User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 7 - November 29, 2011

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:11 pm

And again. (I really hope we can "go official" with this one!!! ;) )


<link removed>

The AGEOD team recognize the enormous number of volunteer hours spent improving the Rail network accuracy, addition of new regions to enhance historical play, creation and adaptation of the "Kentucky Mods" to give a different "feel" to the start of the war, numerous other fixes and enhancements by various modders to the Database, and public beta testing of new executables and changes. Without the efforts of the community, AACW would not be as complete as it is today. We all know games are never perfect or can ever be considered as finished, but help and implication of our fan base always leads to a better product, and, once again, THANK YOU ALL!

================================================== ========================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.16 Release Candidate 7
November 29, 2011
================================================== ========================
The patch is a comprehensive patch, meaning it can be applied directly over your initial game installation setup version.


  • Fixed dame engine bug that prevented raising new units in some rare instances.
  • Added altArea zones to several units (mostly in the Western theater) to allow them to raise outside home state if no valid region exist in home state.
  • Corrected all Units that had Alt_Area with no defined Area (for the raise rules)
  • Delay unlocking of CSS Virginia until March 1862. Also, the ability to build CSA Ironclads is delayed to the same date. (Buchanan and CSS Virginia still appear when Norfolk is captured, but only release at historical date)
  • Delay unlocking of USS Monitor until Late February 1862. Also, the ability to build USA Ironclads is delayed to March 1862. (Dahlgren and USS Monitor still appear when Norfolk is captured, but only release at historical date)
  • Delay ability to build USA River Ironclads until January 1862, concurrent with arrival of USS Cairo. [1861 w/Kentucky Campaigns only]
See [B]ACW Updates.rtf (in your installation folder) for comprehensive list of changes since the Elder Days....[/B]

Effective with patch 1.16 [RC5]




Explanation of the “Raise Rule” applied when buying new units or when the annual Militia muster occurs:
  • $recWSU: Only raise in a region that is producing War Supply.
    • All field Artillery (separate units) Units with “imbedded artillery” do not require WSU in region.
    • This is WAD: KS, TX, MS, MO, AR require Industrialization to build artillery
  • $recTown and $recCity use different probability on which city the unit gets built in Area (recCity squares the size of city) , so a bigger city is more likely to be chosen as build site.
  • $recHarbor and $recHarborWSU add to these the requirment of a port
    • $recHarborWSU: Coastal and Fort Batteries, Ironclads, Monitors, Steam Frigates, Armored Frigates
  • $RecCap will only allow build in your Capital
    • Army HQ Units
  • $RecObj will only allow build in a controlled Objective
    • Signal, Medical, Engineer, Naval Engineer, Baloons
  • For all cases you need >=50% MC to build (and MC increases slowly with only small units in a newly captured region)
  • For all cases you need >=25% loyalty to build in a region
Example: if you are raising a unit in Missouri, you'll need at least 1 city with >50% MC and >25% Loyalty for the unit to appear. Additionally, you'll need a region with these values that produces WSU to build Artillery.



How to modify the Maximum Quantity of Divisions that can be formed.


  1. Open Windows Explore
  2. Navigate to your installation directory ( default: AGEod's American Civil War)
  3. Navigate to \ACW\Events
  4. Using NotePad or some other text editor, open the event file with the same name as the scenario you wish to change. (ex: 1861 April w-KY Campaign.sct)
  5. Search the file for evt_nam_CSA_DivisionFormation
  6. Edit the last number in the line SetCombiUnits = 0;0;30 to the new value. (max 999)
  7. Search the file for evt_nam_USA_DivisionFormation
  8. Edit the last number in the line SetCombiUnits = 0;0;60to the new value. (max 999)
  9. Save the file and close the editor.
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:04 pm

This game is as much fun in the forum as playing :thumbsup:

I assume that the 'Various Events.sct' quick-fix from RC6 is included in this :hat:

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:32 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:This game is as much fun in the forum as playing :thumbsup:

I assume that the 'Various Events.sct' quick-fix from RC6 is included in this :hat:


Mee too!

