---> Patch 1.10c released

[arsan]

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.

Pocus,
Have you seen this bug report posted by mikee and Clovis?
Seems a rather big problem, IMHO leure:
It seems boats denying crossing of rivers works "too well" now. Friendly boats also blocks crossing
Regards!

[mikee64]

arsan, he's got my saves and my report on it, said he would look at it soon.

[CWNut77]

Hey all -- are the developers always so quick with the patch releases? I am constantly re-starting a game with each new patch, and have decided now to not use any mods at all (have been using struggle for a vast future mod), since it is too much for me to keep up with all the updates to mods AND game!

Just wondering -- will the development team be continuing to patch this game for some time to come, or is it "almost" complete?

I would like to note that the above is not a complaint or criticism -- constant updates like these are a GOOD thing and I am in the HOPE that they continue for some time. In the end we will have the most realistic grand strategy sim of the Civil War to date!

[AndrewKurtz]

Hey all -- are the developers always so quick with the patch releases? I am constantly re-starting a game with each new patch, and have decided now to not use any mods at all (have been using struggle for a vast future mod), since it is too much for me to keep up with all the updates to mods AND game!

One thing I do is keep two copies on my hard drive. One with the current mod so I don''t have to restart games. The other is the most recent vanilla version that I use until it gets completely stable and then I can start my next game using it with MODS.

[arsan]

Hey all -- are the developers always so quick with the patch releases? I am constantly re-starting a game with each new patch, and have decided now to not use any mods at all (have been using struggle for a vast future mod), since it is too much for me to keep up with all the updates to mods AND game!

Just wondering -- will the development team be continuing to patch this game for some time to come, or is it "almost" complete?

I would like to note that the above is not a complaint or criticism -- constant updates like these are a GOOD thing and I am in the HOPE that they continue for some time. In the end we will have the most realistic grand strategy sim of the Civil War to date!

Coming from a chronic restarter like me it may sound a little strange but... know that you can continue playing a campaign with different saves. Most of the improvements will apply to an already started campaign.
Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

As long as there are improvements to be made or bugs to be fixed, the game will continue to evolve. If you have a good game started and the version of the game you are currently running is working fine, there is nothing forcing you to install the next update until you are finished with the game you are playing.

We are extremely fortunate that AGEod has supported the game so well over the amount of time that they have so far.

All very true. When I host PBEM, I let my opponent know that one set of rules will be used for the entire game. I'm finding the current rapid patching a little disconcerting for the Grand Campaign, but I am certainly able to adjust my strategy as the rules evolve. (That wasn't true with some earlier patches which caught me flat-footed during PBEMs).

In general, patching is extremely rapid up until about the letter f, unless stability is achieved before that. Then there is a pause for consideration before a new version comes out.

[Jabberwock]

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

I am not laughing at this. I am laughing near this.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

It would be even funnier if he implemented my proposal. Then I could get attacked by my own gunboats. I'm sure there are a few forumites who would enjoy watching that.

[Brochgale]

It would be even funnier if he implemented my proposal. Then I could get attacked by my own gunboats. I'm sure there are a few forumites who would enjoy watching that.

I am curious is there any record of units changing sides in ACW?

[Jabberwock]

I am curious is there any record of units changing sides in ACW?

I don't think there were too many entire units (if any). Plenty of individuals, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanized_yankees

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/galvanized.htm

If you can find any sources, look up companies C & D of the 5th US Volunteers, they were supposedly made up of individuals that had switched sides twice.

Henry Morton Stanley - "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?" had been a galvanized yankee.

Confederate prisoners of war were not a principal source of manpower for the northern armies, for the total number recruited was probably under 10,000 ... - History of Prisoner of War Utilization by the United States Army, 1776-1945, p.35 (Lewis and Mewha, Government Printing Office, 1955)

http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-union-soldiers-hanged-in-north-carolina.htm

If you mean ships captured during active operations? Off the top of my head:

USS Isaac Smith - CSS Stono
USS - CSS - USS Harriet Lane
USS Indianola (only briefly in confederate hands)
USS - CSS Queen of the West
CSS - USS Arizona
I'm sure there's plenty more ...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

The bug is fixed.

