---> AACW 1.05 Patch <---

[Pocus]

Dear players,

A new patch, changing a rule and only that.

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_Patch.zip


The PDF file describing the rule is at the very end of this post.

==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.05 Readme
Thursday, June 21, 2007
==============================================================================

This patch change a rule on how Divisions are formed.


The patch is not completely compatible with previous games. You can still continue important games, by adding this entry in the ACW\Settings\general.opt file
RemoveDivHQ = 0
Meaning that both systems will coexists during this game. Once it is finished, delete the key and forget about divisional HQs!


AGEOD’s American Civil War: Divisions without Headquarters. (see the PDF for an easier format)

Starting with version 1.05, Divisions HQ won’t be needed anymore to form up divisions. Instead, it will be mandatory to use a leader (any rank) for that, and a cost will be paid.

How to

To form a division, you need an activated general. First, you select the desired general, and click on the 'Enable Divisional Command' button (second panel of the Special Orders panels), showing a tent and a general before it. If the button is disabled, pass the mouse over; you will get explanations on the cause.

Restriction can happen because of:

a) The general is not active or is fixed.
b) You don’t have enough assets (10 Money, 5 War Supply, one conscript company)
c) The General is already in command of an army, a corps, a division.
d) The general is already integrated into a brigade or any other unit (you don’t need to create a division for that)

You have also a restriction on the number of divisions you can have on the field at the same time. The max number is 48 for USA and 24 for CSA, except in April 61 where you don't have your full potential (but it will rises as months pass). You can know how many divisions are on the field and how you are allowed by passing the mouse over the 'Enable Divisional Command' button (of a general capable of receiving the order).

When you click on this button, the General get a silver stripe. It means he is now able to form a division. This privilege has an administrative cost of 10 money, 5 war supplies and one conscript company (lack of assets can then prevent you from giving this order). Also, the turn the general gets this order, he is suffering from a -2/-2-1 penalty to all his ratings, so beware!

When you have your general ready, gather the units as usual with the (+) button, the same rules as before still apply (i.e. you can have up to 18 elements, and such).

Some precisions:

a) The turn after the general gets his order, the penalties are removed, unless you failed to pay the cost (in which case the division is still there, but the penalties too and you will have to pay the cost anyway the following turn).

b) If the general remains alone, without units under his direct command, he will revert automatically to a general without the privilege of forming up the division. This is intended and normal, as an anti-exploit rule.

c) You will pay the cost only if your general has received and still is under the order during hosting, meaning you can change your mind at will during a turn. You can even revoke the order (from a general having the privilege since some turns) and then restore the leader to his former privilege without any problem or cost: it is entirely reversible for you.

d) The administrative cost is never paid back. This is intended.

[Franciscus]

In the same day patch 1.05 and the news about a Napoleonic game by AGEod in Q4 2007...

You make me happy...

[Ian Coote]

Thanks Pocus,now all I need is the rest of the generals pictures,and to me this game will be an example of perfection.

[aristoteles]

Thanks a lot Pocus, once again.

[Jayavarman]

Will the new rule be noted in the online manual?

[Pocus]

the manual will be updated yes.

[Hobbes]

Is this bug is still present in 1.05? If so it seems
to be the main problem to prevent starting a large game.

"Originally Posted by will b
I used JC Fremont to create a division in Missouri and when the event removing him from command occured the whole stack disappered as well.

Yes this is a problem we still have, we will either do as Runyan suggest, or upgrade completely the way leader can be removed by scripted events."


Also I am still finding this one mentioned by Franciscus where sometimes brigades get split into their component elements when being removed from an embedded leader. Is there any point to embedding leaders into brigades? I can't see any advantage.

"Although one bug that I seem to recall seeing mentioned a while ago happened: when disbanding a brigade to free his leader (Bushrod Johnson, in this case), I got individual regiments (and with anhistorical names: 1st confederate, 2nd, etc) that would never recombine again to a brigade, even when inside a new division. Is this intended ?"