Yes!
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Philippe
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New York

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:58 pm

Not sure anything can be done about this, but the canal between Lake Michigan and Peoria doesn't seem to have a label.

It took me the longest time to figure out that you could use it, partly because I wasn't looking for it, partly because there didn't seem to be any visual clue for it.

Any chance it can be made to stand out a bit more?

[I'm willing to take a look at changing the graphic file, but I'll need to know what to call it (assuming there's space for more than the word "canal"), and I'll need to know the name of the file].

Apart from that, when I first became aware that you could move a boat from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, I tried to drag and drop from Chicago to Cairo. Nothing happened. I eventually found that I could drag and drop from Chicago to Peoria (took five days) but no farther. Haven't conducted any tests on this, but I'm wondering why I couldn't go beyond the canal from Chicago, and whether things will work normally once I've got the boats to Peoria.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:31 pm

Yup!! They're the same :)

And building artillery outside of MO, because the city restrictions prevent it from being built in St Louse works too

Image

:mdr:

I also built 2x 6lb batteries which are actually being built in Cincinnati :D
plus 2 other brigades, a Skirmisher and a supply train, all of which are being raised in St Joseph. I do feel sorry for the CSA in the Trans-Mississippi now :neener:

Those Missourians could have put the order for the 10lb somewhere closer, but the pedicurist committee probably wanted to visit those wild dance halls in Harper's Ferry that they've heard so much about :rolleyes:

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:00 pm

Philippe wrote:Not sure anything can be done about this, but the canal between Lake Michigan and Peoria doesn't seem to have a label.

It took me the longest time to figure out that you could use it, partly because I wasn't looking for it, partly because there didn't seem to be any visual clue for it.

Any chance it can be made to stand out a bit more?

[I'm willing to take a look at changing the graphic file, but I'll need to know what to call it (assuming there's space for more than the word "canal"), and I'll need to know the name of the file].

Apart from that, when I first became aware that you could move a boat from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, I tried to drag and drop from Chicago to Cairo. Nothing happened. I eventually found that I could drag and drop from Chicago to Peoria (took five days) but no farther. Haven't conducted any tests on this, but I'm wondering why I couldn't go beyond the canal from Chicago, and whether things will work normally once I've got the boats to Peoria.


The canal is on the map, but not very obvious :blink:

It will be several files, in the Graphics\Regions folder. There are two for each region,one "normal" and one "Winter_" :)

I'm no artist, so it ain't gonna be me :bonk:



Once in the River region, should work OK (remember, the river downstream may be blocked too. KY not entered, weather will do it.)
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Philippe
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New York

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:16 pm

Here are two regions in summer textures with the canal simply marked "canal" rather than with its full name.

That should make it a bit more obvious if you don't go looking for it in winter weather.
Attachments
Michigan-Illinois Canal summer.zip
(317.63 KiB) Downloaded 268 times

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:21 pm

If the CSA gets even more stripped of strategic alternatives to conduct the war I throw the game in a corner.

Just stop tempering with it now, please.

I don't see the whole point in the changes being made since rc4. It is beyond me.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:35 pm

Citizen X wrote:If the CSA gets even more stripped of strategic alternatives to conduct the war I throw the game in a corner.

Just stop tempering with it now, please.

I don't see the whole point in the changes being made since rc4. It is beyond me.


Noone will ever force you to apply a patch. There are, I'm sure, people still playing the early versioons with Division HQ units. :)

The only scenarios affected are the "with Kentucky", which are hardly "elder scenarios". Vanilla is still vanilla.

So, I'll stick to my mods, and let this be the last....
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Coldsteel
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:52 am
Location: Saint Louis, Mo

Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:45 pm

Thanks Lodilefty!
Pour it into em boys! Give em the Cold Steel!

User avatar
Philippe
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New York

Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:27 pm

Just naming them "canal" wasn't folkloric enough.

After I decided to go with the full name and summer and winter textures.

The font type I'm using is Times New Roman with some modding, which looks about right. If someone can suggest another font type that looks better I can give it another go. In theory, anyway.