[arsan]

The bug is fixed.

The river crossing one? Great, thanks!
What about the march to the sound of the guns problem?
Could you reproduce it with the saves Loops posted this weekend?
Regards!

[richfed]

I am having a very enjoyable, if not successful, '61 Campaign against the Union AI. It is May, '62 now, and my chances of a worthwhile venture into northern territory in the East are slim ... The AI has organized well - large forces at Harpers Ferry & DC, plus good size forces making it difficult to hold on to Manassas & Fredricksburg. I am somewhat out of position, and I fear an imminent attack on Richmond. A great cat-and-mouse going on right now!

The Union navy has decimated my river ships, and are making routine forays into my southern ports with the intention [?] of making an amphibious landing somewhere?? Don't know, as my forts' coastal artillery is handling them pretty well ... Still, just the notion is forcing me to create divisions in the southern tier of states, just in case.

In the West, things are relatively quiet ... mostly skirmish activity - seems both sides are diverting their manpower elsewhere.

Things I've noticed:

1 - the aforementioned "evt_nam" message when the new elite brigades make appearances on the map
2 - messages like this: J. Longstreet's command has joined J. Longstreet's command at Manassas
3 - The little depot town just east of Fredricksburg ... I forget it's proper name - hotly contested in my game - keeps showing simply as "Depot"
4 - Cherokee warriors out in IT are showing as "Apache" in battle reports
5 - NOT new to 1.10c - If you take one of the CSA '61 Generals from the pool and send him to Texas - NOT using RR or teleporting him - he goes via Chicago & other parts North

Pretty minor stuff - game is playing superbly. Best patch yet ... by far!!! I still am not having problems with Corps coordinating with each other.

Thanks, Pocus & Friends!

[Franciscus]

The bug is fixed.

ETA ?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Later today is tomorrow here in europe
Pocus must be dining now and will be going to bed soon...

[Loops]

I started a new campaign as CSA with 1.10c this weekend and played into late '62. (I'm addicted. )

The garrison AI logic seemed pretty sound. I don't raid too much, but when I did it seemed harder to find completely undefended depots and level 3+ cities. Closer to the front, armies seemed to sit and guard things that an army should be guarding more often too, which felt like an improvement.

The Union ocean navy has been active, but a little strange. Most of the game (months at a time) the blockade level has been zero. The blockade ships seem to be in fleets that sail around harassing/being shot at by forts and ports on the coast. At one point virtually the entire Union navy sailed up the James and parked next to Richmond a few turns... which seemed quite bizarre to me until a 60,000 strong army unloaded onto the zone between Petersburg and Richmond!
(The next turn saw a great deal of fighting as that army, another one still in northern Virginia, and a third independent army-sized force all attacked in various parts of the state.)

The main issue I've seen is that the Union river boat AI seems to be asleep or something. I've had my starting gunboats out in groups of four blocking strategic points on the Mississippi, Cumberland, and even Ohio rivers without ever encountering an enemy fleet. Does the AI know to target fleets defending rivers? As far as I can tell, Foote was just permanently parked in Louisville until I captured the city in the middle of '62. I know in other campaigns I've fought with AI fleets on the rivers plenty, so I'm not sure if this is just an anomaly or something.

Also, it may be worth reviewing winter AI / supply behavior, especially for larger forces. At the start of the 61-62 winter the largest Union force in the area attacked me at Bowling Green, KY but failed by a small margin to drive me out. I sat on the defensive with control of the town, and the Union stack (now commanded by Grant) just stayed there and did not move as the snows set in. I watched as its supply indicator went red over a few turns until finally the whole stack just disappeared, presumably frozen/starved to death down the last man, Grant included.

[Pocus]

I want this save with some turns of history!

