AGEOD Forums

New Features: SPIKING THE GUNS!!!!
<link removed>


================================================== ========================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.16a QwikFix 3
August 26, 2012
================================================== ========================
You must apply patch 1.16a BEFORE applying this QwikFix.
This is a cumulative fix, Including all fixes since patch 1.16a.
Changes from previous QF highlighted in blue.

• Other:
  
  • Added Camden, VA (Burkeville) to the “Close to Richmond” area [was omitted from 1.16a]
  • LocalStrings updates and corrections
  • Corrected “Seaman” ability to actually give the move bonus
  • Added Special Orders:
    
    • Destroy Unit: allows the complete destruction of the selected units.
    • Surrender: Allows the selected group to surrender while under siege. Reduces VP and NM awarded to the enemy or lost by the player.
    • For both, Units that are Fixed via Setup or Event cannot be destroyed.
    • Units being “built” and “Static Militia” [those with MoveRatio=0] CAN be destroyed. [aka “Spiking the Guns”]

I have not been able to verify the "savings" promised from "Surrender", and so welcome any "volunteer" who wishes to do a rigorous analysis.

Thankyou Lodilefty! Much appreciation!

Kewl ummm... any chance of getting this squeezed in there too? Leader Appearance Events Depending On Other Leaders

I've just realized this.

Thank you, Lodi!

Hi guys!

In a game I have just started, I ordered the construction of two artillery units in MO and at the next turn, these units have appeared in OH.

The odd thing is that its name corresponds to the State of Missouri:

* 1st MO, Bty. B 'Welfley's' (appeared in Clermont, OH)

* 1st MO, Bty. C 'Mann's' (appeared in Lucas, OH)

I guess it is a bug, doesn't it?


PS: Do you need any file to check it? Thanks in advance.

1.16a patch + QF Revision 1

It's a WAD. If you don't meet the criteria to build in MO, then you build the unit somewhere else.

Ohh, you are right, Jim. I had forgotten it.

I'll have to get used quickly to new rules of the 1.16a patch or I'll go bonkers!

Thank you, my friend.

Cheers.

Ethan wrote:Hi guys!

In a game I have just started, I ordered the construction of two artillery units in MO and at the next turn, these units have appeared in OH.

The odd thing is that its name corresponds to the State of Missouri:

* 1st MO, Bty. B 'Welfley's' (appeared in Clermont, OH)

* 1st MO, Bty. C 'Mann's' (appeared in Lucas, OH)

I guess it is a bug, doesn't it?


PS: Do you need any file to check it? Thanks in advance.

1.16a patch + QF Revision 1

WAD

Read the explanation on page 1 of the Read Me {AACW Updates.pdf} regarding the rules.

MO has few regions that generate WS, and lack of Loyalty in St. Louis is almost always the reason for this.

Also, you can "Search" this forum for the several threads discussing this.....

Yes, thank you Lodi, I read it last night and I verified it. As I said to Jim, I'm still not used to new rules of 1.16a patch, but I'll remember it for next time.

Thanks again!

Regards.

Updated to QF2 to fix Seaman ability.....

Thank you, Lodi.

Downloading and installing it!

Cheers.

Is this save game compatible?

Wraith wrote:Is this save game compatible?

Yes, for games started in 1.16a or later

lodilefty wrote:Updated to QF2 to fix Seaman ability.....

ummm.... it didn't work



No seriously, there's no difference in speed of fleets sailing with or without a naval leader.

Yep, Captain_Orso is right. Last night I checked it in a fleet with Farragut and later the same fleet without Farragut... and the fleet was moving at the same speed in both cases.

Captain_Orso wrote:ummm.... it didn't work



No seriously, there's no difference in speed of fleets sailing with or without a naval leader.

Ethan wrote:Yep, Captain_Orso is right. Last night I checked it in a fleet with Farragut and later the same fleet without Farragut... and the fleet was moving at the same speed in both cases.

Yeah, it does on mine!
Since many ocean moves are 2 days or less, and 25% of 2 is 0.5, which still rounds up to 2, you'll only see it in longer distances or bad weather.
Check a move to one of the Blockade boxes, and you should see it...

It is true, but the benefit is hardly noticeable. I have just tested it in a fleet with Farragut from NY to Gulf of Mexico blockade box. It takes 22 days to get there and 23 without Farragut.

However, if you send it to Atlantic blockade box or to Shipping box, it takes 15 days - 19 days, respectively.

If for example, you send this fleet with Farragut or without him to Pensacola bay (which is a long distance) takes the same time to get there, 18 days.

I only perceive the benefit if I send the fleet to the Atlantic blockade box and to the shipping box.

Ethan wrote:It is true, but the benefit is hardly noticeable. I have just tested it in a fleet with Farragut from NY to Gulf of Mexico blockade box. It takes 22 days to get there and 23 without Farragut.

However, if you send it to Atlantic blockade box or to Shipping box, it takes 15 days - 19 days, respectively.

If for example, you send this fleet with Farragut or without him to Pensacola bay (which is a long distance) takes the same time to get there, 18 days.

I only perceive the benefit if I send the fleet to the Atlantic blockade box and to the shipping box.

As stated, the single region Ocean moves are usually only 1 or 2 days....
The abiulity calculates benefits region-by-region, not as a % of the total....
We can't go faster than 1 day per region!

WAD

OK, Lodi, thank you.

I really appreciate your effort.

So it's working as designed?!?!

I think I got the game mixed up with Reality™

I forgot that the game is programmed like a board game and therefore the bonus is per region being entered and thus if the bonus is less than 0.5 for the region it is lost. I imagine that if it takes 2 days to enter a region that it will be random if the bonus takes affect as with other things that are calculated and hitting .5 are randomly rounded up or down. *sigh* I shouldn't get myself all worked up about these things, because it's like..


Back to your regularly scheduled program

Hello,

Just started a game against the AI, me playing Union, using the April 1861 w/Kentucky scenario. Only a few turns into the game but I noticed that Athena did not occupy Norfolk, so I have and Athena has yet to attack the city. I've never seen the AI not take Norfolk before. Anyone else seen this?

I'm using the 1.16a version with latest quickfix.

Game settings are FOW on, Aggressiveness set to low, AI detection bonus is medium, AI set to Lieutenant, give AI more time, etc.

Can post save game file if needed, but really just wanted to see if anyone has seen Athena opt not to attack Norfolk.

Cheers.

I know another case like yours, gchristie.

A few days ago, Fenris told the same thing in the Spanish subforum. Here you have the link to this thread, although it is in Spanish.

Regards!

Thanks Ethan, but I spoke too soon. During the late July 1861 turn, John Magruder led a force of over 12,000 men and assaulted Norfolk, and though the battle was a stalemate, A Humphrey and his 4,000 men retreated and Norfolk is in the hands of the CSA.

gchristie wrote:Thanks Ethan, but I spoke too soon. During the late July 1861 turn, John Magruder led a force of over 12,000 men and assaulted Norfolk, and though the battle was a stalemate, A Humphrey and his 4,000 men retreated and Norfolk is in the hands of the CSA.

Generally, the CSA AI ​​has a 'special feeling' for Norfolk, Fort Monroe and Fort Pickens...

Hi folks!

I have just noticed that in 1.16a QwikFix 2, generals don't have their nickname in the unit detail panel as in the previous patch (1.15). I know it is not a very important thing, but it was a cool item.

Was this removed for something in particular?

Hi folks!

I have just noticed that in 1.16a QwikFix 2, generals don't have their nickname in the unit detail panel as in the previous patch (1.15). I know it is not a very important thing, but it was a cool item.

Was this removed for something in particular?

QwikFix 3 posted in first post of this thread:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?24798-AACW-QwickFix-for-patch-1-16a-QF-revision-3-August-26-2012&p=236941&viewfull=1#post236941

SPIKING THE GUNS!!!!

Thank you very much for continuing to improve the unsurpassable, Lodi.

Cheers!



PS: Is this QF3 compatible with games started on QF2?

Hi Lody,

Continuing improving this old game, working in darkness when all eyes and spotligths are focusing on AJE deserve more than thanks!
Congratulation for your resilience and persistence
You are the best

and ... hum ... please go on!

Gatling

Thanks, lodi, you are great !