AACW 1.07f quick patch

[Pocus]

Dear players,

A new patch, aimed at cleaning any bug reported since the last month (plus some AI & data goodies). Downloadable from the usual link (see my sig).


1.07f
fixed: Synchronize move had a bug when numerous corps were involved.
fixed: Cities had some missing bullets indicators.
fixed: Prisoners exchange message was not displayed properly.
fixed: Music display name was erronenous.
added: Battle Report: Generals are sorted by rank then seniority. Elements are sorted by descending number.
improved: AI buys more replacements.
improved: AI uses the Rail Pool better.
improved: AI uses forced march much more often (if it makes sense).
improved: AI defends regions more often if possible (if not suicidal).
added: Idle Leaders can now gather to big stacks, using the relocate rule.
improved: AI create divisions faster.

Harbors fixes from Chris Hobbes (one of our most veteran tester) and PBoeye (did major research work on the railnet). Harbor mod remove some ahistorical exit points from harbors.
Improved graphics around the Erie canal (Gray_Lensman). Further removal of linking discrepancies on the map (Gray_Lensman).

Modding:
fixed: ChangeActorPool command had a bug.

[Paul Roberts]

Here is something from the earlier patch thread:

(Originally Posted by Gray_Lensman)

Also in regards to the April 1861 and July 1861 scenarios, some of the TransportLvl corrections have not been placed in the associated database files in order to implement these corrections.

Below is a .ZIP file (April-July-1861 Scenarios v1.07f Temp fixes.zip) which contains a temp fix for each of these scenario (.scn) files. Just unzip them into the ...ACW/Scens folder replacing the files of the same name. At some point in the future the associated database files will be corrected and then the scenarios will be properly generated for another update.

Also below is a TranportLvl Errors.zip file which contains a listing of the incorrect TransportLvl and the associated UID entry in the .scn files.

(Originally posted by Pocus)

This is normal, in the sense that I said I would have no time for the scenarios re-creation until the release of Napoleon. I add your tweaked campaigns to the patch though as a temporary fix.

May I ask what the difference is? How do Gray Lensman's tweaked campaigns differ from scenarios that have been "re-created"? I'm confused.

[Pocus]

He provided me with 2 edited scenarios but I would need all scenarios to be recreated, not only the 2 campaigns. Also the scenario files are the final ones, but we work with excel 'masters files' which have still the old data. For you it don't make changes if you are only playing the 2 campaigns. For me, these are temporary, albeit welcome, fixes.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GShock]

Reporting potential rr issue that *could* also be related to the Allegany (PA) color-code bug (1.07f -> CFMod):



Smith is there...where? I don't really know for sure. He's reported by ToolTip to be in Shenadoah (VA) but his location seems more to be on the border between Fulton (PA), Allegany (PA) and Morgan (WV). That you see in this SS is his default location at turn start (see entrenchment). Look at his plotted "march" waypoints...





I dragged and dropped on his initial location (alias move -> cancel move) Smith and you can see now the tooltip reports him on a totally different location (yet he hasn't moved and it's the same turn as the first SS and u can see he's still entrenched) which is now Winchester (VA). Pretty evident, Winchester is much souther than he's actually now. The issue i think is that he's still in his default location which "graphically" is on the border of the 3 aforementioned regions.




Examining Allegany (PA): I sent a raider and issued order to destroy the RR. They succeeded, however there's no RR in Allegany (PA). There's something definitely wrong on this spot of the map and I wouldn't exclude this is the problem leading to that color-coded bug too, showing Allegany (PA) as MD when it's actually PA.

MC didn't touch the mapfiles, hence these are default 1.07f problems not related to CFMod.

[Pocus]

For whose who have download the patch BEFORE seeing this post (the one you are reading right now), please download again!

Fixes:
The 2 temps scenarios files had divisions HQ. I reverted to old 1.07a scenarios for the time being. Clovis is working on reexporting all scenarios to the latest version.

Elements names were displayed in capital letter in the Reinforcements page of the ledger.

Improvement (thanks for Primasprit for pointing me on that): Pathfinding is faster, resulting in an overall speed increase of the AI computing segment!
(again congrat to him, cheers to all the math-guys around the world )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

For whose who have download the patch BEFORE seeing this post (the one you are reading right now), please download again!

Fixes:
The 2 temps scenarios files had divisions HQ. I reverted to old 1.07a scenarios for the time being. Clovis is working on reexporting all scenarios to the latest version.

Elements names were displayed in capital letter in the Reinforcements page of the ledger.

Improvement (thanks for Primasprit for pointing me on that): Pathfinding is faster, resulting in an overall speed increase of the AI computing segment!
(again congrat to him, cheers to all the math-guys around the world )

As usual, Pocus, you are the best when it comes to customer service.