[Pocus]

As for the patch, it is in the making but I wanted to check something before. Should be out today.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

this one:

Also, it may be worth reviewing winter AI / supply behavior, especially for larger forces. At the start of the 61-62 winter the largest Union force in the area attacked me at Bowling Green, KY but failed by a small margin to drive me out. I sat on the defensive with control of the town, and the Union stack (now commanded by Grant) just stayed there and did not move as the snows set in. I watched as its supply indicator went red over a few turns until finally the whole stack just disappeared, presumably frozen/starved to death down the last man, Grant included.

[Inside686]

At one point virtually the entire Union navy sailed up the James and parked next to Richmond a few turns

I got precisely the same thing

[Carnium]

Two strange things that I have noticed playing with 1.10b and were not yet reported to be fixed :
- my own units are blocking movemnt of a captured ex-CSA ironcload. It seems as the game still "thinks" that its an enemy unit...
- it is possible to redeploy a leader in a besieged city - not really a bug but quite unrealistic IMHO

[mikee64]

The Union ocean navy has been active, but a little strange. Most of the game (months at a time) the blockade level has been zero. The blockade ships seem to be in fleets that sail around harassing/being shot at by forts and ports on the coast. At one point virtually the entire Union navy sailed up the James and parked next to Richmond a few turns...

I'm seeing similar (positive IMO) behavior from the AI, but in my case she is maintaining the blockade level around 20% while also harassing my ports. I wonder if this difference could be due to the settings?

In my current game she sailed a HUGE fleet right into The Charles river region adjacent to the Charleston harbor forts. Over the course of 2 turns I dealt out a ton of hits but she inflicted enough return hits to wipe out the large fort batteries in 2 of the forts. One battle I remember was something in the range of 80 hits caused/16 hits received; this was enough to finish off one battery. What I don't know is how many ships I sunk, if any, as I just didn't pay close enough attention. But I do know for sure the loss of those fort batteries is a huge blow for me in protecting those forts, as they are so expensive to replace or even reinforce once damaged.

Slightly off-topic, and bringing back up an old debate: (calling Jabber )
Even though the hits are highly unbalanced, who can more easily replace the losses from this naval encounter? Or maybe the question is who should be able to replace them more easily? Thinking historically, the ships could rotate away out of range when damaged, so the dispersion of hits makes sense. The batteries are always eventually toast given a large enough fleet. The AI did a pretty good job here IMO; it seems a human could do the same and follow up with amphibious assaults once the batteries are gone and the garrison weakened. This seems pretty historical to me?

[Brochgale]

I don't think there were too many entire units (if any). Plenty of individuals, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanized_yankees

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/galvanized.htm

If you can find any sources, look up companies C & D of the 5th US Volunteers, they were supposedly made up of individuals that had switched sides twice.

Henry Morton Stanley - "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?" had been a galvanized yankee.

Confederate prisoners of war were not a principal source of manpower for the northern armies, for the total number recruited was probably under 10,000 ... - History of Prisoner of War Utilization by the United States Army, 1776-1945, p.35 (Lewis and Mewha, Government Printing Office, 1955)

http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-union-soldiers-hanged-in-north-carolina.htm

If you mean ships captured during active operations? Off the top of my head:

USS Isaac Smith - CSS Stono
USS - CSS - USS Harriet Lane
USS Indianola (only briefly in confederate hands)
USS - CSS Queen of the West
CSS - USS Arizona
I'm sure there's plenty more ...

Ta for the info.

[Franciscus]

At one point virtually the entire Union navy sailed up the James and parked next to Richmond a few turns...

In my current game I had this happen, also, although it was a fleet with about 10 warships, unfortunately ( ) with no transports. I was delighted to finally have some river "action" on the part of AI. I sent Buchanan and his CSS Virginia to battle, lost the engagement but inflicted heavy losses and the USA fleet withdraw. Very enjoying.

(PS: For a moment I felt that Jabber was playing as Athena... )