plasticpanzers
Corporal
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:00 am

Fri May 08, 2015 6:16 am

thanks! this is an issue i brought up before. it sounds like an executible file but to those of us born BC (before computers) those
born after or have mutated to adapt (AD) to computers live code and know code and how to work these (*&*@(*@) files. Us wee
poor common folk have to struggle along which brings be (again! lol!) to make sure programmers/gamedesigners understand to
release patches and fixes with recognizable instructions for us dimwits. I thank you. You may be seated...

khbynum
Major
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Fri May 08, 2015 7:16 am

I assure you, Sir, I was born BC. I've also assembled a few plastic panzers in my life. Hope you get it sorted.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3004
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Fri May 08, 2015 7:19 am

It's part of public beta testing, so if you don't want to have to figure out how to
apply a patch then you'll have to wait for the public update release.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

plasticpanzers
Corporal
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:00 am

Fri May 08, 2015 9:22 am

Sir, you improve my point. Public Beta Testing .. Public Update Release..I am the public.

You, in the third row, unhand that fish....

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

Fri May 08, 2015 9:55 am

Regardless of the word "public" being in the description, it is not a declaration that everything will be setup for ease of access as with the official patches. One must understand the context of the situation. The word 'public' means that the general public is welcome to test the patch and not that it is for everybody to download and use. As with all beta programs, the user is responsible for understanding the ramifications of implementing the beta patch.

If the complexity of implementing beta patches and quick fixes is beyond your understanding, you are always welcome to request some assistance in implementing such betas. Myself and others are always happy to help you get things running. However, please do not expect Pocus to create an installation package for quick fixes or for beta installations to be clean of extraneous files or coding. They are, as the name suggests, for testing purposes and gathering results and experiences.

Sorry for your issues with implementing the QF's and betas in general.
Image

bommerrang
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am

Fri May 08, 2015 2:39 pm

Based on the Captain's comment the 5% MC is now working with the latest public beta. I certainly see the possible unintended consequences but the game definitely didn't work with the 0% MC. So...I will see if my PBEM opponents will want to continue our games now.
Thanks to everyone.

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

Fri May 08, 2015 10:55 pm

Pocus wrote:Hi,

First, thanks to Captain for the guinea pigs testing :)

A new link now:

http://we.tl/bBET7FDKWR

On to your points. Case 1 is ok. Case 2 is ok too. You can only gain land control if you are in offensive and are gaining ground versus the enemy (killing more than you lose, crude but good enough imho), having no enemy, having an enemy but in passive. If in defensive, you can't gain terrain versus the other side, as everybody stares at each other.

Case 3 and beyond are all deriving from a tiny error I left in the code. In previous build, you would revert to OP if you had a control equals or less than 5%. The error is in the equal. You should revert only to OP if under 5%. I believe that with this fix, all things should be good, crossing fingers!


I've tested the PartisansRaid. It works in all cases :thumbsup: .

RGD used-up if 50% RGD chance fails: Check!

RGD used-up if event fails through 3x "EvalSubUnitCount = DICE_NOT": Check!

RGD used-up if all checks successful: Check!

Only 1 level reduced if RGD successful: Check!

Image
Image

plasticpanzers
Corporal
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:00 am

Sat May 09, 2015 12:00 am

Thanks to those who responded to my cheerful insanity with somewhat less than understanding. It does not matter if I have
gamed over 50 years (I have) or only have 46 posts on this forum. More folks review this game for purchase than are involved
in Betas and reviews. We are the public that buys the games that makes the difference in sales, not the specialist Beta testers
and those with enough professional know how to process patches and other updates with ease. To make a game univerally
usable for all gamers requires more than just computer knowhow. It requires the input and understanding of an 'average' or
(ie: stupid) (see my pic in the dictionary under stu'pid) gamer or customer. There is no masonic group who oversees the game
despite your obvious intelligence (yes I am speaking to you, you know who you are, if not, ask the one next to you). There are
the programmers and everybody else. By seeing problems I (or others may be having) should help to remind AGEOD that we
all have input that is relevant and issues not seen by others may be important to us. Do not look down you nose too much as
you may fall off...

If you are seated you may now stand. And you, pick up that fish, where do you think you are?

