AGEOD Forums

Once more into the breach!

Updated version: February 29, 2012 at 1430 UTC

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/temp/patch_AACW_v1.16_rc13c.zip

Changes Since 1.16 RC10a:



================================================== ========================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.16 Release Candidate 13c
February 29 , 2012
================================================== ========================
The patch is a comprehensive patch, meaning it can be applied directly over your initial game installation setup version.

• Fixed ''flickering ledger'' when opening ledger with a stack selected in Unit Panel

[RC13b]

Added Cannons [flavor only: Guns per Hit] to French and British ships



[RC13a – beta release only]

• Game engine update, including adjustments to Naval Supply system

[RC13 – beta release only]

• Fixed missing portrait for CSA Army unit
• Fixed missing sound for RailRepair
• Replace event files omitted in error from RC12
• New game engine correcting rare bug in AutoRaise [automatic Militia, Partisans, etc]

[RC12-beta release only]

• Fixed: now able to use captured equipment in Divisions [new 'semi-visible' ability created]
• Military Genius ability added to leaders with more than 4 abilities [due to new CaptEquip ability]
• [[color=#ff0000]actually since RC6] You no longer assault structures if you are still moving, you only assault them if you have stopped moving (the region of the structure is your destination or you don't move at all) UNLESS your ROE is also 'all out attack'. Both the assault posture and ROE tooltips have been updated to explain that to the player.[/color]
  
  • This is to prevent serious problems for the AI... This has been observed in several of the AGE games with unexpected assaults from the AI... She wants to assault region X, but in the end it happens she will before assault region Y and more often than not: ... bloodbath...
• Fixed arrival event for Fitz Porter to join McClellan without creating a new group
  [Porter was being created in nearby port if McClellan is at sea]
• Sounds are now called via Alias [in \Aliases see Sounds_alias.ini]
• Music no longer requires DirectX sound to play.
• Alt_Area corrections for USA MO units [unit build areas]
• Sioux Uprising
  
  • Modified USA ''action'' date: now have until Late October to respond.
  • Corrected text string for loss of NM to state correct quantity.
  • Changed ''response'' to require 3 or more USA Combat Elements [not: Leaders, Supply, Service, Ships] to avoid penalty.
• Changed ''Close to Richmond'' events to require 40 Combat Elements [not: Leaders, Supply, Service, Ships]
• Moved Kentucky River Ironclads ForcePool additions from the ''Kentucky Enters'' events to the general River Ironclad ForcePool arrival.
  
  • Messages will be sent to players for the events adding Ironclads and Monitors to their ForcePools.
• Revised USA and CSA ''Close to Kentucky'' regions lists [used in ''Kentucky Enters'' events] to include all land regions adjacent to KY border [plus 2 across the river in Missouri], and removed some regions that are not adjacent
• Fixed Naval Supply to only deliver supply to regions with Coastal Waters adjacent.
• Fixed repair rates for ships [and land units] to correctly calculate rate based on structure size and Repair value for that structure.
• Fixed bug where occasionally a Militia unit was purchased but did not appear.

[RC11 – never released to beta]

As always, see the Read Me shortcut in your Windows Start Menu for a complete changelog.

2 things I've noticed so far. Every single general in the game has an invisible trait called "captured equipment can be added to divisions". You can see it at the end of the unit details for any general, or on his portrait in the unit pane when you mouse over it.

[ATTACH]17287[/ATTACH]

If the general is in a division, it will show up in between his last real trait and the first trait from units in the division.

The 2nd thing, I've just gotten WT Sherman in Feb 1862. He came with poor spy network instead of militiaman as his 2nd trait. Inadvertent change?

[ATTACH]17286[/ATTACH]

1st thing is WAD, it was a clever way thought by lodilefty of allowing captured enemy arty to be incorporated in a division.

2nd thing may be a bug, we will have to check it out...

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:2 things I've noticed so far. Every single general in the game has an invisible trait called "captured equipment can be added to divisions". You can see it at the end of the unit details for any general, or on his portrait in the unit pane when you mouse over it.

[ATTACH]17287[/ATTACH]

If the general is in a division, it will show up in between his last real trait and the first trait from units in the division.

The 2nd thing, I've just gotten WT Sherman in Feb 1862. He came with poor spy network instead of militiaman as his 2nd trait. Inadvertent change?