Chris

[Stonewall]

One of the advantages of embedding a leader with a brigade is if the leader possesses an ability trait that is only applicable to the unit, rather than the stack. Such as the strong_morale and entrencher traits.

[jimwinsor]

OK, I'm kickin' the tires here on 1.05, and on turn two of the April 61 campaign the Union gets this large infusion of generals in DC. See attachment. Is this supposed to happen? It's been a while since I fiddled with the April camapign, but I don't recall turn two being this generous:

[LMUBill]

Is each officer there to build a Division around?

[jimwinsor]

Could be. Although since it is April there are not a lot of troops to make divisions with.

If you notice they are all 3-1-1's, with initials for their first name.

[LMUBill]

Could be. Although since it is April there are not a lot of troops to make divisions with.

If you notice they are all 3-1-1's, with initials for their first name.

West Point had a large class that year.

[Queeg]

OK, I'm kickin' the tires here on 1.05, and on turn two of the April 61 campaign the Union gets this large infusion of generals in DC. See attachment. Is this supposed to happen? It's been a while since I fiddled with the April camapign, but I don't recall turn two being this generous:

On Turn 2 of the April 61 campaign as CSA, I'm getting the usual stack of CSA generals (Bushrod Johnson, et al). But I'm also getting a second stack with two leaders (Ruggles and Whitig). Aren't the latter two Union generals?

[Stonewall]

On Turn 2 of the April 61 campaign as CSA, I'm getting the usual stack of CSA generals (Bushrod Johnson, et al). But I'm also getting a second stack with two leaders (Ruggles and Whitig). Aren't the latter two Union generals?

Nope. Dan Ruggles and William Whiting were Confederate generals.

[Queeg]

Nope. Dan Ruggles and William Whiting were Confederate generals.

Learn something new every day! Thanks.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Yes, its comprehensive.
All AGEOD patches are like that. Even the minor fixes.
It doesn´t mind your previous patch.
Cheers

[Pocus]

the additional leaders are expected yes.

Fremont event is now removed for update 1.05a

For the remaining cases of brigades splitting into generic regiments, I need a save. Sometime weird situations can happen, but it should be rather rare now.

[Franciscus]

the additional leaders are expected yes.

Fremont event is now removed for update 1.05a

For the remaining cases of brigades splitting into generic regiments, I need a save. Sometime weird situations can happen, but it should be rather rare now.

I have not yet tried 1.05, but the problem that I mentioned about generic regiments after splitting a brigade happens in the Shiloh scenario, down to 1.047 beta patch, right on the beginning, specifically with Bushrod Johnson brigade. To free Johnson to become a division leader, I split the brigade and get 4 generic regiments, that stay independent. I presume that to check this you would not need a save, but if so, I can send it tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for the great work.

[Hobbes]

I can also send a save tonight -it's quite easy to reproduce.
Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

Right, there is something wrong with Bushrod and his men. I'll fix that rapidly.

[Hobbes]

I'm sure the one I found was with a different leader at Gettysburg.
I'll take a look when I get home.
Chris

[Pocus]

Methink this is the same problem, try that with 1.05a to be sure.

[Hobbes]

I'm a bit confused about 1.05a - is this available or is it the next patch to be released?

Chris

[Pocus]

1.05a is up, same link: (no dedicated readme)

a) Fremont is not removed from the game by event anymore.

b) The Trent affair had a garbled title and text.

c) In some cases, a general + a brigade would not split correctly.

[Pocus]

I'm a bit confused about 1.05a - is this available or is it the next patch to be released?

Chris

it was the next patch to be released 7mn ago, and is now available now

[Hobbes]

a) Fremont is not removed from the game by event anymore.

Are other leaders not removed from the game by event?
If they are will they not have the same problem with the
whole stack disappearing?

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

There is Patterson, but you all know by now that you should now give him a division. Aside that I'm unsure, perhaps the event 'miscarried marriage' remove one.

[mikee64]

Van Dorn is still being removed in 1.04, and his force along with him. (Happened to me around mid-1863.)

[Stonewall]

Breckinridge is another leader who is removed via event.