AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 5 - November 8, 2011

[Philippe]

[INDENT]

[INDENT][color=blue]Nertz. We fixed this once, but apparently we used post-its, not superglue!

A simpler fix (rather than standing in line for dev time) would be to raise the Division Limit by the number of Grit/Fr Divisions...

[/INDENT]

A very logical temporary solution. Would it make sense to raise the limit, request developer time, and then lower the limit when the developer comes through?

[lodilefty]

A very logical temporary solution. Would it make sense to raise the limit, request developer time, and then lower the limit when the developer comes through?

Yes. That's my plan.

Stay tuned

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

[quote="lodilefty"][INDENT]These are all $famRaider, and as such this may be the new WAD for Raiders. Stay tuned while I query the Master.
[/INDENT]


I'm not sure if it's WAD, but I like the way it works in RUS. It takes a stack of irregulars to be sure of breaking a rail line. Single units often won't break it. Haven't tried it in AACW yet. (It used to work that way in RUS anyway, I haven't tried a single unit rail break in a while)

[Captain_Orso]

The Element Display Window does not have a Close Window button [X].

I know that this has been reported before, but I just went through the old patch thread "AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 4a - December 12, 2010" and couldn't find a posting that the reporting of this was actually acknowledged by the Devs or a posting from the Devs confirming that this is now WAD.

BTW, you can still close the window be clicking on the unit symbol a second time of the unit on which you clicked to open the Element Display Window or as previously if you click on the unit symbol of another unit that unit's Element Display is opened, or if you right-click on the map the Element Display closes.

There have also been several reports about the new way captured rifles and troops is displayed with the word 'hundreds' behind the number.

Firstly in English you never say x hundreds, but x hundred.

Secondly it's actually and irregular idiomatic way of expressing larger numbers. I don't actually think there are any official rule on using this style of expression, but there are some usages that just sound strange to me as a native US English speaker. For example, '19 hundred' and '21 hundred' is not unusual, but '20 hundred' or any factor of 10 is. It just sounds strange to my ears although it is understandable. But I would never say it that way; I would always say 2000 or 3000.

One very simple solution would be to replace ' hundreds' (the space in front of the 'h' is on purpose) with '00'. This will always work. So '4 hundred' would be 400 and '16 hundred' would be 1600. Until you get up over 9900 it's still easy to read; and beyond 9900 you would never say hundreds anyway. 100 hundreds is not a correct express other than logically.

Sorry that I'm getting out so late in the game, so to say. I've been away from AACW for a while.

[richfed]

Started a new campaign with the new patch [clean install] as the CSA. Playing full campaign w/ Kentucky --- played through June '61.

Two things:

1. Dragging units to merge with other units sometimes visually results in the being dragged unit[s] appearing as the image in the unit panel rather than the playing piece image. I think it happens if an artillery or leader is present in the being dragged stack. It makes it slightly more difficult to be sure you are merged.

2. I have tried to construct the available artillery units in Arkanas 3 turns in a row. They do not begin construction, but remain available in the reinforcement pool.

Save included.

I still am not convinced that this is WAD. It is very different than it once was.

Plus, there is this thread: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=21904 that I do not think was ever addressed.

[GraniteStater]

Firstly in English you never say x hundreds, but x hundred

Very old fashioned, but actually legit. Almost obsolete at this point, but still valid. More of a Briticism, I believe.

[lodilefty]

I still am not convinced that this is WAD. It is very different than it once was.

Plus, there is this thread: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=21904 that I do not think was ever addressed.

The changes could very well be differrent, but they are WAD. It is possible that a bugfix in PON fixed a hidden bug here.

I missed the Intervention thread. Bughunt under way...

[richfed]

I don't get the practibility. I have 4 artillery pieces available in the reinforcement pool for AR, plus several more available in TX. I have never played a game where as I was not able to build those pieces. I have plenty of $$ and WS - industrialization going on in both those states [something I never did before]. Yet, turn after turn I order up the artillery, the turn processes, and it's as if I never purchased them. Nothing happens. This does not seem right for AACW. At this rate, the entire game could pass by and if I don't have WS generated IN Arkansas or IN Texas those pieces will never be able to be built.

This situation appears to similiar to me not being able to order chits for the British and French after intervention, though probabaly fewer players have experienced that because intervention is somewhat rare.

Any input from veteran players? Do you notice a difference as the CSA player trying to build artillery in the far west?

[lodilefty]

I don't get the practibility. I have 4 artillery pieces available in the reinforcement pool for AR, plus several more available in TX. I have never played a game where as I was not able to build those pieces. I have plenty of $$ and WS - industrialization going on in both those states [something I never did before]. Yet, turn after turn I order up the artillery, the turn processes, and it's as if I never purchased them. Nothing happens. This does not seem right for AACW. At this rate, the entire game could pass by and if I don't have WS generated IN Arkansas or IN Texas those pieces will never be able to be built.

This situation appears to similiar to me not being able to order chits for the British and French after intervention, though probabaly fewer players have experienced that because intervention is somewhat rare.

Any input from veteran players? Do you notice a difference as the CSA player trying to build artillery in the far west?

The requirement for WSU to build these units is now WAD. Citing previous versions where this was not the case is moot.

Practical solution: I will add 1 WSU in a port city in each of MS, TX, AR so Artillery and IronClads can be built. (If my testing of this does not allow these to be built, THEN we have a bug and will fix it )

No comment on ENG or FRA issue, as the Intervention events are a mess (being fixed)

[richfed]

I see now ... after many months, AR finally created 3 WS and all four artillery units I had ordered up were built at Fort Smith. It does work, so I am satisfied.

[lodilefty]

I see now ... after many months, AR finally created 3 WS and all four artillery units I had ordered up were built at Fort Smith. It does work, so I am satisfied.

Is this after you industrialized?

If so, should we still add WSU to each state to make this easier?
Like maybe for AI only?

[Citizen X]

Is this after you industrialized?

If so, should we still add WSU to each state to make this easier?
Like maybe for AI only?

If asked I would strictly say "no" to forced industrialization in the Far West, just to be able to build artillery there.

It is a long distance already. If you want to hold AR, for instance, you need to have artillery there. You can't get it there quick enough because the Union has a much shorter route (St Louis produces WS, thus the Union can build cannons there right away). So you need to either gamble on having a WS there right away or give up AR right away.

You would need to add the cost of insustrialization to the cost of the canons.

When you eventually lose the Far West you provided the Union with an excellent supply source.

Such a measure would bring an even greater imbalance into the game to the benefit of the Union. I would recommend to not alter it without need. Never change a running system.

Or if you must, why not restrict it via the forcepool.

Maybe I missed the point. Why again was it implemented that way?

[richfed]

Is this after you industrialized?

If so, should we still add WSU to each state to make this easier?
Like maybe for AI only?

Yes, after I industialized ... maybe 6 turns later. A little boost would be good, I think.

[squarian]

Like maybe for AI only?

Yes - the AI is likely not to be able to perform the complicated dance necessary to build arty elsewhere and move it to AR, so for the AI such a change seems like a good idea, since it'll mean a more challenging game for the Union player.

I'd be against increasing WSU in the Far West for a CSA player, though - obviously the trans-Mississippi region was still very primitive in the 1860s and if any guns were constructed there IRL, I doubt the number was large.

[lodilefty]

OK. Since Industrialization is WAD, and historically the far west was industry-poor, we'll boost the AI only for now.

IIRC, Texas gets a "free" arty unit when invaded (usually by the Sam Houston event)

It will be easy to mod. Remind me to supply instructions!

Also, remember that the WSU city requirement was added in RC4a last year, so apparently it was bugged until now....

[charlesonmission]

Why not build the artillery in LA or TN and ship it via river. Or better yet, there was already some artillery in AK when the state seceded; which also fought at Wilson's Creek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulaski_Light_Artillery

I would be surprised that artillery was manufactured in Arkanasas at all though.

Charles

If asked I would strictly say "no" to forced industrialization in the Far West, just to be able to build artillery there.

It is a long distance already. If you want to hold AR, for instance, you need to have artillery there. You can't get it there quick enough because the Union has a much shorter route (St Louis produces WS, thus the Union can build cannons there right away). So you need to either gamble on having a WS there right away or give up AR right away.

You would need to add the cost of insustrialization to the cost of the canons.

When you eventually lose the Far West you provided the Union with an excellent supply source.

Such a measure would bring an even greater imbalance into the game to the benefit of the Union. I would recommend to not alter it without need. Never change a running system.

Or if you must, why not restrict it via the forcepool.

Maybe I missed the point. Why again was it implemented that way?

[Citizen X]

Why not build the artillery in LA or TN and ship it via river.

As I said already. Because they arrive much later then their Union counterparts. Thus rendering the effort useless.

Or better yet, there was already some artillery in AK when the state seceded; which also fought at Wilson's Creek.

That would be my suggestion. I had always wondered why the CSA wouldn't even recieve a single 6lb along with their militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulaski_Light_Artillery

Wikipedia doesn't have the status of a valid source at least at my university .

I would be surprised that artillery was manufactured in Arkanasas at all though.

I would be surprised if they had industrialized AR. Sometimes one has to make the decision between historical against realistic. Or sensible, for that matter.

[squarian]

historical against realistic.

I don't understand this distinction. Historical as opposed to realistic would mean what exactly in this context?

[squarian]

The Case of the Missing Parrotts:

I buy four bttys in preceding turn, in current turn I get the usual "New Units raised" msg, indicating three of the four have been built in Robeson, NC - except when I click on Robeson, only one of the three is there. Have I missed something elementary, my dear Holmes?

[lodilefty]

Three issues:

1) Raider/bushwhacker/indians apparently unable to destroy RRs and depots - see, in LateJan62 save, Watie & Co. at Jefferson City and in Fall62 save, Raider unit in Md and Shenandoah valley for several turns in Sept & Oct, trying futilely to blow rails and depots. In both instances, units spent not just one but several turns in place, clicking destroy buttons.

Seems that since 1.16 RC4a, RUS release led to a change (to reduce "gamey" raiding):


Destruction of RailRoads is no longer automatic:

• A check is made of D100 <{less than} Stack Strength. +25 to stack strength if attribute “*pillage*” is applied to model
• All Partisans, Indians, BushWhackers, Raiders, Guerillas and Bandidos now (1.16 RC6 coming soon) have “*NoCapture*|*pillage*” attributes. (All show the Pillager ability icon)
• Day of destruction is random. Not always day 1, so if you give a move command, the unit may move away before destruction occurs.

3) Engine apparently counting Brit/Fr divisions against CSA limit (per another thread "CSA Division limits?")

See the poll:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=222246&postcount=1

[squarian]

Seems that since 1.16 RC4a, RUS release led to a change (to reduce "gamey" raiding):

So in short, this is WAD. That's great, actually - it will certainly limit the incentive for whacky raiding.

The formula looks good, too - so, IIRC, Watie and his three Indian rgts have a typical strength of ~75 (+25 for pillager): near certain chance of tearing up the rails, but they have to stay still for the turn (unless they want to take a chance). An individual raider/bushwhacker/partisan/etc would have about an even chance of success, assuming full cohesion, etc. - which would imply a raid close to the front, i.e. one turn's move from a base. Any long-distance moves deep into enemy territory will produce attrition, cohesion loss, etc, which will reduce the chance of success substantially the longer and deeper the raiders go.

Sounds good. Congrats to whoever came up with this.

Now, about that RC6....

[richfed]

Chomping at the bit for the next build and, especially, your Mod, Lodi. It'll be like learning the game all over again as the CSA player. Thank you for your efforts!!

[Coldsteel]

Also, hope this isn't a dumb question. . .but If I went straight from version 1.15 to the LATEST download / patch. . . . . do I need to also download all the other ones inbetween, or does version 5 update everything from the other updates?

Thanks,

[lodilefty]

Also, hope this isn't a dumb question. . .but If I went straight from version 1.15 to the LATEST download / patch. . . . . do I need to also download all the other ones inbetween, or does version 5 update everything from the other updates?

Thanks,

RC5 includes all

[Coldsteel]

RC5 includes all

Thank you sir....

Your most humble servant.

[lodilefty]

RC6 being released.

Thread closed.

Thank you!!!