Gray_Lensman wrote:Another idea I was exploring was a cohesion/health hit for those units performing deep raids in order to simulate desertions etc.
barkhorn45 wrote: As for the ai I have been informed that modifying it is a low priority among the developers,why, since I have read in this forum that the MAJORITY of players play against the ai.You would think given this fact it would have a slightly higher priority would'nt you, since it has been said that it COULD be done albeit with some difficulty.
It was also said that it is a low priority thing because this is a 2 year old game and the dev.have moved on to newer projects and this program has been placed on the back burner so to speak
Gray_Lensman wrote:I am working to try to come up with some realistic penalties for deep raiding, but for now, the best defense is garrisons, since city structures themselves do not have any sort of built in defensive capabilities. Before you ask, this has already been asked about and though it would be possible to do, it is loaded with bug possibilities and the fix would be the artificial introduction of a garrison unit during the game processing phase, then the removal of the same garrison unit at the end of the turn (an invisible process) to the player. The same effect is already possible by the player placing garrisons in his rear area cities himself.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Another idea I was exploring was a cohesion/health hit for those units performing deep raids in order to simulate desertions etc. but this has not worked out just yet and for now most of this more complicated work has taken a pause until I get my main working system back from DELL. (4th motherboard in 6 years). Dell does not have a good track record with me at all.
Gray_Lensman wrote:To sum it up, just check back from time to time, you'll slowly see some of these ideas worked into the game. It's just not going to happen as fast as you would like.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Remember, even though you may have just purchased AACW and it seems new to you, the game itself is now 2 years old and has has already had a considerable amount of work done to it with new changes/enhancements added much more frequently than any other game that I've ever been associated with. There's more to come, but the majority of it has to be provided by volunteers and modders with side support coming from AGEod.
Nikel wrote:barkhorn45, cw gen.2 is Civil War Generals 2?
I use Vista x64 bits and though this game is quite old, just managed to make it run here. Of course looks strange as the resolution is very low, but at least it started fine
The game seems to be abandonware right now
There is a download link here
The link is this
Downloaded this file
There is a readme with a somewhat complex installation procedure, you must follow it
Needs wing32.dll, the installation file included is not working here, but the dll file is available here
The game request that wing32.dll must be located in Windows\System32
But it did not work till i put it in Windows\SysWOW64, perhaps because my vista is a 64 bits OS
Hope this helps. Regards
Deca wrote:So let me get this straight.
You've been searching, waiting, dreaming for nearly your entire life looking for a game that by your very own criteria (some of which are diametrically opposed) making it nearly an unattainable Holy Grail quest. Moreover, whilst on your travels through the barren wasteland you come across a well-crafted chalice containing refreshing water to help satiate that parched thirst of yours; however, due to a few misshaped ice cubes, you not only refuse to drink it but instead pour the water out while tossing aside the cup?
Irony knows no bounds.
Gray_Lensman wrote:However, since the game is not meant to be an exact reproduction of the Civil War in the way it plays out, it would not be right to actually restrict by code to prevent CSA raiding of the North. Yeah, you could jump up and down and say it didn't happen in the Civil War, etc. blah, blah. But guess what, the South didn't WIN the war either, but in this game, in order to be entertaining the South can WIN the war, given the right circumstances. Suggesting that raids should be stopped altogether in the game because they didn't happen in the historical war is kinda like suggesting that the South should never win in this game, because it's not historical.... Kind of a ridiculous set of conflicting expectations you have.
To sum it up, just check back from time to time, you'll slowly see some of these ideas worked into the game. It's just not going to happen as fast as you would like.
squarian wrote:... but it can be frustrating to the old-style tinkering grognard - and with his references to old AH games...
Major Tom wrote:Nice to know there soe old school wargamers around. My first was Avalon Hill's Gettysburg, circa 1972, age 10. Yeah, I was precocious, but I had older brothers who were wargamers. Anybody remember Strategy & Tactics magazine? They used to publish game supplements -- I still have Blitzkrieg with all of the S&T add-on rules and units, lovingly pasted onto cardstock, dyed with food coloring, and cut out.
But you're right...as a grown-up working stiff, where are you going to find the time or opponenets for tabletop wragaming, either the boardgame or miniatures variety? Without computer games, wargaming for me would be nothing more than a fond memory of younger days.
Sarkus wrote:No game is perfect . . . there would be no fun (the game part) if you were forced to do things the historical way every time.
Gray_Lensman wrote:It would be nice, but the complexity of a Campaign game with changing objectives over time vs a simplified small scenario with limited objectives means that trying to work up anything that would work for an entire campaign would take months if not a year to properly design and test for functionality. This is not something I'm interested in doing until I run out of all other items to finish first. I welcome anyone else that wants to take a stab at it however. Be my guest.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests