---> Patch 1.10c released

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Yes, these elements were missing from the start, specifically elements in Smith's and Bee's brigades. I've played another turn and all my other units have filled out and there are plenty of replacements, so I'm pretty sure its not working ATM. Any idea on that militia re-locking?

The good news is Athena is playing great so far in 1861. Very active and aggressive with the Navy, much more so than in previous versions. Also repairing rails nicely. She even made a raid into NC and built a depot there, never seen that before. Great job Pocus!

[Brochgale]

Yes, these elements were missing from the start, specifically elements in Smith's and Bee's brigades. I've played another turn and all my other units have filled out and there are plenty of replacements, so I'm pretty sure its not working ATM. Any idea on that militia re-locking?

The good news is Athena is playing great so far in 1861. Very active and aggressive with the Navy, much more so than in previous versions. Also repairing rails nicely. She even made a raid into NC and built a depot there, never seen that before. Great job Pocus!

As a CSA player thanks for the warning on that one.

[arsan]

Yes, these elements were missing from the start, specifically elements in Smith's and Bee's brigades. I've played another turn and all my other units have filled out and there are plenty of replacements, so I'm pretty sure its not working ATM. Any idea on that militia re-locking?

Hi!
I have been checking this problem and i think i found the reason why.
Gray work with the new depot is not the cause. This works great
The problem is that Bee and Smith brigades appear merged with Bee and Smith leaders.
Since 1.10 patch units inside divisions can now recover missing elements, but it seems this new improvement does not apply to lone brigades merged with a leader.
In all my checks, the Virginia cavalry brigade on Johnston Command recover his 3 missing elements without any problems (of course you must have the appropriate replacements) but Bee and Smith brigades only recover hits ans cohesion, but not the missing elements.
But when stack become unlocked, if you separate this brigades from the leader, they will recover the missing elements in the next turn

Don't know if Primasprit work with the divisions and full elements recovery was supposed to work also with leader+brigade merges or not.
But the fact is that it does not work now. Not sure if it is important enough for him to look at it.
Maybe for a future patch it would be easier just to separate Bee and Smith leaders from his brigades ans just let the player merge them later or not.

Regards!

[mikee64]

Thanks arsan, that could be it. I moved the 1st VA Cav unit out of the stack earlier and he did recover lost elements, so I did not think of that. It is true the units I was looking to replace elements both had leaders attached. As long as we know that it is not a big problem.

[Pdubya64]

Hi!
I have been checking this problem and i think i found the reason why.
Gray work with the new depot is not the cause. This works great
The problem is that Bee and Smith brigades appear merged with Bee and Smith leaders.
Since 1.10 patch units inside divisions can now recover missing elements, but it seems this new improvement does not apply to lone brigades merged with a leader.
In all my checks, the Virginia cavalry brigade on Johnston Command recover his 3 missing elements without any problems (of course you must have the appropriate replacements) but Bee and Smith brigades only recover hits ans cohesion, but not the missing elements.
But when stack become unlocked, if you separate this brigades from the leader, they will recover the missing elements in the next turn

Don't know if Primasprit work with the divisions and full elements recovery was supposed to work also with leader+brigade merges or not.
But the fact is that it does not work now. Not sure if it is important enough for him to look at it.
Maybe for a future patch it would be easier just to separate Bee and Smith leaders from his brigades ans just let the player merge them later or not.

Regards!

+1: Nice detective work there Arsan!

[richfed]

I noticed - I think it was in September 1861 - that a unit, the Texas Ranger Brigade, appeared in Texas that I had never noticed before. It appears to be a "leftover" from a mod [not mine; it's in the patch download], as it has that "event_nam" something or other when the message appears in the Mail Box. Wondering if it's supposed to be there?

Patch seems great ... I can confirm that the US Navy is much more active. I have TWO Admirals laid up in hospitals!

[arsan]

The texas briagde is one of the 3 new CSA elite brigades introduced on 1.10 patch (i think)
There was a discussion about it on the forum and was decided to add some more elite historical brigades for the CSA, as the USA had more than twice the number.
But as you said, i also noticed playing with 1.10b that the unit did not had a proper text for the message log or at least is was not woking OK as no texts appeared there.
Now that i think about t, i think there must be some problem with the event, as i recall having translated to spanish the event texts about the new brigades.
But certainly, it does not appear on the message log.
Regards

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

Thanks for the report on AI Mike, this is very important, as I'm cleaning some old code to prepare the way for new possibilities.

[arsan]

This has me thinking that the newly placed depot at Strasburg is not really needed. I was hesitant about its placement there in the first place, due to a possible early capture by the USA forces. I'll have to do some more testing. I much prefer that the player choose to expend his own resources to build items that were not really in place historically.

Sorry, but i don't agree at all.
Even with this problem with Bee and Smith brigades, when the johnston stack is unlocked, the troops are at 100% strength with the exception of the 2 cav elements the two merged brigades can't recover.
Before, without depot here, the stack would be missing this same two elements, plus three missing elements from the cav brigade and the most important, ALL the rest of the units will be at half strength or worse.
This situation would happen at the historical date of 1º Bull run battle, when the real Johnston force participated decisively. Something impossible with the vanilla setup until this new depot was placed.
If you want to remove the depot, then Johnston stack needs to be modified to arrive already at 100% strength.

regards

[Jabberwock]

If you want to remove the depot, then Johnston stack needs to be modified to arrive already at 100% strength.

That there's a good suggestion.

[Franciscus]

Sorry, but i don't agree at all.
Even with this problem with Bee and Smith brigades, when the johnston stack is unlocked, the troops are at 100% strength with the exception of the 2 cav elements the two merged brigades can't recover.
Before, without depot here, the stack would be missing this same two elements, plus three missing elements from the cav brigade and the most important, ALL the rest of the units will be at half strength or worse.
This situation would happen at the historical date of 1º Bull run battle, when the real Johnston force participated decisively. Something impossible with the vanilla setup until this new depot was placed.
If you want to remove the depot, then Johnston stack needs to be modified to arrive already at 100% strength.

regards

+1. Even if Smith's and Bee's brigade remain as they are now, it is much better and interesting to have a depot in Strasburg. It should not be removed !

[Primasprit]

Even with this problem with Bee and Smith brigades, when the johnston stack is unlocked, the troops are at 100% strength with the exception of the 2 cav elements the two merged brigades can't recover.

The problem is that brigades merged with a general can replace elements but not to full strength. They replace one element to little.

Fixed now, thanks for the report.


Cheers
Norbert

[arsan]

Cool!
Thanks Primasprit!

[Clovis]

It seems as gunboats are now blockading even friendly units river crossing.

Removing gunboats suffices to allow units to cross.

[lodilefty]

It seems as gunboats are now blockading even friendly units river crossing.

Not surprising! Army and Navy are always at odds...

[Clovis]

About AI:

there's now a real difference between low and normal aggressiveness levels. AI aggressiveness is generally working better, ie without suicidal moves but offensively.

[mikee64]

About AI:

there's now a real difference between low and normal aggressiveness levels. AI aggressiveness is generally working better, ie without suicidal moves but offensively.

My current settings are normal aggressivness, 2 clicks FOW advantage, 2 clicks activation advantage, allow more time, historical attrition for player only, and 3/6 redeployments.
I've got Union AI ironclads and blockade fleets swarming in the Bay and VA rivers.

[mikee64]

It seems as gunboats are now blockading even friendly units river crossing.

Removing gunboats suffices to allow units to cross.

Something odd is going on but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. I have a division under Johnson that has been trying to make this move for about 3 turns:



At first I didn't have the gunboats there, so I thought the AI might have some boats there I couldn't see due to FOW (I don't watch the turn resolution at all). So I moved my 2 units (4 elements) there to allow the crossing. Johnson still won't go across the river. I'm trying some things each turn to see what might be going on.

[Mauzophis]

Have there been any changes to the weather matrix?
I notice snow in late June in the southwest and the hill areas in texas...

[Mauzophis]

One thing not mentioned in Pocus' changes at the beginning of this thread is the introduction of "Evolving Maximum Entrenchment Levels". For more information on this see the 2nd post of this thread: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6249

Depending on feedback, I may have to tweak in the random increase percentages somewhat, but in my tests they perform rather well. Keep in mind, the Max Level has to get to 5 pretty quick for "River Bombardment" rules to work soon enough.

Gray, are the chages implemented in this way? :

1861 April Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 4
1861 July Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 4
1862 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 5
1863 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 6
1864 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 8

The Scripted Events change these levels over time on the following schedule:

In 1861, there is a small chance each turn from Aug thru Dec for the Level to increase to 5
---- with a definite increase to 5 in Jan 1862

In 1862, there is a small chance each turn from May thru Dec for the Level to increase to 6
---- with a definite increase to 6 in Jan 1863

In 1863, there is a small chance each turn from May thru Aug for the Level to increase to 7
---- with a definite increase to 7 in Sep 1863

In 1863, there is a small chance each turn from Oct thru Dec for the Level to increase to 8
---- with a definite increase to 8 in Jan 1864

Is it possible to lower the entrechment level needed for river bomabrdement to 4 in 1861?
In my current game as the CSA I've taken Alexandria and reached level 4 entrenchment there in early august. In september and later I saw several fleets passing the potomac and my corps couldn't fire a single shot at them.
It seems a little strange that all those artillery men were sitting in a trench thinking: "Damn! If only some would invent a way to shoot at those ships"

[Jabberwock]

ACW\Settings\Bombard&Blockade.opt

change
bmbMinEntrenchLevel = 5
to
bmbMinEntrenchLevel = 4

[bigus]

I'm getting the AiFlushOnCalc_ error again with the debug on.

[ATTACH]2937[/ATTACH]


bigus

[Clovis]

AI is definitly better, protecting Capital, concentrating forces. It doesn't raid endlessly with cavalry against fortress.

[Crimguy]

AI is definitly better, protecting Capital, concentrating forces. It doesn't raid endlessly with cavalry against fortress.

I think I witnessed a more conservative AI (on medium), but let me share an experience I had last night.

After patching AACW to 10c, I resumed my game. Late 1862. I had just swung a corps led by Johnston into MD and then south to Washington. City was under siege by Jan 1863. Meanwhile, Beauregard (Army HQ, Power abou5 1300) was in Alexandria to block Union forces to the south, and Lee's Corps (about 800) was in Richmond moving north. After the siege began, I watched with approval as virtually all of the Union forces made their way north. While one corps tried to go through Alexandria, Athena didn't coordinate the other forces (130k+ in all) and lost the battle to Beauregard. Ultimately they never really tried to get to Washington to relieve the city and it fell in Late March 1863, resulting in a win by morale.

While I had good positioning around the area, it seemed that the Union could/should have tried to divert themselves around Alexandria, cross the Chesapeake/Potomac, and enter Washington from the South. Instead, they kinda just sat there moving first north, then south.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bk6583]

It seems as gunboats are now blockading even friendly units river crossing.

Removing gunboats suffices to allow units to cross.

So that's it! Was driving myself crazy wondering why Thomas wouldn't cross the Tennessee - simply didn't make the connection that my own gun boats were doing that - I guess I'll have to go back two turns and confirm.