AGEOD Forums

I currently have installed and have played both solitaire and PBM using version 1.6 rc4a extensively enough to feel confident with it.

Being someone who does not like to fix something that is not broke I am loath to upgrade my current patch.

Tell me why I should upgrade to the latest patch which if I am not mistaken would be 1.6 rc9 ?

As I understand it the newest patch mainly changes the rules regarding the building of artillary in states that do not have any WS (iron works). Meaning as an example if you want to build Texas artillary they will likely show up in Louisianna instead of Texas. The other big rule change is that you can't build the Iron Side River Boats until a much later date no matter which side your playing. Those two rules changes do not bother me too much. Are there any other major changes I am missing that might effect my decision?

I am aware there are quite a few bug fixes as well, but as I recollect reading through the list of them I don't ever recall actually having a problem with them coming up in any of my games. Some I know have to do with foreign entry and I have yet to have a game that had any foreign entry anyway. The only fix that comes to mind that might be a big deal is the one where cavalry retains its posture when crossing a river, but in truth I must have missed that bug in my current version.

I am especially interested in if there are any changes that have a major impact on play balance and what they might be and of course the possibility that the newest patch might break something that was working just fine.

Finally I would be curious to know if the newest patch has had any major impact on improving, or changing the AI (Athena).

"Convince me to upgrade to the latest patch"

[SIZE="5"]No[/size]

Read the description, read the discussion in the Help improve AACW section and decide for yourself. Nobody is here to sell you anything so that you can later moan about how you were sold a lemon. You're certainly old enough to make your own decisions. Please do so.

1.16rc9 is stable and has fixed many items. 10a has issues.

Captain_Orso wrote:"Convince me to upgrade to the latest patch"

[SIZE="5"]No[/size]

Read the description, read the discussion in the Help improve AACW section and decide for yourself. Nobody is here to sell you anything so that you can later moan about how you were sold a lemon. You're certainly old enough to make your own decisions. Please do so.

I have pretty well read though them, but the problem and the reason I asked was that the full list of changes you don't get to see until you install the patch and read the text file that has the "comprehensive" list. The places (threads) where I have read about changes only listed the more recent changes and gave reference to the file installed with the patch for the comprehensive list.

Then of course I recall reading a thread in this forum where one player felt uncomfortable with the continuing changes and felt that the changes were seemingly weighted in favor of the Union causing an impact on play balance.

Of course there were rebuttles in that thread from numerous players that argued against the allegation insisting that the changes did not weight it more in favor of the Union. Perhaps a consensus change among players has occured since that thread on the play balance issue.

If you are worried that an improvement the AEGod people and their players think is good, is not good for you, do a double install: your old game and the new update.
No one can assure you that you will like the fixes. But the fixes seek to make the game play better and more historically.

Durk wrote:If you are worried that an improvement the AEGod people and their players think is good, is not good for you, do a double install: your old game and the new update.

No one can assure you that you will like the fixes. But the fixes seek to make the game play better and more historically.

Worried would be a way wrong word.

Curious and interested would be more what I am with regards to the issue.

I was hoping to have a discussion about it was all and hear how others weigh in on the effects of the changes.

The way I look at it is I can't go wrong. I already have what I regard as a great game with my current version.

I would probably have to upgrade to the latest patch out of neccessity if I wanted to start a PBM with someone which I have seriously been considering doing, but prior to that I was hoping to instigate a discussion on the issue with this thread.

I well may decide to post an advertisement for a challenger using my current version instead after this thread, or I might very well hold off advertisng for a PBM opponant altother until I have played a game, or two with Athena using the new version to get a feel for the changes.

I think the game is getting better and more realistic. For me, there is no looking back.

Charles

dolphin wrote:Worried would be a way wrong word.

Curious and interested would be more what I am with regards to the issue.

I was hoping to have a discussion about it was all and hear how others weigh in on the effects of the changes.

charlesonmission wrote:I think the game is getting better and more realistic. For me, there is no looking back.

Charles

Duely noted, but hopefully we can get someone to volunteer their experiences with the changes with a degree of detail that adds a bit more insight.

Perhaps even a small semi-AAR post where certain changes made a noteworthy difference in a specific game.

I think this is you being silly.
The game improves with each patch.
What else would it do?

Durk wrote:I think this is you being silly.
The game improves with each patch.
What else would it do?

I have been away from the game and the forum for a good long time.

I am considering advertising for a PBM with someone.

I was interested in a discussion about the changes before I make a decision about advertising for an opponant.

A PBM is a major undertaking involving a committment and before I do I was hoping to gather a bit more feel for how the game has changed.

I do not feel I am being silly at all. I am sorry you feel that I am.

I am simply saying, the patches are intended, and have indeed, fixed issues.
They are not 'new' games, just fixes to thing which were not working well.
The changes are things like, the roads work better, the navy has the effect intended, supply units carry supply, ammo is used in battles.
The patches improve the game, they do not change something which worked into something which no longer works. This is what I meant by silly.
You will be amazed by the latest patches. There are really nice.

Durk wrote: the navy has the effect intended.

I don't doubt that the changes are for the better. I just want to know a bit more detail without having to spend as much time having to experiement with the game to find out how.

That would be a great start explaining how the Navy rules now work as intended as opposed to how they used to not work the right way. I am not sure how it was they used to not work. Then again I have bnever played the UNION. Not even against the AI.

I recall something about the landings now working better with regards to the ships now taking the intended 5 days to disembark unless its near the end of the turn in which case it might only take the last three days of the turn rather than having to wait til day 2 of the next turn? Is that true?

Is that what you meant by the NAVY now working as intended? I am sure there is more to it than just that, but that would be my point of asking abo0ut it in this thread. To find out without having to experiment.

I think for some reason some people might have it in there head that I started this thread to diss the patces and I want to state uncatagorically that it is not my intention. My questions and curiosity are genuine and are in no way meant to discourage using later versions.

Durk and I played each other as part of the tournament using the new patch(es). I thought it worked great.

Charles

Durk wrote:I am simply saying, the patches are intended, and have indeed, fixed issues.
They are not 'new' games, just fixes to thing which were not working well.
The changes are things like, the roads work better, the navy has the effect intended, supply units carry supply, ammo is used in battles.
The patches improve the game, they do not change something which worked into something which no longer works. This is what I meant by silly.
You will be amazed by the latest patches. There are really nice.

I am not trying to argue with you and such, just saying the latest patches are well thought out and work as intended.
The best take of what the do is to look at the patch update information. See for instance
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=226503#post226503
Distant unload in American Civil War works as it works in the other games, the unload is dependent upon when the ship leaves, when it is ready to unload and when it actually unloads.
This is part of what I mean my the navy now works.
However, nobody on the forum can explain all the changes since your last time playing.
Look at the updates to get a sense of the changes.
I think I am saying, the updates are solid. The fix issues. They do not make new issues. Just good to have.

charlesonmission wrote:Durk and I played each other as part of the tournament using the new patch(es). I thought it worked great.

Charles

Which one of you played the CSA?

As the CSA did you experience any specific issues having to do with the changes that caused any significant, or even not so significant, but perhaps noticable impact for the better, or worse in terms of adding dificulty?

I am not suggesting that if it did add some dificulty that it was not for the better. Just curious.

Durk wrote:The best take of what the do is to look at the patch update information. See for instance
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=226503#post226503
.

Thats rc10

This new changes looks to be interesting.

Added parameters to GameLogic.opt to allow modification of Cohesion losses during battles (to help regulate multi-day battles)

Any comments on exactly how this change is effecting battles ?

It addresses multiple day battles. They play our more realistically.
If you scroll down this thread you will notice there are still issues, but this update is pretty solid.

I played the CSA and won. The build rules didn't stop me from defeating Lyon in the field in MO. Furthermore, the disembark navy rules both sides can use but are riskier if you disembark into FoW, this led to General Whiting defeating a Union division in Wilmington which ended the game. The new ironclad build rules (later date) are more realistic). Furthermore, many non-essential bugs have been fixed (too many to name here).

For both the CSA and Union, I think the game is better and more realistic, not to mention non-essential bugs being fixed. Of course, the ammo bug being fixed is a huge plus.

I'm not sure what else to add besides that.

Regards,

Charles

dolphin wrote:Which one of you played the CSA?

As the CSA did you experience any specific issues having to do with the changes that caused any significant, or even not so significant, but perhaps noticable impact for the better, or worse in terms of adding dificulty?

I am not suggesting that if it did add some dificulty that it was not for the better. Just curious.

What consensus has developed for PBM games with regards to the number of divisions each side is allowed?

I notice the instructions in the patch notes on how to edit a change in the number of divisions allowed, but it is unclear if this option has been adopted as a standard change that pretty much everyone uses now.

That is a big plus for the CSA actually. I was always running into being maxed out with divisions as the CSA.

How is this issue generally handled in PBM games with veteran players?

In the tournament, we are only playing to July or August of 1863. So the division build limits don't matter there. Officially it is still 30/60. There is no consensus out there as far as I'm aware.

Charles

dolphin wrote:What consensus has developed for PBM games with regards to the number of divisions each side is allowed?

I notice the instructions in the patch notes on how to edit a change in the number of divisions allowed, but it is unclear if this option has been adopted as a standard change that pretty much everyone uses now.

That is a big plus for the CSA actually. I was always running into being maxed out with divisions as the CSA.

How is this issue generally handled in PBM games with veteran players?

I see a very big change with regards to sabotaging railroads.

That will take some getting used to.

Sounds like your going to now want at least a 60 strength stack with at least one pillager unit if your sending out sabotuers.

No more sending your indians and Texas Rangers all over kingdom Come with 1 element to each region to destroy the tracks everywhere all at once.

Now its a serious force intensive task that will require much longer to accomplish since you can basically only have about 1/3 the number designated stacks to do it being you pretty well have to send them out in 3 element stacks to get an 85% shot at success. Kind of a mean change. I will have to think on this one for awhile.

Correct me if I am wrong, but am I reading right that the siege calculation was changed to the same one as RoP? I was reading in the Rise of Prussia AAR earlier how it was calculated using a 15 sides die roll.

Does this new change make it easier, or harder to achieve a breach?

Durk wrote:I think I am saying, the updates are solid. The fix issues. They do not make new issues. Just good to have.

It would be nice to have assertions backed up by arguments.

Much of this discussion is by necessity a matter of opinion.

As the guy running the tournament (and playing in a separate PBEM game), my opinion is that the updates have improved the game and have enabled the game to comply with the vision the designers had (because several changes have been made to correct parts of the game that hadn't been working correctly for quite a while, such as long-distance invasions).

However, I understand that some folks were comfortable with the old versions before many of the recent changes. My impression is that most tournment players are content with the fixes of the updates because they remove loopholes, tighten historicity, and provide options that enhance new strategic thinking. In short, they keep the game alive.

Remember: everything since 1.15 is public beta, so expect small issues. We think we get the big ones before it goes public...

Longshanks wrote:Much of this discussion is by necessity a matter of opinion.

How so? Changing rules and mechanics of such a complex engine as AACW has of course always considerable and in effect unforseeable impact on gameplay. Impacts that can be projected which has been done. Impacts that can be observed and measured. Which has not been done properly in beta-testing. Or else the results of such testing would find their way into this discussion. It has been assumed elsewhere that the changes have a severe impact on gamebalance. You will agree that gamebalance is no way a matter for opinion. But save the contribution of Captain Orso there has been no contribution I have seen that seriously addresses this issue with argumentation. That's poor. Now a member of the community comes with questions and basically gets yelled down. That's beyond poor. And beyond 'opinion'.

Longshanks wrote:As the guy running the tournament (and playing in a separate PBEM game), my opinion is that the updates have improved the game...

What I would like here is a report on how you been using the new features/rules and how you believe they improve the game. This "works for me/ I did it/ I want it/ wham bam, thank you mam" which is the current standard of the discussion is starting to annoy me.

Longshanks wrote:... and have enabled the game to comply with the vision the designers had...

I must confess that I don't know of the visions any of the designers had. Some insight here would be nice. All I know is that this game has been developed and balanced out in a work of three years with contribution of a large part of the community. This was able not only of tons of volunteer work but also by the standards of discussion that were pursued over these three years. Current members of the beta team might want to read older posts to learn about such standards.

Longshanks wrote:...(because several changes have been made to correct parts of the game that hadn't been working correctly for quite a while, such as long-distance invasions).

They worked perfect as they were. Or have you ever heard of anybody who complained that long distance invasions were not possible? I haven't.

Longshanks wrote:However, I understand that some folks were comfortable with the old versions before many of the recent changes. My impression is that most tournment players are content with the fixes of the updates because they remove loopholes, tighten historicity, and provide options that enhance new strategic thinking. In short, they keep the game alive.

The only issue that actually needed fixing was ammo consumption during battles. All changes that were made to the game are favouring the Union to different degrees. I had argumented that the "distant unload" button has the potential of a gamekiller and up till now I heard naught that would prove that this can't be. And no, I had no time for testing it myself yet. It is a beta team we have such testing for.

dolphin wrote:Which one of you played the CSA?

As the CSA did you experience any specific issues having to do with the changes that caused any significant, or even not so significant, but perhaps noticable impact for the better, or worse in terms of adding dificulty?

I am not suggesting that if it did add some dificulty that it was not for the better. Just curious.

I am currently playing Athena with iteration rc9 as the CSA and it is stable; that said, however, I'm not going to get the full feel for it until I play pbem as an Athena game is always more like a lab-test for strategy in any case.

Given the arcane dynamics in this game, and the rather steep learning curve you have to scale before you can presume to have "mastered" it, one has to put one's trust in the developers and grognards still admirably putting their time and energies into patches for a 5 year old game. You can be sure any real flaws or issues with new patches will surface on the various threads as time (and testing) goes by.

Noone has to upgrade. You can go back to/stay with whatever version you liked better.

We have tried to bring the game up to date with new features of the game engine, and fix some obscure issues as part of that.

These are called Public Beta for a reason...

lodilefty wrote:Noone has to upgrade. You can go back to/stay with whatever version you liked better.

We have tried to bring the game up to date with new features of the game engine, and fix some obscure issues as part of that.

These are called Public Beta for a reason...

Of course that goes without saying.

Just as does the degree of respect and appreciation most if not all of us have for your personal toil and effort in continuing the work.


Again this thread was never intended to be used to criticize the patches, but to elaborate on and discuss them for those interested in doing so.

I don't see why that would meet with such radical resistance.

Not from you of course, but it seems this thread did rub some people the wrong way.

Citizen X wrote:All changes that were made to the game are favouring the Union to different degrees.

Having never played the Union myself I have a somewhat lopsided idea of how each change effects play balance.

As a CSA player I do know that there are times in my game when I find it prudent to destroy a whole lot of rails in fairly short period of time.

The new rule pretty much prevents doing that the way I used to.

There have been times when the Union has agravated me by destroying my rails, but I never felt disabled from such operations. They were at best a nuisance.

Are you of the opinion that the new railroad destruction rules favor the Union?