minor name/city accuracy issues

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Benihana]

Noted, but not sure if it'll get reworked anytime soon, there are far too many more important items to rework than a relatively unknown regional name switch that would probably cost over a day's time to correct.

Thanks for the feedback.

Gah I had no idea! Just thought I would mention it, since I lived in the area and am quite familiar with it. Figured it was a quick one line change in a file somewhere, certainly not something to justify diverting attention from more important changes.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

Picayune of course, and not asking for changes...

... but why isn't the town/city of James City not called Yorktown instead? I'm talking about the town between Williamsburg, VA and Fort Monroe, VA. Apologies if this has already been covered.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

If you're referring to the structure labeled Williamsburg:
The structure represents Williamsburg and not Yorktown, however, it has been slightly shifted to the north to help distinguish units placed there from units that would be placed in James Estuary. (The normal units from the faction in possession of the region are "Keyed off" the lower point of the structure graphic so in some cases the structures are slightly shifted to help player/gamers understand where the units actually are placed.

If you're referring to the structure labeled Hampton:
It represents the largest city at that end of the peninsula and again it has been shifted slightly because of unit placement. If the structure was placed directly over the true location of Hampton, it would overlap the Fort Monroe structure and present an "ugly" graphic overlay appearance and present player/gamer movement problems with units that could be in either region.

Obviously, there are subtle reasons for the structure shifts from their true location to prevent player/gamer frustration levels from going thru the roof, when they can't "grab/place" a unit in a region because of an overlap situation.

Thanks for the explanation Gray. I was referring to Hampton. I didn't realize it was supposed to represent the very end of the Confederate held Peninsula. I just assumed it was Yorktown since Yorktown was the first main line of defense before Williamsburg and good ways northeast of the Hampton area. Hard to make exact I guess.

[mikee64]

Gray - some minor cosmetic unit naming issues:

When you build the single element Zouave units in LA, only the first one has a flavor name, the "2nd LA 'Zouaves'". This is probably the most famous and only full regiment of Zoauves raised in LA.

After that the units purchased from the pool get generic names like "10. Infantry Rgt (LA)", "16. Infantry Rgt (LA)" etc. I understand that not everything can have flavor names for when units are created or replaced, but I was surprised the DB did not have flavor names for full regimental units buildable in the 1861 force pool.

Historically, most Zouave units in LA after the 2nd LA were single companies incorporated into regiments with regular troops, so this may be the reason for the lack of historic regimental names.

So, do we need names for the remaining LA Zouaves or should they be limited in the force pool to the one regiment? Or neither?

A similar situation exists if you try to build more than one ironclad in LA - the second one gets a generic name "10. Ironclad (LA)".

Edit: You also still get the "entrenchment level maximum is now X" every Early January even if that entrenchment level has been randomly reached earlier - not sure if that one was supposed to be fixed yet or just on your list.

[Colonel Dreux]

Gray - some minor cosmetic unit naming issues:

When you build the single element Zouave units in LA, only the first one has a flavor name, the "2nd LA 'Zouaves'". This is probably the most famous and only full regiment of Zoauves raised in LA.

After that the units purchased from the pool get generic names like "10. Infantry Rgt (LA)", "16. Infantry Rgt (LA)" etc. I understand that not everything can have flavor names for when units are created or replaced, but I was surprised the DB did not have flavor names for full regimental units buildable in the 1861 force pool.

Historically, most Zouave units in LA after the 2nd LA were single companies incorporated into regiments with regular troops, so this may be the reason for the lack of historic regimental names.

So, do we need names for the remaining LA Zouaves or should they be limited in the force pool to the one regiment? Or neither?

A similar situation exists if you try to build more than one ironclad in LA - the second one gets a generic name "10. Ironclad (LA)".

Edit: You also still get the "entrenchment level maximum is now X" every Early January even if that entrenchment level has been randomly reached earlier - not sure if that one was supposed to be fixed yet or just on your list.

The 2nd La Zouaves was a battalion actually. Technically the weren't even the 2nd La Zouaves, but the 1st Special Battalion, Louisiana Infantry (aka Wheat's Battalion). Later on, because Coppens' Battalion was named the 1st Battalion, Louisiana Zouaves... Wheat's Battalion got labeled the 2nd LA Infantry Battalion. They were mustered in to service under the former name, however. Just an FYI (reference Lee's Tigers, by Terry L. Jones). I've been re-reading it lately and they have the muster rolls in the index of all the units that fought in Virginia from LA in the War.

Along this line of thinking though, a LA infantry unit I made later in a game did have the flavor title of Tiger Rifles. I can't recall if this was a Zouave unit or not (I think not actually), but the Tiger Rifles were a company in Wheat's Zouave battalion (in fact they were THE Zouave unit that has been made famous in paintings and what not).

Examples of flavor names for Louisiana Zouave units could be (based on companies in either of the 2 LA Zouave Battalions) Catahoula Guerillas, Old Dominion Guards, Delta Rangers, Tiger Rifles (the most famous company probably), Crescent City Blues, St. Paul's Foot Rifles, Walker Guards, Wheat's Life Guards, and Orleans Claiborne Guards.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Again, understood Gray. I just thought I'd report it; I'm not a modder. I also have only a very vague idea of what an "easy" fix is compared to a more involved one.

Serious question though: would it be better to just quit posting minor stuff like this at this point, or post it here for future reference? Only reason I ask is because if I don't come here and post about something like this when it happens, I'll surely easily forget it.

Agreed the entrenchment message is not an issue at all; please continue to fry your bigger fish.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

There is a minor typo in the tooltip that appears in Early May 1861, the mailbox message says "First CSA Militias are Taking Up Arms" which is fine. But the mouseover tooltip says "Militias raided. Need remplacements."

I've been playing for almost 2.5 years and never noticed so no big deal, just thought I would point it out.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ShovelHead]

As far as the database is concerned (and even event syntax) the two terms are interchangeable. i.e. remplacements = replacements

Remember AGEod is a foreign company and a few spellings are quirky... Doesn't matter in the end because it does NOT affect game play.

He is reporting a typo in the English string for the event evt_desc_CSA_FirstLevy1861C

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

As far as the database is concerned (and even event syntax) the two terms are interchangeable. i.e. remplacements = replacements

Remember AGEod is a foreign company and a few spellings are quirky... Doesn't matter in the end because it does NOT affect game play.

Ah, I didn't realize replacement was remplacement in French. I also meant to point out that I think "militias raided" should be "militias raised", correct?

At any rate no effect on gameplay as you say and only noted here for future reference (per our conversation above).