The shade of blue, different for each season, is about right but is also easily changed. The corner that I did decide to cut was the rotating of the text. It doesn't add much from a visual standpoint, and involves a lot of cleanup work because the colors smear over and leak into the transparent pixels.

I haven't been able to follow my usual modding rule of sleeping on a change for twenty-four hours before rolling something out, so feedback is welcome (especially since I haven't tested the winter textures in game yet).
Attachments
Illinois Michigan Canal full name summer and winter.zip
(639.27 KiB) Downloaded 276 times

User avatar
Philippe
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New York

Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:34 pm

lodilefty wrote:Noone will ever force you to apply a patch. There are, I'm sure, people still playing the early versioons with Division HQ units. :)

The only scenarios affected are the "with Kentucky", which are hardly "elder scenarios". Vanilla is still vanilla.

So, I'll stick to my mods, and let this be the last....


Lodilefty's work is what has made me look at this again. I certainly hope this isn't the last mod.

As to the original criticism, it was very vague and unspecific, and sounded a bit like sour grapes over not being able to play a 'South will rise again' fantasy scenario that is divorced from history.

Alternate History fantasy scenarios are the province of Paradox games. I play Ageod games because I want something that comes a bit closer to the real thing. Hopefully the two categories won't get blended together, or, if they do, they'll be kept in clearly separate scenarios with distinct labels ( e.g. "The Stone Mountain Confederate Alternatives Scenario").

richfed
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:00 am

Good job, Lodi ... thank you.
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Coastal Bty raiserule again

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:02 am

Oops. I found a minor glitch with the CSA Coastal Artillery (again:bonk :)

Extract the attached into ACW\GameData\Units
3 files will be overwritten.

Then be sure to delete fie: Units.cached (in same directory.)
Restart AACW after doing both
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Confederate
Lieutenant
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:32 am
Location: USA

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:37 am

Wow, I haven't played this game in ages. I loved it, but it was huge and took up a ton of space on my computer. Plus it crashes once out of every three times I try to play it, so it's extremely hard to actually get the "feel" of playing a Grand Campaign.

However, the fact that you guys still care about this game makes me want to play it again. I guess with this new patch coming out, I'll give it another shot ;)

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:55 am

Confederate wrote:Wow, I haven't played this game in ages. I loved it, but it was huge and took up a ton of space on my computer. Plus it crashes once out of every three times I try to play it, so it's extremely hard to actually get the "feel" of playing a Grand Campaign.

However, the fact that you guys still care about this game makes me want to play it again. I guess with this new patch coming out, I'll give it another shot ;)


Sounds like it's time for a PC upgrade. I think the last time I worried about HD space for a game was Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries and its massive 100mb install back in 1997.

User avatar
Confederate
Lieutenant
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:32 am
Location: USA

Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:02 am

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:Sounds like it's time for a PC upgrade. I think the last time I worried about HD space for a game was Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries and its massive 100mb install back in 1997.


But mine's only a 2008 :neener:

But, yeah, I should consider a PC upgrade. This game is great, but they need to find an effort to put it below 1GB of space (the installation was like 1.5 or 1.2GB)

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:34 am

Philippe wrote:Lodilefty's work is what has made me look at this again. I certainly hope this isn't the last mod.

As to the original criticism, it was very vague and unspecific, and sounded a bit like sour grapes over not being able to play a 'South will rise again' fantasy scenario that is divorced from history.

Alternate History fantasy scenarios are the province of Paradox games. I play Ageod games because I want something that comes a bit closer to the real thing. Hopefully the two categories won't get blended together, or, if they do, they'll be kept in clearly separate scenarios with distinct labels ( e.g. "The Stone Mountain Confederate Alternatives Scenario").



I am as grateful as everybody that this game is still being worked upon. Just to make that clear.
I don't think however that I am obliged to cheer when I don't feel like cheering.

As to the matter of fantasy scenarios I can only say that I play the south to actually win. And I would like to have a few tools to my disposal. The way the development goes now the south gets more and more limited to certain sets of moves. Win in Missouri early to devert troops away from more important parts of the western theatre? Forget it! Keep the Union out of the James or at least make them commit considerable amounts of ships (that then might lack elsewhere)? Now way! Fiddling about variants of more or less the same path of actions is not strategic. Thats tactical. If I want it strictly historic I watch a movie. Or at least I would like to have it explained to me how it is historic to have no cannons in the Transmississippi. Or why I get stripped of the capability to effectvely defend my eastern coast in the early game as long as I can still make a difference there. Or why these changes get implemanted and other changes to make it more historical don't. Like getting rid of rodmans, colunḿbiads and gatlings. I simply don't get it.

This thing started as a patch and landed as a mod.

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:50 am

Confederate wrote:But mine's only a 2008 :neener:

But, yeah, I should consider a PC upgrade. This game is great, but they need to find an effort to put it below 1GB of space (the installation was like 1.5 or 1.2GB)


It wouldn't bother me if it's 10gb. A 1tb HD costs under 50$ now. I didn't think disk space was a constraint for anyone anymore. Well, unless you're trying to put it on an SSD, but that's not really necessary for this game.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:40 am

Citizen X wrote:I am as grateful as everybody that this game is still being worked upon. Just to make that clear.
I don't think however that I am obliged to cheer when I don't feel like cheering.

As to the matter of fantasy scenarios I can only say that I play the south to actually win. And I would like to have a few tools to my disposal. The way the development goes now the south gets more and more limited to certain sets of moves. Win in Missouri early to devert troops away from more important parts of the western theatre? Forget it! Keep the Union out of the James or at least make them commit considerable amounts of ships (that then might lack elsewhere)? Now way! Fiddling about variants of more or less the same path of actions is not strategic. Thats tactical. If I want it strictly historic I watch a movie. Or at least I would like to have it explained to me how it is historic to have no cannons in the Transmississippi. Or why I get stripped of the capability to effectvely defend my eastern coast in the early game as long as I can still make a difference there. Or why these changes get implemanted and other changes to make it more historical don't. Like getting rid of rodmans, colunḿbiads and gatlings. I simply don't get it.

This thing started as a patch and landed as a mod.


The only "mod" is the delay of Ironclads to be more historical, as this keeps in step with most of the changes since 1.01.
....or don't you like those changes either?

The entire effort around the unit construction is to fix a long standing bug in unit placement.
...or should we leave the bug in place?

Again, you can always stay with he patch you want, and if you've lost an older patch link, just ask and we'll see if we can find it for you.
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:11 pm

Hi Citizen X,

I'm not really sure what exactly you feel is disadvantaging the CSA over the Union. I'm not saying that there isn't anything, but I'd like to understand what you are saying. Maybe I'm a little to inexperienced with the CSA, as I don' really play them, to understand it just like that.

The restrictions on building units in the Trans-Mississippi have been lightened. The only thing actually different is that artillery and ironclad may not be able to be built directly in the state in question. But that doesn't prevent you from building them anyway outside of the state and this affects both the CSA and the Union.

That being said, it may be a greater disadvantage for the Union not to be able to build ironclads in St Louis, as building them in Illinois will build some of them in Chicago, which firstly puts them further away, and secondly in winter months makes them inaccessible most of the time because the Michigan-Illinois Canal and the Illinois River are frozen.

As far as pushing back the building of ironclads altogether, I feel that it is a greater disadvantage for the Union, because as soon as they can be built the Union player can flood the front with them if he wishes; and there's nothing the CSA can do about that.

If you mean by "play the south to actually win" actually winning the war by concurring the Union, I think that that is a bit far fetched and the game would probably end much sooner than that were it possible.

If you mean winning the game, I think you need to clarify a bit better what exactly you mean is lessening your chances of winning. My experience in this forum is that formulating a good, clear argument goes a long way; and I'm curious to hear your view anyway. Maybe I'll learn something.

