AGEOD Forums

I noticed this while going through my ships waiting to be ready to put back out to sea



The Cohesion Bar is almost at the top. My estimation would be about 80-90% using the graphic. But the tool-tip show 41/80(!!), which is not even close.

Percentage has nothing to do with it. Each segment is 20 cohesion: the bar is saying there is 2 sets of 20 out of a possible 3. It's a general indicator, not an exact science.

deleted

On the topic of misrepresented graphics... Both the X axis and Y are off on the mini-map. I'm not sur if this is a simple fix or not,but it has been present for some time.

deleted

enf91 wrote:Percentage has nothing to do with it. Each segment is 20 cohesion: the bar is saying there is 2 sets of 20 out of a possible 3. It's a general indicator, not an exact science.

Firstly, if you are correct, then it should be x sets of 20 out of a possible 4, because Cohesion max is 80.

Secondly, if that is the case, the rounding is ... deceiving. Logically it should only display a set when at least half of that set is available, not just one point of that set.

EG:
0 - 10 cohesion : no purple bar displayed
11 - 30 cohesion : 1 bar displayed
31 - 50 cohesion : 2 bars displayed
51 - 70 cohesion : 3 bars displayed
71 - 80 cohesion : 4 bars displayed

Gray_Lensman wrote:I think your explanation is quite probably incorrect and it's definitely confusing to make any sense out of it, exact science or not.

I have to agree with Captain_Orso here that the current cohesion bar display is unclear. It would actually be of more informational value to the player/gamers if the purple column actually did show itself filled in approx. 50% when the cohesion is 41/80.

To me it looks as if the bar is displaying the unit's max. possible cohesion compared to 100 rather than the unit's actual cohesion value compared to the unit's max. possible cohesion value.

In formula terms

unit's max. possible cohesion/100

vs

unit's current cohesion/unit's max. possible cohesion

Pocus? This might be considered for an overall AGE engine change?

I think enf91 may be correct, but barring being able to test this in any orderly fashion I'll just have to leave it at that.

I can live quite well with the bar size itself representing the maximum possible Cohesion. That is an additional little piece of information at a glance, which is good. If the bar were always at 100% of the physical possible display area, it would not depict the actual maximum cohesion of the unit.

My peeve is with the rounding of when one of these 20-point sections of the bar is displayed.

soloswolf wrote:On the topic of misrepresented graphics... Both the X axis and Y are off on the mini-map. I'm not sur if this is a simple fix or not,but it has been present for some time.

Wolf ... what fix?

Gray_Lensman wrote:Sorry, but I don't think so. The X/Y coordinates are just fine on the mini-map. I just tested this by positioning the mouse pointer tip exactly over Ft Monroe's tiny little blue dot and the resulting large screen positioned exactly with Ft Monroe centered. I tested this with the AACW original v1.14 game engine AND the new (not released yet) AACW v1.14d game engine. Both behaved the same.

Now, if you're referring to the X/Y coordinates in the Full debug box when positioned over Ft Monroe vs what they are when positioned over the mini-map, this is a misinterpretation of those X/Y coordinates. In effect the X/Y coordinates depicted while the mouse is over the mini-map are actually the coordinates of the position that exist on the full screen map currently "covered" by the mini-map.

On my mini-map the 'dots' are askew too. Here's a section of the main map with the mini map pasted over it.



As you can see, the 'dots' for my fleet(s), the CSA fleet and the British land unit are all shifted up by at least the full height of one 'dot'.

Here's the mini map in its original size to make it easier to view. This is exactly how it looks for me in-game.



I've learned to live with it, as I have other problems with which to deal, like Hindeman in Racine, WI with a mini-division, who just wiped-out 5 Cav reinforcements in Milwaukee before they were trained. leure:

I'm going to wipe him out to the last man. Revenge is a dish best served piping-hot.

Captain_Orso wrote:I'm going to wipe him out to the last man. Revenge is a dish best served piping-hot.

But only if you have the means to carry it out with no adverse side effects .

Captain_Orso wrote:Wolf ... what fix?

I did not present any fix. I was saying that I was not sure if fixing it was simple or not.

Captain_Orso wrote:On my mini-map the 'dots' are askew too. Here's a section of the main map with the mini map pasted over it.



As you can see, the 'dots' for my fleet(s), the CSA fleet and the British land unit are all shifted up by at least the full height of one 'dot'.

Here's the mini map in its original size to make it easier to view. This is exactly how it looks for me in-game.

This is just what my map looks like as well. It obviously has not broken the game for me, but when the dots are showing up outside of the map boxes (etc.), I think something is off.

enf91 wrote:But only if you have the means to carry it out with no adverse side effects .

Well, the adverse side affect was that I used so much rail transport capacity that my rail supply capacity went down to 2/3 AND that I had to draw off enough troops for 3 division from the Tennessee and Trans-Mississippi fronts for two months (trip there, battle, trip back), but it was worth it

Just goes to show that I'm playing with one hand tied behind my back, if I can scratch those forces together on short notice. But I already knew this. I'm always standing idle somewhere while waiting for one section of the front to press forward so that the other can the resume it's progress. My dangling flanks are always ground for a lot of lots of excitement.

soloswolf wrote:I did not present any fix. I was saying that I was not sure if fixing it was simple or not.

This is just what my map looks like as well. It obviously has not broken the game for me, but when the dots are showing up outside of the map boxes (etc.), I think something is off.

(to myself) oke:*duh-uh* Yeah, I know what you mean, now.

Captain_Orso wrote:(to myself) oke:*duh-uh* Yeah, I know what you mean, now.

No worries.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:There does appear to be some shifting when the dot in question represents a standalone unit. Clicking on a dot that represents an occupied structure such as Ft Monroe appears to be "spot on", however, pun intended.

Just kidding

It's not a question of whether clicking the 'dit' centers the map on the unit which it represents, but that the 'dots' themselves are too high on the mini-map

Have a look again.



Look in the view-frame on the mini-map. The blue 'dot' on the mini-map representing my fleets in the Gulf Blockade Box are sitting on the top edge of the box. The CSA fleet too. And the British land unit is sitting on the lower edge of the blockade box. All of the 'dots' are too high.



High up, I mean, high up.

There are several cohesion bars length, each with variations from empty to filled. But yes there is a rounding which is not optimal here.

Hi Pokus,

Yes, I know that the length of the Cohesion Bar itself represents the maximum cohesion of the unit. I find that a good thing in itself as it illustrates just that.

As you say, the formula deciding how much of the Cohesion Bar is filled with purple is deceptive. I've had ships in one of the blockade boxes or on picket blockading the James Estuary go down to 0 cohesion (tool tip stating cohesion 0 / maximum 80) and still have a small purple part of the cohesion bar showing.

What about the 'high' 'dots'?

deleted

yes, the graphics are there \Icons&Bullets\Units
I'll see when I get some time to double check the formula used, it has a fault indeed.

About high dots: I don't remember exactly the problem, but there is one (aspect ratio not respected between OMB on the minimap and on the real map, something like that) which make a perfect positioning impossible.

Thanks guys. I kind of thought that the issue with the mini-map would be a real stumper. The issue with the cohesion bar is IMO more important.