Linstock
Corporal
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:30 am

Sat May 09, 2015 3:46 am

Captain_Orso wrote:Regardless of the word "public" being in the description, it is not a declaration that everything will be setup for ease of access as with the official patches. One must understand the context of the situation. The word 'public' means that the general public is welcome to test the patch and not that it is for everybody to download and use. As with all beta programs, the user is responsible for understanding the ramifications of implementing the beta patch.

If the complexity of implementing beta patches and quick fixes is beyond your understanding, you are always welcome to request some assistance in implementing such betas. Myself and others are always happy to help you get things running. However, please do not expect Pocus to create an installation package for quick fixes or for beta installations to be clean of extraneous files or coding. They are, as the name suggests, for testing purposes and gathering results and experiences.

Sorry for your issues with implementing the QF's and betas in general.


In fairness, I think that's what plasticpanzers was asking for--"some assistance in implementing such betas." I have been playing this game and its predecessor for years. I have also played other AGEOD games with tremendous satisfaction. This public beta enhancement, unlike others that installed automatically, is proving difficult to get through precisely because I (and apparently plasticpanzers) have to navigate more layers of software understanding than I'm accustomed to. As of now, I cannot locate a free unzipping app on my Windows XP computer--and to be honest, I'm a little hesitant to ask for help in this forum lest I incur the wrath of someone who thinks I have no business taking advantage of it because, though being a paying customer, I don't have the computer chops.

Just sayin. It's the first time I've felt that level of chill on this forum.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Sat May 09, 2015 6:23 am

I don't think Orso meant to offend you; he said he was happy to help you get things running.

WinRar is a good free unzipping/archiving program. You should be able to find it online for download with a quick search.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3004
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sat May 09, 2015 11:03 am

IZarc is a good unzipper, as is 7zip. They are both free and easy to use,
with no trial like WinRar used to have (not sure if it does anymore).
http://www.izarc.org/
http://www.7-zip.org/

It's really pretty easy once you install those to double click on what you
downloaded, have it unzip to the desktop when asked, and then move
it to the folder where you find the game.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sat May 09, 2015 12:53 pm

Report this just as an FYI, and I do not think it will matter if the new EXE is always used, but reporting it to Pocus in case this was a situation he wanted to address in the code.

I used the new EXE by mistake in a PBEM game where we had the issue. I had copied it when I ran my previous tests and forgot to replace it with the previous one. So McDowell was in Manassas with 0% MC to start the turn. He did change to OP, meaning there is no check to fix that situation at the start of running a turn before changing a force to OP. Not sure if this is intentional, and as I said, if this EXE had been used all along it would not have ever mattered, but I wanted to report it in case it was a use case Pocus wanted to address.

On a positive note...at the end of the turn after watching McDowell, with original orders of defend/retreat if engaged and evade combat, blindly attack three times...he now has 5% MC :)

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

Sat May 09, 2015 4:42 pm

Mia culpa plasticpanzers, if you felt I was deriding you for not knowing everything you might need to know right off the bat. That was not my intention.

If anything is unclear to you with what to do to install a test installation or a quick fix or what ever Pocus might offer for downloading, please ask.
Image

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

Sat May 09, 2015 4:53 pm

AndrewKurtz wrote:Report this just as an FYI, and I do not think it will matter if the new EXE is always used, but reporting it to Pocus in case this was a situation he wanted to address in the code.

I used the new EXE by mistake in a PBEM game where we had the issue. I had copied it when I ran my previous tests and forgot to replace it with the previous one. So McDowell was in Manassas with 0% MC to start the turn. He did change to OP, meaning there is no check to fix that situation at the start of running a turn before changing a force to OP. Not sure if this is intentional, and as I said, if this EXE had been used all along it would not have ever mattered, but I wanted to report it in case it was a use case Pocus wanted to address.

On a positive note...at the end of the turn after watching McDowell, with original orders of defend/retreat if engaged and evade combat, blindly attack three times...he now has 5% MC :)


I don't think the code is intended to give every force in a region a minimum of 5% MC. The get it only if they have fought for it, even if they lost the battle.

If you move a stack in PP into a region with 100% enemy MC and a defending force in DP, your stack would start the next turn with 0% MC. If in a subsequent turn you change that stack's posture to DP it will automatically change to OP during turn execution attempt to attack the enemy force.
Image

Linstock
Corporal
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:30 am

Sat May 09, 2015 5:15 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:I don't think Orso meant to offend you; he said he was happy to help you get things running.