[GShock]

I hadn't noticed the 1.07f CAPITAL REPLACEMENT in log...i patched with the new 1.07f and i notice it now. To me, it's still there...there could be still problems with installation and overwriting of game files.

I will test out tonite the vanilla version to make sure (i know it is still there with CF mod). Anyway the time it takes for the AI to think is greatly reduced...excellent.

However i'm still being kicked in my groins by the AI (and it's excellent too!)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[as.cities.burn]

The regions in south Louisiana are pretty odd. Lake Charles, TX is actually in Louisiana.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

Are others still having capital letters for elements names, in the reinforcement screen? I don't have that ??

[GShock]

I burned on DVD the install file pocus.

I'm now reinstalling the game and patching straight from 1.0 to 1.07f2 to ensure whether the prob is in installers or in patch itself.

[GShock]

All replacements are being showed normally now. I *presume* it was a problem with the installers and overlapping patch files.

[lodilefty]

Finally got to load and run this version

Noticed that the 'hovering tool-tip' over Artillery no longer shows the 'type' of unit [e.g. '10-lb Parrott, or 12 lb. Napoleon']. Nor does the 'click detail' pop-up show the type. Hard to tell what kind of 'boomers' we got, eh????

[ANTONYO]

There is bug in this version with retreat? In my game, campaign 1962, Army of the Tennessee would have to retreat according to battlelog.txt, but it does not retire,it does not change to passive posture and on the following day I Army of the Tennessee is annihilated, because I Army of the Tennessee it remains in offensive position and it fights again.

I send backup to you, Pocus

[arsan]

Finally got to load and run this version

Noticed that the 'hovering tool-tip' over Artillery no longer shows the 'type' of unit [e.g. '10-lb Parrott, or 12 lb. Napoleon']. Nor does the 'click detail' pop-up show the type. Hard to tell what kind of 'boomers' we got, eh????

Hi!

I can confirm this "no type" problem with artillery.
With last 1.07f patch on a fresh AACW install (just in case...:siffle

Also now there isn't conscript infantry or cavalry anymore.
All is called "Line infantry". But there is still differences in offensive/defensive fire etc between units.
It seems the problem is just the lack of the "conscript" identification label.

Is this intended or a bug??

Cheers

[Guru80]

There is bug in this version with retreat? In my game, campaign 1962, Army of the Tennessee would have to retreat according to battlelog.txt, but it does not retire,it does not change to passive posture and on the following day I Army of the Tennessee is annihilated, because I Army of the Tennessee it remains in offensive position and it fights again.

I send backup to you, Pocus

If there is no suitable area to retreat to they have no choice but to stand and fight. I caught the largest Army of the CSA in that position on the first turn. They attacked Washington and I cut off his only retreat route and the CSA got stuck fighting a 99 strength Washington Fortifications force over and over until their 49 strength force got completely wiped out.

[ANTONYO]

Yes that was retirement path.

I Army of the Tennessee and Corps of Mcclernand was together in same región.Mcclernand retired without problems.

[Pocus]

Hi

I got you save, thanks. I will check it as soon as possible, but we are in a big hurry these days

[Brochgale]

If there is no suitable area to retreat to they have no choice but to stand and fight. I caught the largest Army of the CSA in that position on the first turn. They attacked Washington and I cut off his only retreat route and the CSA got stuck fighting a 99 strength Washington Fortifications force over and over until their 49 strength force got completely wiped out.

I caught McDowall at Friedricksburg in August62 - the accumulated victory and morale points from almost constant victories over 2 turns gave me victory evn though I was heavily outnumbered. Jackson just kicked his proverbial. I did not design the trap it just happened that way. Mcdowall bypassed Friedricksburg to the South and I caught him between 2 corps and several independent divisions.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[berto]

Is the 1.07f "quick patch" clearly superior to 1.07e?

I'm concerned, because it seems to me that there are an unusually large number of 1.07f bugs reported here. And "quick patch" doesn't exactly inspire confidence, right?

I currently have 1.07e installed, and I just want to know if I should take the leap to 1.07f.

[Guru80]

I believe it was stated that 1.07f was good enough to be considered the next patch. I would use it if I were you for the improvements. There will most likely always be something that needs a little tweaking but I have no major complaints with it after playing it today.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[richfed]

I, too, would suggest using version 1.07f ... good fixes.

Gray_Lensman ... hmmm, I opened that .scn file [April '61] and the referred to line is already set at "3". ???????

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Is it me or the AI in the last iteration of the 1.07f patch is a little too more aggressive? I've seen AI commiting much more attacks at low odds than before...

[as.cities.burn]

I don't see Victory Points or Morale in the top left pane after 107.f

I did a clean install and patch but no fix.