---> AACW Patch 1.10b release

[Pocus]

ok thanks, I'll check that too.

[bigus]

Bigus:

I was unable to reproduce the crash even though I tried it about a dozen times.

Me neither. I tried about 10 times to reproduce it and No crashes.....
Has to be on my end. Like I said I upgraded recently and I overclocked some stuff.... this could be the problem.

sorry for the confusion.

bigus

[Clovis]

Are the naval WSU and money supply working? Ican't get anymore for both side any money or WSU from naval activity...

[emu]

Are the naval WSU and money supply working? Ican't get anymore for both side any money or WSU from naval activity...

Works for me when playing union side v1.10b

[emu]

1 - I am sending militia and cavalry units set to passive, retreat with enter city deep into csa territory trying to capture ungarrisoned cities. Generally pick up Carthage, Livingstone, Huntsville TN etc with no trouble. These units change to assault posture in enemy territory but I don't think that action is instantaneous which is why I do it: I reckon the units are outrunning csa units successfully because of a time delay in the posture reset.

I now have a random problem where I encounter no enemy units but my cav or militia unit just sits in the enemy county without entering the town/ city. I then reset the posture (eg to defense) and order the unit to enter the town and next turn am able to enter normally. Passive Posture seems to prevent city entry in enemy territory. I am wondering if the posture reset upon entering enemy territory has an occasional glitch. Will next check that posture has been correctly reset by end of turn in these cases. Regardless of posture, I assume the unit should enter empty towns as ordered.

2 - A few of my invading militias are locking after they take a town (eg 1 militia took Huntsville and locked, another entered the county with Carthage TN, did not take the empty town and locked). I will fiddle with this a bit tonight and send in a save game example. Anyone notice either problem?

[Carnium]

Are the naval WSU and money supply working? Ican't get anymore for both side any money or WSU from naval activity...

Works for me too. Started the campaign with 1.10 as the Union side and patched to 1.10a and then to 1.10b.

[arsan]

Works for me too. Started the campaign with 1.10 as the Union side and patched to 1.10a and then to 1.10b.

Hi
It also works ok for me on the CSA side.

[Gray_Lensman]

< deleted - contents obsolete >

[arsan]

Hi!
I have found a (pretty big) problem with the march to the sound of the guns mechanism on the 1.10b patch. leure: leure: leure:

The thing is that sometimes (no always i think) corps committed to adjacent regions by marching to the sound of the guns actually travel to that region and remains there at turn end. They don't "jump back" to his starting position.

I attach the current turn and the previous turn back up of my CSA campaign where you can see the problem.
On this i had two corps (Jackson and Beuregard) on Alexandria and another coprs (Bonham) and the Army HQ (Johnston) on Manassas.
A USA stack wanders to Alexandria region and a battle is engeged on day 13. Army HQ and Bonham corps are committed marching to the sound of the guns, participate on the battle and we won.
Now, the problem is that the Army HQ and Bonham are reported on the message log as arriving to Alexandria on day 14 ... against my orders!!! which were none (stay put on Manassas) leure:
And now Manassas is nearly empty and Bonham has lost all his entrenchments level there leure: leure: leure:

This happened to me earlier with the Army HQ only but i though it could had been my fault (an order given by mistake).
But i'm not that old This time i know it has not been me.
Besides, the orders can be checked on the turn backup.

By the way on other thread somebody mentioned that some stacks moved on their own... maybe it is related??

Regards

[bk6583]

Similar situation occurred with me - I'll let your save do the talking. Because I had rearranged two corps within Alexandria I just thought it was a fat finger mouse click on my part when I found both Union corps in Manassas - but after reading your post I think it may be a bug.

[Clovis]

Hi
It also works ok for me on the CSA side.

Indeed, the model for transport has beeen modified in 1.10b

[mikee64]

I can confirm the "March to the Guns" problem. Corps are either moving or plotting movement into the region they just supported. Saves available if needed.

[mikee64]

Athena does seem to be repairing railroad track in rear areas now; I destroyed the rails in Salem IL in early July, and they were repaired by early August.

[richfed]

Hi!
I have found a (pretty big) problem with the march to the sound of the guns mechanism on the 1.10b patch. leure: leure: leure:

The thing is that sometimes (no always i think) corps committed to adjacent regions by marching to the sound of the guns actually travel to that region and remains there at turn end. They don't "jump back" to his starting position.

I attach the current turn and the previous turn back up of my CSA campaign where you can see the problem.
On this i had two corps (Jackson and Beuregard) on Alexandria and another coprs (Bonham) and the Army HQ (Johnston) on Manassas.
A USA stack wanders to Alexandria region and a battle is engeged on day 13. Army HQ and Bonham corps are committed marching to the sound of the guns, participate on the battle and we won.
Now, the problem is that the Army HQ and Bonham are reported on the message log as arriving to Alexandria on day 14 ... against my orders!!! which were none (stay put on Manassas) leure:
And now Manassas is nearly empty and Bonham has lost all his entrenchments level there leure: leure: leure:

This happened to me earlier with the Army HQ only but i though it could had been my fault (an order given by mistake).
But i'm not that old This time i know it has not been me.
Besides, the orders can be checked on the turn backup.

By the way on other thread somebody mentioned that some stacks moved on their own... maybe it is related??

Regards

Is it not possible that this is now WAD? [I, too, have observed this behavior.] Seems like a realistic and fair trade-off to me ... If you want Corps support in an adjacent region, the Corps must enter that region to fight. Next turn, send 'em back, if you want. I don't know if this is the intent, or not, but it's ok by me ...

[arsan]

Hi
I think (and hope) it is not WAD.
Really if this big change had been introduced intentionally, Pocus would had said something about it or at least put the change on the readme.
The problem with this (and what the actual system of march to the guns and "jump back" try to solve) is that as the defender has no control on which stack to commit ¡in support of a battle, is very easy for the enemy to setup gamey traps and create holes in a defensive line
Send a lone regiment to an occupied area and adjacent areas defenders will left (and lose for good) their entrenched positions to pounce on the lone unit leaving the way open for you army to march to Richmond, or whenever you want.

As there had been several tweaks on the march to the sound of the guns lately, my bet is that something has gone wrong with it, causing this bug.
Regards

[Pocus]

It is sure not a WAD, so I'll check that asap. Thanks for the report!

[arsan]

Great! Thanks!

[Pocus]

Not so great, not reproduced. So either the bug is not reproducible, or something changed in the MttSoG rule between your version and mine, but that would be very strange as I only worked on the AI since some days.



Another save please?

[mikee64]

I'll double check that mine actually happened again and send you that save when I get home (~6 hours).

[arsan]

Maybe on your turn resolution Bonham and the army HQ where not commited to the sound of the guns??
On my turn resolution there were two battles on Alexandria region: a little one on the first days against a lone arty USA battery (but all corps appeared on the combat report. Talk about overwhelming force :niark and a second one on day 13 against Halleck corps stack
Did any or both of this happen on your turn resolution?

By the way, now that you are checking my save...

Could you tell the Ai to not stack 80% of his combat units on the Army HQ stack (McDowell) and make corps (in my game this eastern army has none on some turns and just on or two weak cops on the best cases) for that army and put most of the combat power there?
As the Army HQ stack cannot initiate combat by himself, McDowell huge and lone stack just roam around northern Virginia waiting for some enemy who can initiate combat against him

Thanks and regards

[Pocus]

true, I did not have the big battle, only the small one.

the special rule about army stacks only apply if they are NOT alone.

I'll try to force the big battle and see what's happening.

[arsan]

the special rule about army stacks only apply if they are NOT alone.

That is good to know!
Then it must be McDowell crappy activation chances
The problem is that his corps leaders are still crappier (Banks, Halleck...)
The decent ones (Millroy and Hamilton) were shipped to the west

Cheers!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pepe4158]

so hate to be a little slow brained here, but am quessing for now we know of no repeatable bugs with b?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[turska]

Yeah, i think i have noticed this too as few of my corps'es kind of swapped places with march to the guns.

[Carnium]

Another problem in 1.10b that I have not seen before leure:
Started a Union campaign with 1.10 and the patched it till 1.10b.
In mid 1862 I started to advance slowly into Virginia. AI did a good job in kicking my armies back .. and then something weird happened. It went on a full offensive on Washington and leaving only one unit at Richmond. Well it gave me a lot of troubles actually defending my capital .. but I was able to take CSA capital with ease as it has almost no units to defend. Is this WAD ?
Strange enough is that the CSA went from a win to near defeat as they are now "touring" my Washington area and slowly melting away while their capital is mine.
Maybe the AI was ignoring my army near Richmond when it launched the offensive and I should have given it some FOW advantage to be more aware of nearby units ?

So far this is my only real big problem with the new patch that is overall a HUGE improvement over the AI as it more active than before and knows how to exploit my mistakes and defend critical areas like never before ( minus Richmond)

[Pocus]

It seems the current version of the game, misinterprets movement orders given to units. In the example posted below, I had given the "Monitor" orders to move from New York, NY (region #5) to Upper Hudson River (region #1124). I have provided a screen shot below to show the actual orders given. It was to take 3 days.

[ATTACH]2882[/ATTACH]

Instead, it went on to Monroe, NY (region #28) after it reached the Upper Hudson River. Note: there is a legitimate linkage between Monroe, NY and the Upper Hudson River placed awhile back for the canal movement, but the orders were to go to the Upper Hudson River only. This is one example of this faulty move... I have also had instances where the "Monitor" went "into" the harbor at Albany, NY (region #7), which I initially took to be an errant mouse click, but it wasn't.

[ATTACH]2883[/ATTACH]

Attached below is the saved game which is saved at the turn of the move. You can go back a turn to attempt to repeat the behavior, but it is very intermittant in behavior, so you may have to reload/repeat the turn several times to see this occurance.

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the Corps wrong movement (march to the sound of guns) behavior bug or not, but this should have a priority to be fixed immediately since it occurs often enough to be a real problem.

Regards
.

I think I understand what's going on... can the river freeze from time to time? If yes, then the fleet would be placed immediately in the nearest available port.

[Franciscus]

I think I understand what's going on... can the river freeze from time to time? If yes, then the fleet would be placed immediately in the nearest available port.

ETA for the next patch ??

[Pocus]

Depends if new bugs are confirmed or not. For now I have 2 bugs fixed and the removal of the need to be in offensive posture for the gunboats into it.