---

Edit: I got called away, and when I got back and finally posted this Lodi had already replyed :)

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:23 pm

lodilefty wrote:The only "mod" is the delay of Ironclads to be more historical, as this keeps in step with most of the changes since 1.01.
....or don't you like those changes either?



At the contrary. I like them very much. I like how this game was balanced out by vast quantities of hours of coding and gametesting by the staff and the gamers. A huge reason why I buy Ageod games is exactly this, that games being cared for so long after first being published.
In the case of AACW it had lead to a game with two factions with unique sets of capabilities in their arsenal allowing for a variety of ways to conduct a way to victory. Maintaining an as accurate a historical background as possible.

All I am saying is that the changes heavily favour one faction, thus potentially imbalacing a game that took years to balance it out.

Even the possibilties given to the CSA to circumvent this favour the Union. Industrialization in AR is no option imho. It provides the North with a potential source of supply at the gates of Vicksburg bypassing Island 10 and Memphis. And thats just the most obvious result of said changes that I can think of now.

First provisorios playtesting of the patch revealed that the Union can reach 2 turns earlier at Springfield with troops backed by artillery than the South can, if they are not willing to sacrifice the cannons of the Carolina Department to this purpose.

I may sound a bit harsh in my posts or not grateful for the efforts being made but I am not. I simply point to a planning error.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:34 pm

Citizen X wrote:At the contrary. I like them very much. I like how this game was balanced out by vast quantities of hours of coding and gametesting by the staff and the gamers. A huge reason why I buy Ageod games is exactly this, that games being cared for so long after first being published.
In the case of AACW it had lead to a game with two factions with unique sets of capabilities in their arsenal allowing for a variety of ways to conduct a way to victory. Maintaining an as accurate a historical background as possible.

All I am saying is that the changes heavily favour one faction, thus potentially imbalacing a game that took years to balance it out.

Even the possibilties given to the CSA to circumvent this favour the Union. Industrialization in AR is no option imho. It provides the North with a potential source of supply at the gates of Vicksburg bypassing Island 10 and Memphis. And thats just the most obvious result of said changes that I can think of now.

First provisorios playtesting of the patch revealed that the Union can reach 2 turns earlier at Springfield with troops backed by artillery than the South can, if they are not willing to sacrifice the cannons of the Carolina Department to this purpose.

I may sound a bit harsh in my posts or not grateful for the efforts being made but I am not. I simply point to a planning error.


With data from multiple playtest games, we can always do another patch :D

The simple fact of fixing the raiserule bug goes a long way to addressing your concern. No need ffor CSA to Industriallize, as the Arty units will be built "somewhere" in the SouthWest (usually in LA to start) :blink: Again, we'll fine tune this, as "simple DB changes" don't require dev time, just mine (and yours to generate feedback)

My WIP mod includes an Arty unit at start in Little Rock ;)
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:41 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:Hi Citizen X,

I'm not really sure what exactly you feel is disadvantaging the CSA over the Union. I'm not saying that there isn't anything, but I'd like to understand what you are saying. Maybe I'm a little to inexperienced with the CSA, as I don' really play them, to understand it just like that.

The restrictions on building units in the Trans-Mississippi have been lightened. The only thing actually different is that artillery and ironclad may not be able to be built directly in the state in question. But that doesn't prevent you from building them anyway outside of the state and this affects both the CSA and the Union.

That being said, it may be a greater disadvantage for the Union not to be able to build ironclads in St Louis, as building them in Illinois will build some of them in Chicago, which firstly puts them further away, and secondly in winter months makes them inaccessible most of the time because the Michigan-Illinois Canal and the Illinois River are frozen.

As far as pushing back the building of ironclads altogether, I feel that it is a greater disadvantage for the Union, because as soon as they can be built the Union player can flood the front with them if he wishes; and there's nothing the CSA can do about that.

If you mean by "play the south to actually win" actually winning the war by concurring the Union, I think that that is a bit far fetched and the game would probably end much sooner than that were it possible.

If you mean winning the game, I think you need to clarify a bit better what exactly you mean is lessening your chances of winning. My experience in this forum is that formulating a good, clear argument goes a long way; and I'm curious to hear your view anyway. Maybe I'll learn something.

---

Edit: I got called away, and when I got back and finally posted this Lodi had already replyed :)



Going to answer just a quick one because I answered to lodilefty already. First, the most important resource in this game, as well as in real war, is time. "Firstest with the Mostest" carries the prize. In this case Missouri can only be carried by the south if the Union doesnt and the South invests heavily into this theatre. That is due to the fact that the Union can get their artillery into Missouri earlier then the CSA. Ad to that that Lyons is the most able commander in the early turns in the West to both sides most of the time (given slightly randomized leaders).
It is still estimated overall battle outcomes and the CSA might still win through luck. I admit that. But arriving a turn late with your artillery normally results in a loss. If the south wants to make up for that it needs to invest heavier in infantry thus turning away conscription points from elsewhere.

As to the matter of winning and the ironclads that you mentioned: I can clarify that later.

Gray-Lensman
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:31 am

Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:32 pm

deleted

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:45 pm

Thanks for your answer X.

Loyalty for St Louis drops to below 25% thus preventing the building of artillery there pretty quickly; by the time I had resources in my current game to expend for artillery in MO, it was not possible to build artillery there anymore. There are bigger fish to fry in my opinion than putting artillery into MO right off the bat, also because the rough ground leaves little frontage and reduces their effectiveness. For my taste as the Union player cavalry is more important in MO and AR and it can't even be built them in MO.

In my current game I therefore later built artillery for the Trans-Mississippin in other nearby states; mostly Illinois. With the newly fixed rule I can actually request for Missouri artillery to be built, but it will be built elsewhere and the one MO 10lb that I did build, was actually built in Harper's Ferry, WV; you can't get much further away than that.

In rev 1.15, although both sides could build artillery right off the bat in MO, but the Union could build a lot more than the CSA could; so to me the build restrictions are a double edged sword and could be viewed as favoring the CSA in that respect.

User avatar
oberst_klink
Lieutenant
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:00 pm
Location: Cyprus
Contact: ICQ Website Yahoo Messenger

1.16 RC7, KY bug?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:24 pm

Run into an issue while responding to the cowardly executed invasion of KY by the rebels! Is it 'designed as is' or a bug? ALL troops I assembled and sent into KY to meet the rebel threat lost 90% (!!!) of their strength right after I moved in, without any combat whatsoever. I first thought, OK, perhaps only non-state militias will suffer from the KY disease, but NO, ALL...

Please, advice!

Klink, Oberst
Attachments
US09.zip
(940.89 KiB) Downloaded 253 times
KY_disease (Custom).jpg

User avatar
squarian
Brigadier General
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:44 pm

oberst_klink wrote:ALL troops I assembled and sent into KY to meet the rebel threat lost 90% (!!!) of their strength right after I moved in, without any combat whatsoever.


This threw me for a loop too - the explanation is in this thread:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23450

User avatar
oberst_klink
Lieutenant
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:00 pm
Location: Cyprus
Contact: ICQ Website Yahoo Messenger

Ach so... Got it!

Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:57 pm

squarian wrote:This threw me for a loop too - the explanation is in this thread:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23450

Just realized it, too. I normally read all the 'red' messages in the inbox...

So, basically one has to way for the turn after the rebels invade KY and THEN one can move without the heavy losses of 'stragglers'; LOL. Still, 90% is a bit too harsh, uh?

Thanks for the prompt reply mate!

Klink, Oberst
Attachments
KY_explained (Custom).jpg

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:17 pm

I've run into a new twist on the Missouri lock-down on building units. I can't build any militia in Missouri. There are about 20 in the build pool, but they don't build.

Admittedly the statewide average of loyalty is 9% with St Joseph leading the way at 57%, followed by Scott (Charleston) at 36%, St Louis at 13%, Springfield 10% and the rest of the state at 6-7%.

I wish there were a concise list of build restrictions or better yet a message stating that units won't be build or built outside of the state when selecting them in the build pool; or both :wacko:

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests