AGEOD Forums

Didn't there used to be a rewind option for reviewing a turn after it processes? I'm updated to 1.02 and I'm not seeing it.

Look in the load menu. Restore a previous turn is still an option.

I think Ubercat is talking about the replay turn option, which allowed you to view the map while the previous turn is being shown kind of like a film, but with the possibility to to look at the results of battles or ask the name of a stack/unit that you see passing.

Was very important for PBEM games if you were not hosting. Unfortunately it isn't possible in CW2.

Thanks for the replies. Then how do you see what happened in the turn when your opponent is hosting?

Click on the round icons on the lower right to cycle through messages.

I saw those. It doesn't really seem like the same thing to me, though. Does it to you? If that's all we have, the game almost turns into a text based war game. Not very exciting.

I too was quite disappointed to learn that only the host can watch the playing out of the turn. To me it seems that the host gets all the fun, while the other guy gets to figure out what happened by clicking through a pile of messages, attempting to figure out the moves behind each message. Not fun. Had I know this, I probably would not have purchased this title.

+1.

The lose of the reply feature really is a downgrade for CW2 from AACW. This also gives a huge advantage to the USA, as you can't see offensive maneuvers as clearly. Can this be modded in?

We know that this feature is missed by some (PBEMers mostly). The code was very old and asked to be redone from zero, so was dropped. Perhaps the module will return one day though.

Raising my own thread from the dead rather than starting a new one with the same name. I'm playing the Union in 1.04.

I've noticed that some of my generals seem to randomly lock in place just as many generals are at the start of a new scenario. I don't mean that they're simply not activated. They have the red slash over them and so do all the units in their stack! Taking units out of the stack doesn't enable the units to go anywhere.

Is this a bug?

Are you are playing with the activation option to have inactive leaders become locked in place? It will also lock troops in their stack as well.

I don't believe so. I currently have at least 1 general who isn't locked in place that has a darker envelope and text "This general cannot perform offensive operations this turn." He's incapable of going into offensive stance but can still leave his space.

This could happen if you put the general in charge of stack composed (or partially containing?) of locked units... Does the slash go away if you remove the general from the stack?

No. These aren't stacks, or units, that begin or enter a scenario locked. They're forces which became locked from one turn to the next.

As an example, A rebel army was guarding Manassas and for some reason abandoned the space to go to HF. Two turns ago I moved the NE VA army under McDowell into Manassas to take the empty space. I left the army in place to fortify last turn, and this turn it's completely locked. Taking McDowell out of the army doesn't remove the red bar from anyone in the stack. It's as if the scenario just started and they're all still locked in place.

Well, actually removing this turn does not make the units active until next turn if you are playing, as it appears, hard activation.

That was it! I couldn't figure out why some inactive leaders would lock and other inactive leaders wouldn't.

Thanks!

How is it that some stacks start a new '61 campaign with a higher entrenchment level than is supposed to be possible at that point? I'm talking about Union cities which contain 2 stacks. One with entrenchment level 3 and the other with level 6. The 6 stacks tend to be called Fort xyz but both stacks are described as being in the city.

I'm thinking that the 6 is set at game start to a level impossible to achieve at this point, though fine when set artificially. If I could somehow move the locked stack and reduce entrenchment to 0, there would be no getting that high again until the game allows it. Do I have that right? Also, is there any reason not to immediately drop the 3 stack onto the 6 to take advantage of the better defense? Bigger stacks will generally be more robust in a fight anyhow, right?

Ubercat wrote:How is it that some stacks start a new '61 campaign with a higher entrenchment level than is supposed to be possible at that point? I'm talking about Union cities which contain 2 stacks. One with entrenchment level 3 and the other with level 6. The 6 stacks tend to be called Fort xyz but both stacks are described as being in the city.

I'm thinking that the 6 is set at game start to a level impossible to achieve at this point, though fine when set artificially. If I could somehow move the locked stack and reduce entrenchment to 0, there would be no getting that high again until the game allows it. Do I have that right?

Probably. If a stack is inside a city and you drag it to outside, or visa-versa, it will lose of its entrenchment level. If you drag a stack onto a friendly target stack, the dragged stack will gain become part of the target stack and thus gain the target stack's entrenchment level.

Ubercat wrote:Also, is there any reason not to immediately drop the 3 stack onto the 6 to take advantage of the better defense?

Not that I know of.

Ubercat wrote:Bigger stacks will generally be more robust in a fight anyhow, right?

Generally speaking, the larger the stack is the more CP's it will require. If the target stack becomes under-commanded by adding a unit to it, the strength of the target stack will not grow equal to the strength of the dragged stack, because the strength of the entire stack will be reduced by 5% for each CP lacking. Depending on the overall strength and CP-cost, the target stack could actually lose strength.

For example, you have a fully commanded stack with a strength of 1000. You add a unit to it with strength 100 which requires 4 CP's to your fully commanded stack. The new stack now has an absolute strength 1100, but because the new stack is lacking 4 CP's it will suffer a 20% strength penalty and lose 220 in strength, reducing the entire stack to 880.

Regarding your situation with two stacks already in the region, locked I am assuming, the situation is could be far more complex depending on some factors. It all comes down to who will fight if the region is attacked.

Generally the better lead a stack is the more likely it is to fight. Unfortunately I cannot site the exact rules of how a stack or stacks is/are chosen to take part in a battle. Using the above example you would be better off leaving the 'extra' unit out of the fully-commanded stack. Were a battle to occur in the region it could very well happen that only the commanded stack takes part in the battle. However, if the 'extra' unit is also included in the battle I believe that all the units taking part in the battle will be handled as if they were in the same stack which would again penalize these defenders. But I've never actually read anything specific about this. It is my speculation.

Thanks. In the cases I'm seeing, I don't think that any of the stacks have leaders. They're just the garrisons of important cities.

Here's another question. In the case of Baltimore, is it necessary to add Banks to the locked garrison in order to use his recruiter bonus or is he OK just being in the city on his own? The game seems to imply that recruiters must be in stacks.

"The game seems to imply that recruiters must be in stacks."

I would like to add to this question; do headquarters act as a training master for the whole area or just the units in their stack?

And are HQ's training effects cumulative with training masters like Bragg and Hardee?

Ubercat wrote:Thanks. In the cases I'm seeing, I don't think that any of the stacks have leaders. They're just the garrisons of important cities.

Here's another question. In the case of Baltimore, is it necessary to add Banks to the locked garrison in order to use his recruiter bonus or is he OK just being in the city on his own? The game seems to imply that recruiters must be in stacks.

If Banks is in a stack, he must be the commander of the stack for his recruiting ability to work.

Straight Arrow wrote:"The game seems to imply that recruiters must be in stacks."

I would like to add to this question; do headquarters act as a training master for the whole area or just the units in their stack?

The unit with the Training Master ability only affects other units in the stack with the Training Master.

Straight Arrow wrote:And are HQ's training effects cumulative with training masters like Bragg and Hardee?

No, it is the same ability. Same abilities are never cumulative.

Are you supposed to gain money when you declare a complete blockade? I haven't yet upgraded to 1.05 and just noticed that I gained $50 while losing some NM and VP.

Ubercat wrote:Are you supposed to gain money when you declare a complete blockade? I haven't yet upgraded to 1.05 and just noticed that I gained $50 while losing some NM and VP.

Good question. I'm not sure what the option is intended to do, but the event which sets the option says "Money;-50;VP;15;Morale;1;" and since, as you have noted, the Union looses 15 VP and 1 NM I expect the the "-50" is also a deduction; just a 'negative' deduction.

One of the devs will have to shed some light on their intentions in this.

I just tried my first amphibious invasion and have questions. Hooker took a decent sized force and invaded Chatham, GA, with the intent to seize Savannah. I carefully put him on assault posture before loading the stack onto the invasion fleet.

After landing in Chatham, the force reverted to offensive posture and were just sitting in the space. There are 3 units in the city. There isn't even a siege icon in the space. Shouldn't Savannah at least be besieged, even though I apparently screwed up the invasion somehow?

When you put land units into a naval stack they become part of that stack. What ever posture status the naval stack has, of course, remains.

When you drag your land units off of the naval stack to plot your invasion you then have the opportunity to give that new stack their own posture.

Chatham is a pretty small region with a city and a major harbor IIRC. The siege icon may actually be located underneath one of the region sprites (graphics). One thing you can always do is, without having any stack in the region selected, press <Ctrl><F4> so that no on-board units are displayed. Then you will have the best view of the region without any units possibly masking any icons. Press <Ctrl><F4> again to resume displaying all on-board units.

BTW here's where the Siege Icon is located in Savannah.

So "distant unload" orders for the fleet isn't really sufficient for initiating an amphibious assault and you have to unload by hand to make it work?

Thanks for the tip of using Ctrl+F4. I'll try it to see if there's a siege icon.

Nope, but you have to put the fleet in the same posture as the force you
intend to offload. When going after New Orleans my ships usually pass
the forts before offloading, or are in the process of offloading so I can
change their status.

NEVER use Distant Unload unless you are certain that the debarking region is empty of enemy forces. Distant Unload causes higher losses for the invader in battle.

If you absolutely have to invade into an enemy held region, use the drag-off method.

If the invasion region is occupied by enemy in the field, it is better is to invade into a neighboring region and attack overland if possible. If you are attacking a fort with no units outside the of the fort, just land in the region and do your dirty work.

[quote press <Ctrl><F4> so that no on-board units are displayed. Then you will have the best view of the region without any units possibly masking any icons. Press <Ctrl><F4> again to resume displaying all on-board units.[/QUOTE]



Thank you Captain Bear!

In spite holding my breath and using a surgeon’s touch, I have lost numerous entrenchments trying to see what lay underneath units.

No more!

Speaking of bears, are we talking grizzly, black, or one of those cute, button eyed, stuffed things my daughter took tea with?