1.03 public beta patch

[Pocus]

Play with it at your own risks (well aside from a bug you don't risk anything!)

The 1.03 patch is done and has been tested, but would need more time, mostly to check if the weather patterns are consistent thru a whole year and in all places. So as some of you want the patch now, we don't feel like delaying it until monday/tuesday.

We will update it to the regular 1.03 patch (or 1.03a if something weird is found) at the begining of the week, and then add it the permanent links library:

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/patch_AACW_v1.03_beta.exe

And here is the readme:

==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.03 Readme
Friday, May 18, 2007
==============================================================================

This patch contains all changes since the start.
You can continue a saved game created before the patch. Most entry will apply, but not all.

==============================================================================
Bugs Fixes
==============================================================================
fixed: Some of the divisions added by setup would not split correctly.
fixed: 'Save under a new name' procedure had an error.
fixed: In some cases, you could not merge 2 stacks together if the map was focused far from the region of the said stacks.

==============================================================================
User Interface Additions
==============================================================================
Total losses since the start of the scenario/Campaigns are shown in the Objectives page of the Ledger (F9).
Some leaders without custom portraits would not show properly on the main map.

==============================================================================
Game Play, Rules Additions and Changes
==============================================================================
Militia building is better repartited between towns without garrisons.
The battle engine now takes into account the losses incurred during a given fight to check for retreat will (before only the relative power of both side was checked).
The overal power value of all the stacks (this figure is an abstract calculation of the combat power of stacks) now takes into account the command penalty. This change will improve the overall AI behavior and the battle engine behavior when checking for retreats.
Weather patterns entirely redone according to the following zones: Central America, Coastal Lowlands, Europe, Great Lakes, Gulf Coastal, Seas, Mid Atlantic, Mississippi Basin, New England, North Appalachian, North Plains, Ozarks, South Appalachian, South Plains, Upland South, Upper South.


==============================================================================
Scenarios/setups Additions and Changes
==============================================================================
Missouri Force Pool Additions corrected.
Belle Boyd should not be locked into her chamber anymore. (was permanently fixed)
Indians regiments are now removed when reformed into regular CSA cavalry.
Naval Academy event fixed.
Naval Pacific squadron is locked until Foreign Intervention.
Kentucky events revised once more.
Wooden frigates could be built in the Great Lakes, fixed.
Forrest did not appears in 1863 setup.
Lee Takes Command event fixed.

==============================================================================
AI
==============================================================================
Blockade interest increased.
AI will refit more often her ships.
Weather is taken into account much more.
Building scheme majorly improved.
Garrisoning of militias improved.
AI will decide to recover more often land units, and in a more efficient way.


==============================================================================
Data tweaks and changes
==============================================================================
Horse Artillery speed slightly upped.
Gain of War furnitures (war supplies) lowered by 33% when investing in industry.
The over cautious trait has been removed from the game, Strategic rating represents also overcautiousness.

==============================================================================
Graphics additions
==============================================================================
Sandra farewell to the players: 8 new generals portraits added: USA: T. Crittenden, WHL Wallace, J. Newton, F. Barlow, CSA: C. Field, E. Johnson, J. Kershaw, R. Hoke. The remaining portraits are planned by another artist.


******************************************************************************

[flintlock]

Some nice changes within this beta patch.

@ Sandra:
Many thanks for these new generals, and all the best in your new endeavors and exciting challenges. Again, thank you for all your wonderful and talented work!

[tagwyn]

Pocus et. al.: Thanks for all your efforts! Will really miss Sandra and hope for her continued success in all new endeavors. Tag (Larry3)

[oldspec4]

Pocus,

Great update. One question...on the objectives screen (F9), I no longer have the turns completed and turns to go listed. BTW, I am playing at 1024X768.

[Stonewall]

Certainly not a bg deal, but the patch forgot to include Edward Johnson's picture in his 2-star model entry (482). Its there in the 1-star model (489), but absent for UID 482.

[AndrewKurtz]

Using the new beta, I noticed the Union launching attacks against coastal forts early. Only confusing thing...I was the union and didn't order these??? Is this supposed to happen? I mean, I'm good with forces appearing from nowhere and taking forts on my behalf, but it didn't seem right.

[Wilhammer]

Yes, spontaneous arrival of Union Garrisons at Fort Jackson and another off the Atlantic Coast of Florida.

Those CSA occupied forts are now under siege.

The Away Teams have reached the outposts, sir!

----------

BTW, I do like the way Divisions fall apart now when you decombine them.

However, I still have Artillery icons showing up for Hooke, and with his Division, the unit is called '25th Division'.

I'll shoot you the saves in a short bit.

[oldspec4]

Pocus,

Great update. One question...on the objectives screen (F9), I no longer have the turns completed and turns to go listed. BTW, I am playing at 1024X768.

Pocus,

Please disregard my question. I started a new game and everything is where it should be in the objectives screen. Thx

[Johnny Canuck]

Yes, spontaneous arrival of Union Garrisons at Fort Jackson and another off the Atlantic Coast of Florida.

Those CSA occupied forts are now under siege.

The Away Teams have reached the outposts, sir!

Saw the same thing too, in late June '61. It was Fort Jackson near New Orleans, & two east-coast Florida forts.

To hazard a guess, I think there is a bug in the 'Various Events' file with the free garrison events for the three forts (Jackson, Clinch, & Marion) - the events start by selecting the CSA to test for fort ownership, before switching to the USA for the creation of the garrison unit. I think (if I understand the scripting correctly) that the events should start by selecting the USA to test for fort ownership instead.

[Stonewall]

Saw the same thing too, in late June '61. It was Fort Jackson near New Orleans, & two east-coast Florida forts.

Looks like the old "garrison" bug is popping up again. This was previously fixed. There was a problem with the fort garrison events firing when the fort was NOT in possession of the side the event fires for.

With the improved naval ai, these guys have a chance to succeed. Union took its entire Atlantic blockade and proceeded to completely level my Atlantic forts where these garrisons popped up. Its good experience for the troops you send in to repel the Northern invader, though.

[rasnell]

Total losses since the start of the scenario/Campaigns are shown in the Objectives page of the Ledger (F9).

Thanks for listening. This is a big deal to me.

[mikee64]

I don't see it in the readme so was wondering if the problem of the CSA AL & FL being released early and then locked again was fixed in the patch? Playing the 1.02e patch I just got the event in England and my previous released ships are now locked at sea with their admiral. Has this been fixed or do you guys need a savegame?

[Big Muddy]

I was going to hold off to see how the beta plays out, but decided to DL it anyway, total loses. Now we need total troop count, if possible, nice job guys.

[Pocus]

Thanks for listening. This is a big deal to me.

Happy to please you. I had no time to code the simplified rule on Blockade Boxes, but it will comes eventually. User Interface requests are often interesting to do, but it all boils down to a question of priority and time left to do these.

The new blockade rule will be split in 3 options:

a) no changes
b) ships in the boxes always stay at full supply and cohesion but provide 50% of their blockade value (abstracted shuttling to repair ports)
c) same as (b) but full value.

Not a perfect answer to whose wanting less micromanaging to this part of the game (not the 'do a right click, send to a port in a list' thing), but definitively doable for us rapidly.

As for the rest:

i) yes, it seems an old Event Various file has been exported with the erroneous events about forts garrisons. Thanks for the report.

ii) You are indeed right oldspec4, there is not enough room in the ledger page to show the last text. It can shows, depending if you have prisoners or not though. This will be fixed too.

[rasnell]

The new blockade rule will be split in 3 options:

a) no changes
b) ships in the boxes always stay at full supply and cohesion but provide 50% of their blockade value (abstracted shuttling to repair ports)
c) same as (b) but full value.

Another huge deal. Greatly increases playability for me.

You're 2 for 3. Speed up the turn processing speeds or shorten the number of days and I'll consider this game as perfect.

[Walloc]

The new blockade rule will be split in 3 options:

a) no changes
b) ships in the boxes always stay at full supply and cohesion but provide 50% of their blockade value (abstracted shuttling to repair ports)
c) same as (b) but full value.

Not a perfect answer to whose wanting less micromanaging to this part of the game (not the 'do a right click, send to a port in a list' thing), but definitively doable for us rapidly.

Hi Pocus,

Could i come with a suggstion. I like the idea to offer ppl choices in micromanagement.

In regards to B. Assuming if choose that option then u can only do that.
My experience is in order to keep ur blockade units in supply, repaired and at close to full cohesion and in order trying keeping the same balance. Less ofcourse u necesarrily trying to alter that. That I wouldnt have to spend 50% of time in port maybe more like 25% in port and transition. Taken into account the fact u lose cohesion in the blocakde box u lose some of ur bloackade value too. So uppeing the % in B to maybe 75% or 67%.
I think that would capture the balance between choices A and B better a it is now.
Just a thought,

Rasmus

[richfed]

Indeed, playing as the CSA, I find that the USA Naval fleets are much more aggressive in besieging my coastal forts. Militia clearly comes in handy here!

The AI phase also seems to be quicker.

[AndrewKurtz]

FYI, in the first winter and, as a South Carolina native, I can tell you the weather seems much more realistic. So far it looks good.

[tc237]

Your might have to start a poll for the Blockade issue.

I vote A.
Don't change anything yet.
Start a poll to get an accurate assessment of opinion.