[ATTACH]17286[/ATTACH]

Sherman is correct. There was an error in the Alias for Poor Spy that resulted in Militiaman appearing. [Militiaman is "Ability = 0" which will appear if a non-existing ability alias is assigned in the DB]

Hi y'all, I've been away from the game a while and am thinking about getting back into it. Which patch should I update my game to, the official 1.15 or this newest release candidate? In the past I've always waited for an "official" patch, since I'm not a super in-depth-knowledgeable computer guy, and am uneasy about stability and bugs and such. Which may not be an issue at all, I'm just wondering.

What would you guys recommend? Thanks in advance for any advice.

gekkoguy82 wrote:Hi y'all, I've been away from the game a while and am thinking about getting back into it. Which patch should I update my game to, the official 1.15 or this newest release candidate? In the past I've always waited for an "official" patch, since I'm not a super in-depth-knowledgeable computer guy, and am uneasy about stability and bugs and such. Which may not be an issue at all, I'm just wondering.

What would you guys recommend? Thanks in advance for any advice.

This one, which is likely to replace 1.15 officially very soon. Just a guess!

This is not really a complaint or request for a change, but merely an observation and a query.

In previous versions, the game engine selected the tenth piece of music to play as the introductory theme (in my mod I was using Ashokan farewell). Now the engine seems to be using (quite logically) the first piece of music on the list as the introductory music.

Very easy to adjust to, one way or the other. I've made the adjustment on my personal copy, but this will leave the music mod I've posted (along with all the plain vanilla copies) slightly out of whack.

Is this permanent? Should I change my mod?

Thank you Longshanks! I will use this one then

I haven't installed this new release yet and perhaps my remark is dumb.
I understand that the new abbility "captured equipment" is a smart trick to get around a problem but, reading the post from Pat Cleburne, I wonder why this new abbility should appear in pop-up and in the details panel if it is given to all generals. For me it's as useful as if there were a pop-up telling you that you can form division with generals.
Do I miss something? Is there any restrictions to this abbility for some generals?

Cheers
Gatling

Gatling wrote:I haven't installed this new release yet and perhaps my remark is dumb.
I understand that the new abbility "captured equipment" is a smart trick to get around a problem but, reading the post from Pat Cleburne, I wonder why this new abbility should appear in pop-up and in the details panel if it is given to all generals. For me it's as useful as if there were a pop-up telling you that you can form division with generals.
Do I miss something? Is there any restrictions to this abbility for some generals?

Cheers
Gatling

It is a solution that works around a game engine limitation [forming a division with multiple factions]. No way to suppress the tooltip.

Choices were: nobody gets to form divs with captured equipment vs everyone can do it. We chose everyone.

As a reminder, AACW will be 5 years old this spring. The game engine has evolved a lot snce it was intitially published. AACW has many unique characteristics that prevent use of some of the newer capabilities, so we try to work around obstacles.

We can either stop where it was at 1.15, or accept a few quirks as we improve it. Your choice.

Keep doin' that voodoo that you do so well! I for one appreciate the improvements and attention that you and AGEOD give this game!

lodilefty wrote:It is a solution that works around a game engine limitation [forming a division with multiple factions]. No way to suppress the tooltip.

Choices were: nobody gets to form divs with captured equipment vs everyone can do it. We chose everyone.

As a reminder, AACW will be 5 years old this spring. The game engine has evolved a lot snce it was intitially published. AACW has many unique characteristics that prevent use of some of the newer capabilities, so we try to work around obstacles.

We can either stop where it was at 1.15, or accept a few quirks as we improve it. Your choice.

Hi Lodilefty,

I'm afraid you misunderstood my remark. I'm sincerely sorry if I hurt you. There was no criticism in the background, only curiosity. I know now that there is no way to suppress the tooltip. My curiosity is satisfied, it's fine for me!

Of course I know and appreciate your amazing involvement in the game improvements. This strong support and the open atmosphere on the forum with people always ready to answer questions of newcomers were main reasons for me to buy this game.

Cheers
Gatling

I've already said this before but one more time can't hurt. You used to be able to add captured artillery to divisions with no problems. Something happened between 1.15 and the previous version to prevent it. Why not just use whatever worked then instead of having this new ability? Is there something I am missing here???

