AGEOD Forums

Dear players,

Here is the new patch for AACW.


http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_Patch.zip
(updated to 1.13b)

[font="]==============================================================================[/font]
[font="]AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.13[/font]
[font="]January, 21st 2009[/font]
[font="]==============================================================================[/font]

[font="]This patch contains all changes since the start. [/font]
[font="]Warning: All railroads improvements will not be impacted in current games though, although no additional side effects will appears.[/font]


[font="]Bugs[/font]
[font="]==============================================================================[/font]
[font="]- Auto-retreat rule could use damages from a previous battle in the first round, in some rare cases.[/font]
[font="]- Sometime a corps could help a corps of another army, in the March to the Sound of Guns rule.[/font]
[font="]- Foreign Entry could not go below zero in 1.12, fixed.[/font]


[font="]AI[/font]
[font="]==============================================================================[/font]
[font="]- Naval missions: Commerce, Blockade, Escort, Naval Superiority improved.[/font]
[font="]- Long range Defense mission can’t borrow anymore units set for Garrison Duty.[/font]
[font="]- Break Siege Mission had a bug rendering it not enough interesting to do.[/font]
[font="]- AI will see much less interest in doing Attack missions in winter.[/font]
[font="]- AI much more prudent when moving troops with riverine move.[/font]
[font="]- In some rare cases, the Defend Mission could have his path aborted. Fixed.[/font]
[font="]- Depot destruction much more rare.[/font]
[font="]- AI slightly less prone to make distant operations (attack-defense).[/font]

[font="]Game Improvements[/font]
[font="]==============================================================================[/font]
[font="]- Moved the start date of the 1862 Campaign scenario back one turn to start 1862/03/01 instead of 1862/03/16.[/font]
[font="]- You cannot form Corps at all in the Bull Run Scenario.[/font]
[font="]- You cannot form Corps for either the April or July Campaign scenarios until 1862/03/01.[/font]
[font="]- None of the 1862 or later scenarios are affected by the above Corps formation restrictions.[/font]
[font="]- Militias and irregulars within their home state now get the +10 cohesion bonus anytime, not just during battle.[/font]
[font="]- Precision: Due to code constraint, the Militiaman trait can only work during battle. (All abilities of the category ‘Battle Bonus’ work only during battle and Militiaman is of this category).[/font]
[font="]- Auto-retreat rule triggers at a higher level of losses if you choose the Defend at all cost ROE.[/font]
[font="]- Fleets with too low ammo or too low cohesion will switch to defensive posture and abort all out attack ROE, before a battle. Land units with too low cohesion will switch to defensive posture, abort all out attack ROE, abort structure assault before a battle[/font]


[font="]Modding[/font]

[font="]- loyChangeByMartialLaw variable exported. It represents the max. % the loyalty can change by the Police factor of troops (Regional Martial Law).[/font]
[font="]- New script command SetFormedCmdMax (parameters are the max number of corps | max number of armies – it is recommended to set the number of armies to 9999 as the on map HQ limit is sufficient). In absence of any scripting, 9999 will be read for max number of corps = if you do nothing, current games are not altered.[/font]

[font="]Interface[/font]
[font="]==============================================================================[/font]
[font="]- Replay feature added.[/font]
[font="]- Stack list added to the unit list, in the ledger.[/font]
[font="]- The irritating double-tick sound when closing the Element Detail panel has been removed.[/font]

[font="]Map / Database[/font]
[font="]==============================================================================[/font]
[font="](Work led by AACW Coordinator Gray_Lensman). Special Thanks to Jabberwock and Bigus.[/font]

1.)Reworked placement area of several units, (Bushwackers, Mounted Partisans, and Partisans).

2.) Incorporated more of Jabberwock's General's graphics work.

3.) Preplaced more Militia units at critical locations for both sides to better help the AI defend these locations. Note: This was done for all the 2-player Campaign games other than the April 1861 Campaign scenario.

4.) Removed the "TechUpg" setting for CSA early cavalry to late cavalry.

4a.) Adjusted the associated CSA Early to Late cavalry conversion events to roughly 1/2 the original chance of occurance. Also, removed any chance of conversion prior to 01/01/1862. These events may have to be adjusted more later.

5.) Reworked the 6 lb Artillery to "TechUpg"rade to the 12 lb Artillery. Also removed the "TechUpg"rade for 12 lb Artillery. (They should remain 12 lbers throughout the war).

6.) [font="]Corrected the starting ranks of the following generals in all of the 1861 scenarios. Thanks to Bigus for pointing out these discrepancies.[/font]
a.) CSA M. Bonham starting rank = 1 star
b.) CSA T. J. Jackson starting rank = 1 star
c.) CSA James Longstreet starting rank = 1 star
d.) CSA Theophilus Holmes starting rank = 1 star

All 4 of these generals were incorrectly ranked at this time of the Civil War. Each of them have their own brigade at the start of these specific scenarios. Also CSA James Longstreet was missing from both scenarios. This has now been corrected and the delayed event which adds him later has been removed.

Cooresponding promotional events have also been created for Jackson, Longstreet, and Holmes in early 1862, if they are not otherwise promoted prior to that time.

7.) Reworked the Bull Run Scenario to more closely match the July 1861 scenario in regards to missing units. Also, limited the scope of the scenario to prevent non-historic amphibious movement during the time of this scenario.

8.) Split "1222 Kentucky Confluent" into 2 separate regions. The upper half remains the same and is still associated with the Ohio River system. The lower half is now known as "1525 Kentucky River" and is associated with Kentucky. This work was done to prevent direct movement from the original Kentucky Confluent region to either "536 Mercer, KY" and "537 Fayette, KY".

9.) Graphically reworked "1233 Great Confluent" to prevent direct movement to either "528 Trigg, KY" or "1524 Collies Mills, KY".

This is in fact a brand new game !

Where there any changes between 1.12aRC7 and 1.13? Thanks for all the hard work.

nope

At last!! Thanks!

deleted

Hi.... I am currently palying a Pbem game with the 1.12 RC5 patch..... If I update to 1.13 will I need to start a new game or will I be able to carry on?


thanks

deleted

thanks Gray, I will try and carry on.... we were only 10 turns into the game anyway.... if it goes wrong we have agreed to start again with the new patch

Great new patch!


I hope the next patch will do something about the fort bombardment section. There is just no way that a Union fleet should be able to sail up and around a fort a couple of time and blow it away.

Has anybody attemped an ambush by putting three ot four confederate coastal defense guns in a port? Maybe coastal defense guns in a fort ought to have different strengths against land a sea forces -- with a much higher strength against ships.

Yea! Let's unleash a new war.

Thank you Pocus
Joe Bukal
PS When I get my Tax return I am buying WW1

- You cannot form Corps for either the April or July Campaign scenarios until 1862/03/01.

Hmm that's interesting.

runyan99 wrote:Hmm that's interesting.

It's more than interesting--it completely changes early-war strategy.

In my first PBEM game with this rule in effect, I sent Beauregard and Joe Johnston together against McDowell's Army of Virginia. Unfortunately, while Beauregard was an army, Johnston was not a corps of that army but an independent force. Had the two been able to coordinate, they would have crushed McDowell with more than twice his manpower. As it happened, the movements and fighting did not coordinate, so McDowell enjoyed the advantage of facing both forces separately. It turned out to be Bull Run in reverse.

Replay feature added ?

Do i understand correctly ???

Vous avez rajouté le replay, Pocus ???

boudi wrote:Replay feature added ?

Do i understand correctly ???

Vous avez rajouté le replay, Pocus ???

Yes!
And the new WIA style force list on the ledger too!

yes, and it is free

Why I have to enter my password now when I want to proceed to next turn in every turn?? (PBEM Game)

Edit: I`ve activated round compression, without sure I don`t have to enter..but before this 1.13 I hadn`t to enter it every turn

Fresh new install and added 1.13

The artillery units again have switched graphics, the brass guns for the Parrotts and the iron guns for Napoleons.

nice upgrade for the game

2.) Incorporated more of Jabberwock's General's graphics work.

I still can`t play a pbem...when I extract the game file into my folder(yes, I checked it is the right folder and I`m the host) then it seems that the KI don`t finds the csa.ord..pc always wants to have a password, but then I play against the AI

Paul Roberts wrote:It's more than interesting--it completely changes early-war strategy.

In my first PBEM game with this rule in effect, I sent Beauregard and Joe Johnston together against McDowell's Army of Virginia. Unfortunately, while Beauregard was an army, Johnston was not a corps of that army but an independent force. Had the two been able to coordinate, they would have crushed McDowell with more than twice his manpower. As it happened, the movements and fighting did not coordinate, so McDowell enjoyed the advantage of facing both forces separately. It turned out to be Bull Run in reverse.

Yes, except this penalizes the CSA in the same way. Historically, Johnston's force acted like a corps of Beauregard's army, reinforcing him when the Union moved on Manassas. Now, that cannot be accomplished in the game. This makes it that much harder I think for the CSA to hold ground in the east in the early game. I'm not sure the change was wise.

Hi
Jonhtson stack in the valley is too far away form Manassas (2-3 regions) to help Marching to the sound of the guns in any case, even if he were a corps of Beau army.
The player will have to manually move him to support Manassas itself or at least one of the empt adjacent regions.
Now, without corps the only option will be to move them to Manassas itself and certainly coordination will be a little more difficult between two armies.
but the USA has also no corps so both sides play on the same level of "early war chaotic command structure". The north army without corps will not be as strong as before and his attack will be difficult with the kind of 3*** leaders he have at start.
I don't think the change will unbalance things.
It will make early war campaigns more chaotic and ineffective, winch is the intended effect of the change.
Juts my 2 cents

I think it would have been better not to have divisions until march 1862, and to have corps a bit earlier to simulate early war commands...

I like it
As I play CSA vs AI, this gives me a greater challenge in the beginning of the game in Virginia. Great work, Pocus

Arsan: My reading of the situation, this is exactly what happened. Superior leadership by rebel forces turned the tide. t

tagwyn wrote:Arsan: My reading of the situation, this is exactly what happened. Superior leadership by rebel forces turned the tide. t

Not to nit-pick, but they fought the war in 1 day turns. We fight it in 15 day turns. Anticipation is key in both instances, we just can't course correct the way that they could. Once you set your moves, that's it.

All I am saying is, the superior leadership is modeled in many ways, but it doesn't do any good if your men don't see the fight. And really, it is the player's leadership that matters more in deciding whether to rally around Manassas with both stacks, or make another move.

Is the restriction on Corps formation retroactive for a current game?

I'm in a PBEM game and it's still 1861 and both sides have already created some corps.

If we patch the game, will those existing corps commanders retain their corps, or will they revert to being independent commands?

Patching games in progress can be risky. I'd keep going with your game as is, or start over if you haven't gone too far.

deleted