--rant--------
IMO, don't "dumb" down the game because some don't want to deal with certain aspects of it.
The "Blockade Box" is already a huge abstraction, why make it less relevant.

The point of large wargames like AACW is to challenge the player.
The player should feel pressure or stress in a game setting to make tough decisions.
In AACW, after the player has struggled to make tough decisions in three separate land theaters, they then have to tend to a sticky naval situation that is just as challenging.
That is why I pay $45 and spend hours playing historically based strategic wargames, to be challenged.
There are other easier and less challenging games out there.
--/rant--------

I enjoy the current naval aspect of the game.

[Toten]

I agree with tc237 on the Blockade issue. I enjoy it the way it is now and see no reason to change it.

[Feralkoala]

I'm not sure what the issue on the blockade is. It will have 3 options. If you want to do hands-on managing, then choose option A for your games.

[Johnny Canuck]

Regarding blockading, my preference would be for option B, but I would make one additional suggestion. Instead of 50%, why not make the blockade percentage dependent on the number & size of nearby Union-controlled harbours (hopefully a simple calculation that is not too code-intensive can be devised)? This would be particularly important for the Gulf Coast & the Gulf blockade box, in that the Union player would need to seize a large Gulf Coast port (i.e. New Orleans) if he wants his blockade ships in the area to be really effective.

As for weather, I did notice that in late April I had snow in the South-West & several provinces in Texas, east of Dallas. Not sure if that is WAD, but I thought I would mention it.

[Mike]

Interesting options on the blockade rules, not sure which one I like. I want to micromanage, but am getting lazy in my old age.

[will b]

The new blockade rule will be split in 3 options:

a) no changes
b) ships in the boxes always stay at full supply and cohesion but provide 50% of their blockade value (abstracted shuttling to repair ports)
c) same as (b) but full value.

My vote is to keep it as is. If anything the effectiveness of the blockade squadrons need to be reduced.

Attrition in your runners is one thing but having them consistantly destroyed in the 1st or 2nd turn after reaching the blockade is another.


For option b, I'm not sure that 50% would even be enough of a reduction. To me 1/3 would seem to be more accurate. That way for every ship on blockade station you'd be simulating 1 in port for repair/refit and 1 in transit to/from the blockade box.


Anyway, that's my $.02

[Carrington]

Your might have to start a poll for the Blockade issue.

I vote A.
Don't change anything yet.
Start a poll to get an accurate assessment of opinion.

--rant--------
IMO, don't "dumb" down the game because some don't want to deal with certain aspects of it.
The "Blockade Box" is already a huge abstraction, why make it less relevant.

The point of large wargames like AACW is to challenge the player.
The player should feel pressure or stress in a game setting to make tough decisions.
In AACW, after the player has struggled to make tough decisions in three separate land theaters, they then have to tend to a sticky naval situation that is just as challenging.
That is why I pay $45 and spend hours playing historically based strategic wargames, to be challenged.
There are other easier and less challenging games out there.
--/rant--------

I enjoy the current naval aspect of the game.

I guess the question is whether the blockade game is a busy-work challenge or a strategic challenge. It seems to me it's reasonably easy to craft a "game" that will make me work hard, the bigger problem is whether it makes me think hard.

Of course one of the problems with computer games is that the A/I can be made 'challenging' by forcing the player to number-crunch and optimize in ways that computers are particularly suited. In 'twitch' games, this can be kind of fun.... I'm less impressed with it as a way of creating a good turn-based game. The bigger question is how to make the A/I challenging on human terms.

The bigger question for me: how does this change game balance? What do changes to the blockade mechanics do between evenly matched human players...

[Toten]

I asked this in another thread...but no reply. Is there a reason that I can't build ships in TX after the beta patch (full campaign 61) or is it a bug?

[Spruce]

option B and make the Union smarter at blockading first. After that, we might need to reconsider.

[runyan99]

Attrition in your runners is one thing but having them consistantly destroyed in the 1st or 2nd turn after reaching the blockade is another.

That's still what I am experiencing also. My blockade runners have a life expectancy of about 2 turns, and then they are intercepted and blown out of the water.

[Pocus]

I'm not putting a poll here and I'm not asking you to choose between A, B or C... Everybody will use the option he wants, because this will be in the Options Window. If you find the game ok as it is, just leave the checkbox on the first option (default). If you want to reduce micromanaging, choose another checkbox.

I will check what are the % of intercepting a blockade runner, perhaps there is a bug.

[Pocus]

New release candidate for the patch:

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/patch_AACW_v1.03_rc1.exe

fixed: crash when an army was dismissed.
The buggy events have also been corrected (except the issue on KY loyalty changing over several turns, work is in progress) .

The position of the cities around Norfolk and James City have been changed a bit.
Blockade Runner chance to be intercepted slightly reduced.