I'll let Lodi or one of the devs--if they happen wander past here--answer this, but I believe that it's because the game engine has been updated, changing some of the parameters of the game.

I don't remember if you could incorporate captured artillery into divisions at patch level 1.15 or earlier--I'd have to try it out, but I know I've seen a number of betas over the lat months, some of which allowed repairing of captured equipment including replacing lost supply unit elements and others that only allowed the chance replacement of hits on such an SU or captured artillery even if on a depot. There's been a lot going on under the hood.

The major thing we've been testing over the last months has been checking that nothing is broken, with a couple of nice, little tweaks on the side from Master Lodi

So, I'll leave this for the experts to.. eh.. comment.. ummm..

W.Barksdale wrote:I've already said this before but one more time can't hurt. You used to be able to add captured artillery to divisions with no problems. Something happened between 1.15 and the previous version to prevent it. Why not just use whatever worked then instead of having this new ability? Is there something I am missing here???

Short version of answer: RoP, PON, RUS happened.
Multi-faction games required changes to engine.

If you missed them, I highly recommend them

AACW is old, unique, so we do work-arounds for the common game-engine stuff.

W.Barksdale wrote:I've already said this before but one more time can't hurt. You used to be able to add captured artillery to divisions with no problems. Something happened between 1.15 and the previous version to prevent it. Why not just use whatever worked then instead of having this new ability? Is there something I am missing here???

Before you could integrate any subnationality into a division, say for AACW GBR artillery in a CSA division, because it was not checked. So leader multinational abilities were not used here and this was not consistent, plus rather weird when you played games like ROP where you could mix just too many people in the same brigade (the equivalent of an AACW division) or in RUS where you could theoretically forms a division made of White, Americans and Japanese! (kinda fun...)

So now, this is checked... and so as captured equipment have a nationality tag that is different from your, and you can't cooperate with them either, you can no longer include them.

We will perhaps find a solution that will allow the best of both worlds one day. Perhaps simply having an optional setting allowing any artillery, whatever his tag to be included in a division?

I have noticed that Transports can now move in Shallow rivers, whereas before they could not, only brigs could (among the ocean-going ships that can carry troops).

So, should I assume this is working as designed?

Thanks!

Longshanks wrote:I have noticed that Transports can now move in Shallow rivers, whereas before they could not, only brigs could (among the ocean-going ships that can carry troops).

So, should I assume this is working as designed?

Thanks!

Hasn't changed in DB since whenever! I'm curious about when they couldn't [what version], but not curious enough to go find out...

Brigs, Transports and Blockade Ships are "AllWater"

WAD

Updated version 13c: fixes the 'flickering ledger' bug

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=229701&postcount=1

[yes, you must re-download and install: my apologies for your Bandwidth consumption ]

Is that including the Fitz Porter fix (USA Leaders file) [EDIT: woops YES it is],
and the MessagePanel1600.png fix?

ERISS wrote:Is that including the Fitz Porter fix (USA Leaders file) [EDIT: woops YES it is], and the MessagePanel1600.png fix?

AFAIK, yes, but my system can't run at 1600 so you need to tell me!

Longshanks wrote:I have noticed that Transports can now move in Shallow rivers, whereas before they could not, only brigs could (among the ocean-going ships that can carry troops).

So, should I assume this is working as designed?

Thanks!

I remember reading that somewhere too, but alas they can. Even though I am using it, I would like to see it changed. I think brigs shouldn't be allowed either (could a sailing ship even make it upstream?). If for no other reason than game balance. Being able to land over 100 miles inland in the Deep South in Aug 61'(or Jul if I hadn't been delayed) without taking a coastal town is kinda unbalanced. After taking a coastal area and using river transports would be more acceptable.

While somewhat on the subject I'd also like to see Ironclads sail in the ocean. The reason is, if I want to use them to blockade a harbor in Texas. Should I have to engage at least 8 forts along the way (I'd imagine they'd sail out-of-range)? Is it possible to increase their travel time in just ocean zones? Is this a balance issue? I suggest this because if my point is valid, it would be less hardache then trying to mess with zone sizes.

ERISS wrote:Is that including (...)
the MessagePanel1600.png fix?

Yes, it looks great at 2400x1560 !

Patch works great Quick question though, will older save games (from 1.15) work ok with this newest patch, or is it best to start over?

As an aside....would the powers that be ever think about inserting a clock somehow in the upper right with "real world" time, a la ROP/PON? Not important at all, but I always kind of liked it. I wouldn't presume to even know if this is feasible, but I figured I'd ask

Funny you should mention it. I've been trying to learn PON, and I absolutely love its clock!

rattler01 wrote:I remember reading that somewhere too, but alas they can. Even though I am using it, I would like to see it changed. I think brigs shouldn't be allowed either (could a sailing ship even make it upstream?). If for no other reason than game balance. Being able to land over 100 miles inland in the Deep South in Aug 61'(or Jul if I hadn't been delayed) without taking a coastal town is kinda unbalanced. After taking a coastal area and using river transports would be more acceptable.

While somewhat on the subject I'd also like to see Ironclads sail in the ocean. The reason is, if I want to use them to blockade a harbor in Texas. Should I have to engage at least 8 forts along the way (I'd imagine they'd sail out-of-range)? Is it possible to increase their travel time in just ocean zones? Is this a balance issue? I suggest this because if my point is valid, it would be less hardache then trying to mess with zone sizes.

As far as authenticity goes, sailing rigs are not the issue. FYI, sailing vessels are more than capable of sailing up a river. The issue is draft. Most larger sailing vessels could easily run about the Sounds inside the NC barrier islands - whether they could make it past the shoals is another question, and even then the masters probably knew quite well where entrances with sufficient draft were. I have no problems with game design ruling certain areas out of bounds, even though, in reality, they could probably make it - all game design is an abstraction to some degree.

Brigs are probably no more than four to six feet draft - again, you're taking many rigs and lumping them as 'Brigs' - there's a brig proper, which is closer to a ship proper, and then there are smaller rigs. They're all Brigs, in the game.

Monitor type ironclads are not seagoing vessels. Later, the Union used a more robust, larger design that could at least weather off-shore blue water routes, but, in general, ironclads are not seaworthy craft.

Philippe wrote:Funny you should mention it. I've been trying to learn PON, and I absolutely love its clock!

Me too! I think it's great, haha. Glad there's some other people (at least one) who shares my sentiment

Great update LL! Thanks again!

Charles

rattler01 wrote:I remember reading that somewhere too, but alas they can. Even though I am using it, I would like to see it changed. I think brigs shouldn't be allowed either (could a sailing ship even make it upstream?).

Farragut had most of his blue water fleet up at Vicksburg for a time, including his deep-drought frigates.

rattler01 wrote:If for no other reason than game balance. Being able to land over 100 miles inland in the Deep South in Aug 61'(or Jul if I hadn't been delayed) without taking a coastal town is kinda unbalanced. After taking a coastal area and using river transports would be more acceptable.

I would say, let him. He could do you no greater favor, for supply will not be his friend the moment his men's feet touch dry soil--wet, sandy river shoals included .

rattler01 wrote:While somewhat on the subject I'd also like to see Ironclads sail in the ocean. The reason is, if I want to use them to blockade a harbor in Texas. Should I have to engage at least 8 forts along the way (I'd imagine they'd sail out-of-range)? Is it possible to increase their travel time in just ocean zones? Is this a balance issue? I suggest this because if my point is valid, it would be less hardache then trying to mess with zone sizes.

There have been discussion about this. I think having something like an 'avoid forts' movement mode would be interesting.

Advantage: You could sail your river-vessels out of the range of fixed fort batteries and thusly avoid constant bombardment during coastal transients.

Disadvantage: It should taking longer to sail past forts and fixed batteries, because of waiting for good weather to allow for the riverine ships to safely sail blue water. Even a moderate breeze offshore can kick up waves big enough to wash the decks of such low-free-board vessels, thus endangering them from floundering. There should always be an inherent danger, which using this mode, of running into weather and losing a river vessel, especially an ironclad, which could increase with the prevailing bad weather. Remember, this is how the Monitor was lost off Hatteras.

I would be totally against allowing riverines from sailing ocean regions because you'd then have battles between ironclads and blue water fleets out at sea, which would be just silly .

Captian Orso is correct, Farragut's sea going vessels went all the way up to Vicksburg. Of course, they didn't have the army with them that could take the town though ( I think they just had a brigade or two). In my last tourney game, I was all over the place taking cities with the Union navy/army combo, and still got crushed by Seraphim..... In case anyone was wondering....

Charles