WinRar is a good free unzipping/archiving program. You should be able to find it online for download with a quick search.


I don't think Orso meant to offend me, either. Orso, I couldn't play this game without your posts! Perhaps I should've chosen my words more carefully. I was just making an important point on behalf of computer illiterates like myself.

Thanks for the replies--I'll give these a try.

plasticpanzers
Corporal
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:00 am

Sat May 09, 2015 7:19 pm

Many thanks for the kinds words (arrows with suckers on the ends! :neener :) . Appreciate the offers to help. We (the dweebs) who
come in and sit down to play a game we bought need from the manufacturer/programmers consistant and understandable info to
upgrade the game so that our input can be recorded as well without the need of assistance of other gamers. I do truely appreciate
the offers of help but should not need it if the programmers who release patches and minipatches and fixes and doovers simply use
the same system always. That way ALL the players are on the same playing field and all do not have to wait weeks/months for a
proper patch and have to play substandard games but at least can see what progress is being done and see for themselves the
changes being done and give input on them. Then it becomes OUR game rather than the game of just a few. You don't have to
be a programmer to understand issues with a game. Just a thought for thought.

You, holding the fish, get rid of the darn thing, its stinky and why are you all standing up? :wacko:

Linstock
Corporal
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:30 am

Sat May 09, 2015 8:24 pm

I'm a bit confused by he 5% MC issue. To be clear, is this new to the beta patch, or has it always been there? Is it fixing a previous issue, or was it nerfed and needed fixing? I got lost during the course of the conversation.

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

Sat May 09, 2015 9:50 pm

I'm not sure exactly when the 5% solution was supposed to be in the game, but at one point it was noted that it was not working.

Recently retreat after losing a battle was changed. It used to be that if your force lost it was nearly always put into retreat immediately after the battle, which meant that there was a chance that they might already be outside the region by the start of the next turn, while the enemy force had no choice than to stay put and await the next turn to plot its own move.

If the attacking force were retreated to outside the region, this was not SO bad, but if, for example the Union were attacking a CS force which had invaded the North, this would give the CS force a head start in getting away. Even if the Union force caught the CS force and a battle ensued, which the CS force lost, it again would start its retreat directly after the battle took place and again had a head start of many days.

To prevent one force from constantly having an advantage at escaping, Pocus changed the retreat rule. The first major change was to take ZOC into account, so the retreating force would not likely retreat into enemy held territory.

The second was to implement 'retreat within the region'. This included not allowing the attacking force to attack the retreating force again within the same region during the same turn, but also, in most cases, did not allow the 'retreating' force to continue it's any movement it may have plotted.

This is where the 5% solution comes into play. Since the retreating force lost a battle, which may have been in a region where it had little to no MC to begin with, if it were put into DP at the start of the next turn and tried to retreat again, because it had <5% MC in that region, it was automatically changed to OP and attacked the attacker. If it lost the battle --generally the situation-- it's retreating move would be canceled again. Redo from start.

With the 5% solution a force which fought in the region, regardless of the outcome of the battle, will retain a minimum of 5% MC. With a minimum of 5% MC the retreating force is not automatically changed to OP and thus will not attack while it is trying to retreat. It will also not gain any MC while simply standing in the region if it does not go to OP and actually attack the regional defender. So an attacking force cannot simply squeeze a defending force out without having to do battle.

--

The major issue I still see is that it is practically impossible to gain any MC beyond the 5% other than scoring a decisive victory, which seems to be to be far too harsh.
Image

User avatar
BigDuke66
General
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Sun May 10, 2015 7:22 am

But isn't that like a bridgehead where you simply have to do something decisive to expand beyond it or you would have to fall back to where you came from?
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

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

Sun May 10, 2015 4:01 pm

But it's not a bridgehead....

Maybe we will just have to see how this works in actual game-play. I can promise that some situations will change drastically. It might force players to act more realistically, but not through the game behaving realistically.

From my experience, rules which are unrealistic, are always eventually exploited, which ruins the fun of a game.
Image

User avatar
BigDuke66
General
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Sun May 10, 2015 4:39 pm

Well yea it's not Normandy but if a river separated the regions and you crossed it and got 5%MC in the new region what else but a bridgehead would fit to describe what you got?
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

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

Sun May 10, 2015 5:46 pm

To quote a Spartan king, "if".
Image

User avatar
BigDuke66
General
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

Sun May 10, 2015 5:49 pm

And if not it will likely be some other terrain feature like a mountain or something that wasn't even worth the drawing it on the map, anyhow you enter an area and you have to take control just like an "invasion".
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

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

Sun May 10, 2015 6:37 pm

Pocus wrote:Here is a new executable that you can use to replace the old one (keep the old one in case of). I have added more code tidbits to survey & assign minimal control, plus now when you kill an element, you get +1% MC. This needs testing though, so no new public beta comprehensive patch.

http://we.tl/pvN3s7w6c3


And if you do NOT "kill an element" you gain 0 MC:


Note that Hooker's Corps won the battle.

Image


Yet after the battle, because Hooker's Corps had not killed any CS elements, it still has only 5% MC.

Image


Looking at this mathematically, Taylor's Force has 28 non-leader elements, which includes 4 supply train elements. By this rule, if Hooker's Corps had wiped out Taylor's Force entirely, it would gain 28% MC :blink: ...... :fleb: .

Even in the very unlikely event the attacker actually were to kill 1 or 2 enemy elements, +1 or +2 MC in such a situation is so minimal as to be meaningless. And again, it is practically impossible unless were are talking about an attack of 4 or 5-1 odds.

With this paradigm, either the very first attack outright wins the battle, driving the defender out of the region, or regardless of the actual battle results, the only thing the attacker has gained is to not be forced to attack again. He will receive in very little supply during the normal supply phases even with a depot in the neighboring region, although he could manually move supply trains in and out of the battle region as much as he wished.

--

To me this is so illogical. On the one side the rule is basically conflating the region to something like a checker board with the defender sitting on every single black square. But if the attacker strikes at one black square, he must fight ALL of the other defenders on ALL of the other black squares ALL at the same time and then may gain only one black square.

In reality, a defending force is not spread out over the entire region. It is concentrated in the strategically important and tactically defensible locations. That leaves lots of room for an attacking force to maneuver. Certainly not the best places for it but far more than a token 5%.
Image

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sun May 10, 2015 7:36 pm

I agree something feels wrong about winning the battle and still only having 5% MC. But that has nothing to do with the current change I believe. The current change was about ensuring a minimum of 5% MC. Before this recent change, wouldn't Hooker have had less? It seems the situation is caused by the change that has the forces remain in the same region.

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

Sun May 10, 2015 8:26 pm

Previously, if you won a battle, even if the enemy did not retreat out of the region, you gained a lot of MC. I have no idea, why Pocus changed this to 1 MC per element eliminated, but he might as well have changed it to: either drive the enemy out or stay at 5% MC Image
Image

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sun May 10, 2015 8:59 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:I have no idea, why Pocus changed this to 1 MC per element eliminatedImage


I didn't realize that change had been made. Hopefully Pocus can shed some light on the purpose.

User avatar
willgamer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:41 am
Location: Mount Juliet, TN

Mon May 11, 2015 12:29 am

Somehow, this has all become very convoluted! (©Captain Obvious)

Wouldn't the basics be something like-

1. (keeping old rule) If attempting to move into a region where you have less than 5% control, you must attack.

2. If you win, you gain at least 50% control based on winning itself.

3. If you win, you can remain in a region without ever attacking again and will always keep at least 5% control.

Linstock
Corporal
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:30 am

Mon May 11, 2015 1:39 am

willgamer wrote:Somehow, this has all become very convoluted! (©Captain Obvious)

Wouldn't the basics be something like-

1. (keeping old rule) If attempting to move into a region where you have less than 5% control, you must attack.

2. If you win, you gain at least 50% control based on winning itself.

3. If you win, you can remain in a region without ever attacking again and will always keep at least 5% control.


Are we sure this is how things worked before the change? If so, as others have noted, it seems like we need an explanation from Pocus. There must be some reason behind the change.

User avatar
willgamer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:41 am
Location: Mount Juliet, TN

Mon May 11, 2015 2:19 am

No, only #1 is the way things worked.

I was just trying to come up with a simple idea of what the basics could (should) be without going into details of MC, retreats, etc.

It's just my intuition of what I would expect given the time and geographic scale of this game.

Return to “Help improve CW2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest