Pocus wrote:You always get a 5% MC if you have a non-passive force in a region.
Captain_Orso wrote:
While trying to find a way to keep Milroy from MTSG'in --I forgot I could put him in PP-- , I tried putting his stack on Sentry, something I never use. IIRC in AACW a stack on Sentry got an icon somewhere. Now I noticed that in this case Milroy's envelope disappeared. When taken off Sentry again, his envelope reappeared. WAD?
Emx77 wrote:I think it is WAD. Sentry status does nothing else but to hide unit or force from appearing when you use the keystroke (E/R) to cycle through unmoved land Forces.
ifailmore wrote:Does having no land captured ( like the pics above) make the AI lose men and supply as well as cohesion since they dont have any lands but is in a enemy province?
(just roleplaying maybe those army just mmarching around hence no land captured)
dinsdale wrote:Is anyone else noticing the CSA AI going nuts in 1.06? I'm playing with the AI setting in the middle and I can't keep up with their troops in 1861. They have raided with multiple brigade sized forces as far as Pittsburg and their main armies are currently sieging in Delaware and Philadelphia while leaving the whole of Virginia undefended.
Kentucky and Tennessee are also almost empty of Secessionists, I've been able to take control of the major northern TN forts, and move down into Bowling Green in the east. They are sending everything they have into Delaware
It could be that I'm having an extraordinarily bad game in the East and allowed them to break out, but they seem incredibly aggressive on offense there.
ifailmore wrote:what setting have you use i would love to have an ai like that im not seeing it on mine using this pacth
Scottus wrote:Meh. I just want this fixed. Right now (1.05-06) it's broke.
I will have to fire up Birth of Rome to get my gaming fix until then.
Captain_Orso wrote:Using the QF CW2.exe.
- Hooker's Corps enters a region and does battle with Taylor's Force and loses, but stays in the region and maintains 5% MC .
- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP, nothing happens, no battle, he does not go to OP, but he also gains no MC although he is nearly as strong as Taylor's Force .
- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC and he is changed to OP and attacks and loses again, but he still maintains 5% MC .
- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC but give him orders to move back to the region from where he came --100%MC-- which shows 12 day to reach the region. During turn execution he turns to OP, his move is canceled, but no battle if fought, and at the end of the turn he is back where he started, in DP with 5% MC. No Union message says anything about engaging the enemy, but on the CS side it says that Taylor engaged the enemy in the region .
- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC and again give him orders to move back to the region from where he came. It says this time he will take 2 days to reach the region. Again, during the turn execution I see that he changes to OP, but no battle takes place. Again, no Union message about engaging the enemy and this time none on the CS side either.
Pocus wrote:Hi,
First, thanks to Captain for the guinea pigs testing
Pocus wrote: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!
AndrewKurtz wrote:Fingers crossed!
One other question, although if the above are fixed this might be very minor...
When attacking but using either probe or conservative, I'd be curious to get thoughts on whether the two forces should land in the same region? Just happened in a PBEM game I am playing. I sent a force in to Manassas but the idea was a probe. Now the forces are in the same region. My intention had been to do a few rounds to probe the defenses, but not end up on the region. It left me wondering whether attacks with these probe (and maybe conservative) ROEs set should always retreat back to the region from whence they came if they retreat from the battle.
Again, minor, but wanted to get the question out there.
Captain_Orso wrote:I am at a lose as to what that would be good for. Each time you have to move back into the region, arrive with cohesion loss, fight a battle you know you are going to lose, take more losses than the enemy and then return to start to do it over again the next turn. Are you trying to get rid of your penal-colony troops?
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!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests