Gray!

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Just for everyone's interest, I'm studying the possiblity of splitting the region Chattanooga is located in also. Not sure when/if I will get to it but the current region is not defined very well to facilitate a Chattanooga/Chickamauga scenario.

Thanks for all the work you have done with AACW Gray. I've not played it for a year but I follow the changes you make. I want to replay it in any case but the changes you make add a lot to the interest of playing a new game.

Thanks!
Chris

Gray_Lensman wrote:Just for everyone's interest, I'm studying the possiblity of splitting the region Chattanooga is located in also. Not sure when/if I will get to it but the current region is not defined very well to facilitate a Chattanooga/Chickamauga scenario.

The time consuming part of this will be the necessity of a graphic addition of a new "border" demarcation line prior to the split which has to be synchronized between 2 separate source maps, i.e. the normal map and the winterized map. The database rework is a "snap" if there's no real graphics change needed. The New Kent rework above was much easier than expected other than the required switch of the old New Kent region to Williamsburg.

I could be quite mistaken, but...

isn't Chattanooga on the right (i. e. 'north') bank of the Tennesee River? IIRC, in the game, it's on the left ('south') bank.