---> AACW Patch 1.10b release

[Pocus]

Dear players,

Here it is! After several weeks of testing, it, hopefully, will provide you with many improvements in your games.

Thanks to all testers and players who participated in its making.

Comprehensive patch, include everything since 1.00 (93 Mb)
http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_Patch.zip
(updated May 27th)


No quick patch anymore, because of new graphics added to this version.
==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.10b
May 27th, 2008
==============================================================================

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


[1.10b]
- Modding: You can now tweak a new variable, bmbrange, in Blockades.opt. This is the range needed by guns to fire on passing ships.
- Minor rail rework by Gray_Lensman
- Numbers of horses and guns were not valid for the Mexican - fix courtesy of Gray_Lensman
- AI: Added a new experimental algorithm: 'Repair Rail Network'. Please report if needed.
- AI: Improved: the 'Force In Being' algorithm has been improved. The AI will now consider better if remaining in place is not the best 'move'.


[1.10a]
- Number of units recruited was wrong when above a given number. Fixed also a display bug in the recruitment window.
- When a depot or village is burned, supply is reduced to the stock needed for one turn of supply (of the units present in the region).
- fixed: Divisions could go above 18 elements.
- Changed: In the Naval Box (where the US merchants dwell), ships can now try to avoid engaging the fleet they found, if the convoy is too strong for them.
- fixed: River obstruction by ships was not working properly.




==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.10
May 1st, 2008
==============================================================================

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

[1.10]
==============================================================================
Bugs
==============================================================================
- fixed: lone artillery could be redeployed.
- fixed: a rare bug where a ZIP gamefile would not be recognized correctly.
- fixed: General nickname removed (it was replacing real name in some cases).
- fixed: Partisans units were not shown in the Unit List (Ledger page F1)
- fixed: a bug of password querying.
- fixed: A problem with the 'Bombard Passing ships' order. Clarification: this order is only used for units which are not in forts, so they have the choice to be near the shore or not (and bombard and be bombarded...). Units in a fort don't have this choice. Fixed units now can toggle this order.

==============================================================================
Gameplay
==============================================================================
- changed: Cities and harbors produce 25% less Supply than before.
- changed: Generals being discharged from army command, or bypassed by another general when an army is formed will now lose 1 to 4 seniority ranks.
- changed: To prevent troops from crossing rivers, you must now have at least 4 ships elements in offensive posture (was 1 in any posture)
- changed: Weather zones have slightly less mud.
- changed: Minor crossing links can now be interdicted by fleets (some navigable rivers have minor crossing)
- added: Divisions can now replace whole lost elements.
- Fatigue and losses of men both from movements and standing attrition revised. Historical Attrition should be less harsh. Attrition from movements is higher in bad weather, but is less important from enemy territory.All parameters have been exported into a new option file for modders. See the modding forum for further instructions.
- Various adjustments in the database.
- changed: Raider ships in the Shipping Box are twice as efficient as before.
- March to the Sound of Guns improvements: a corps can intervene once per day maximum, and 1 cohesion point / day of 'virtual' march is lost doing so.
- changed: movement speed now takes the slowed element within an unit.
- changed: Seniority changes are now 50% faster (in good ... or bad)
- Units in a structure are always considered as being passive for Cohesion recovery (netting a +2 per day overall, +1 from Passive, +1 from Structure). Reminder,if besieged, you lose -1.5 though.

==============================================================================
Map
==============================================================================
- More railroad fixes from Gray_Lensman (Florida and Indiana, accompanied by a fix in northern Ohio).

==============================================================================
Interface
==============================================================================
- added: In Element Detail Window, general nickname added after real name.
- Expected costs to form up divisions is now shown in the ledger.

==============================================================================
AI
==============================================================================
- AI: Better decision making for standing outside or inside structures.
- AI: Raider ships will go more often to the Blockades and Shipping boxes and will never perform naval superiority mission elsewhere.
- AI: AI can now burn depots in very hostile areas.
- AI: More Rail and riverine points bought, if affordable. Also now tied to the state of the railroad net on map.
- AI: Slightly less industrialization.
- AI: More line and militia replacements points bought, compared to others types.
- AI improvement: AI is more clever in the use of Army HQ.

[Rafiki]

The number of people who have gotten involved with this patch and the effort they have put into it is downright impressive; kudos to all!

(This goes, of course, to Pocus and the dev team as well)

[Serpent77]

Thanks for the update!!!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GShock]

Too bad we didn't make it in time with the leaders portraits (Jabber's) ...but there's time for next patches.

It feels so good to be part of a project that is *so* alive.

[W.Barksdale]

- changed: movement speed now takes the slowed element within an unit.

Very excited about this. A little sad, however, now that I can't build my super cavalry divisions complete with medics, engineers, and seige artillery. Ahh well here's to realism!

[pepe4158]

Hmmm I had the other beta version, this 1 is slightly different then huh?

[Lafrite]

An new great demonstratrion of AGEOD's support

[W.Barksdale]

Pocus, here is another example of Athena's strategic positioning. This time I was playing the rebels.

Once again I let her run around in 1861. She was making lots of trouble, however, allowing me to concentrate an army between hers and her Capital is a basic and fundamental strategic flaw IMO. Game over early in '62.

I've attached the current turn with the past 3. Hopefully this will shed some light as to why she does this.

[pepe4158]

Say how come I am the only one noticing victory is now slanted towards the north in this new patch......or you guys notice it too?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pepe4158]

This is too vague. Give some specific examples or details.

Wont have too lol....either I am right n it is and everyone will notice, or I am way off track

But too be a little more specific, I think its probably regarding the reduction of supplies, n the melting away effect then on stacks, and the ability of the north to cover that easier.
I mean remember how upset Solo was at losing whole stacks of troops, I think having to constantly buy so many replacements now is a little easier on the north.

[bigus]

Wont have too lol....either I am right n it is and everyone will notice, or I am way off track

But too be a little more specific, I think its probably regarding the reduction of supplies, n the melting away effect then on stacks, and the ability of the north to cover that easier.
I mean remember how upset Solo was at losing whole stacks of troops, I think having to constantly buy so many replacements now is a little easier on the north.

O.K i'm not sure if you guys are talking about cohesion loss or Attrition loss or both.
Seems to me that Solo might have marched his men and suffered huge cohesion losses then got pasted by you because he was at a disadvantage in battle because of lack of cohesion. Then again maybe he got hit hard by weather or lack of supply. I'm not sure but it sounds like you guys are going all out for the quick victory. Which Beta version was your PBEM game?


bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pepe4158]

Hmmm we were using the very last beta patch before it went official.....forget which one that is offhand Bigus, but I think his problem was more not being able to keep up with the huge amount of replacements needed now; as he did complain a lot to me about not being able to keep up and I was struggling to keep up myself as the north.

As I got a little better thats the first place I check on the opening turn, per Runyan's advice thread, to make sure I have enough troops to replace losses and couldnt believe how much faster I am running through them (with this version) but not sure why? I just keep buying em to keep pace n usually takes everything I got, no new troops just replacements lol.

[Brochgale]

The new patch certainly forces a strategy rethink playing CSA - especially if playing with historical attrition.

I find myself withdrawing Jackson and Johnson from Shenandoah in order to in order to build up the strength of both Corps. It does seem to take an eternity to build up both Corps whilst I leave them in Shenandoah or even Winchester which seems impossible to hold?

I lose all the replacements every other turn it seems and both Corps are never getting anywhere near full strength.

It is just I cant get Jackson Valley Campaign out of my head. It was Lees way to keep Feds away from Richmond afterall. But I just hate giving up the Shenandoah early in game. Also the sentimental attachment to the those places I associate with the Black Knight.

[runyan99]

I suspect you won't be able to 'keep up' with the attrition option on. You'll have to let your standing units go understrength if you want spend resources raising new regiments.

That's what both sides were forced to do historically, and that's why there were a lot of 200 or 300 man regiments running around.

[runyan99]

Your first observations tend to make me think that the reduction of supplies overall may have been an incorrect approach to the problem and that this may need to be restored to previous values followed by a slow-down in the rate of passing supplies forward instead.

I suspect you are right, but we'll see what kind of effect this 25% reduction has. Maybe if there is less supply, less will also get pushed forward.

[Brochgale]

I suspect you won't be able to 'keep up' with the attrition option on. You'll have to let your standing units go understrength if you want spend resources raising new regiments.

That's what both sides were forced to do historically, and that's why there were a lot of 200 or 300 man regiments running around.

I suspect you might be right. So in my latest game I adopt a differnet straegy of withdrawing from Shenandoah in order to build those Corps into something that can fight a sustained campaign and hopefully allow me to build new regts at same time?

[pepe4158]

Well tho Run...it sure makes it easier to kick Athena's butt in tho, as she HASNT adjusted to these new losses yet or isnt using new techniques like a PvP player would....she keeps pushing so far forward and I find it easy to destroy whole armies under her command.
That is however on normal, perhaps with her bonuses on hard her plans will work?
But if pocus was looking for a chance of pace, he sure got one IMO; mission accomplished lol

[pepe4158]

The new patch certainly forces a strategy rethink playing CSA - especially if playing with historical attrition.

Hee-hee thats the understatement of the year

[lycortas]

Hi,

I have cut supplies 10% MORE than was in this patch and i still am buried in supplies as the Confederacy. I think changing from 25% reduction to a 50% reduction would be better, but this is a step in the right direction.

And, i believe Pocus said that this was just the beginning in supply rebalancing, which is great.

As an aside many people seem less enthused about Nappy's Campaigns, but i purchased that based on AACW and am very pleased. It is an excellent operational study. Plus, i love 1 week turns instead of two week turns.

Mike

[Pocus]

if you don't have historical attrition enabled, you should not need more replacements for your troops as before, unless there is a big bug hidden.

Except if you see that moving them one turn bleed them dry, but I don't think so either.

[soloswolf]

O.K i'm not sure if you guys are talking about cohesion loss or Attrition loss or both.
Seems to me that Solo might have marched his men and suffered huge cohesion losses then got pasted by you because he was at a disadvantage in battle because of lack of cohesion. Then again maybe he got hit hard by weather or lack of supply. I'm not sure but it sounds like you guys are going all out for the quick victory. Which Beta version was your PBEM game?


bigus

The cavalry division that was wiped out to a man was at full cohesion, at least 95% strength and hadn't moved at all for two turns, was set to fall back and on defend/retreat if engaged and did not retreat through days of combat. Also, Stuart was commanding. So you have the evasion of cavalry, plus his ability, plus retreat if engaged! I guess I could have just found the (very) short end of the percentage-stick in that situation, but geez!

I do think the number of replacement chits that are being used are very high. Even on turns with little combat (and little combat the prior one/two turns) I can easily use up 15+ line infantry replacement points. And this is with my stacks on regions with cities, depots, etc. I am also way ahead in VP and NM... So why are my men going home?

[bigus]

The cavalry division that was wiped out to a man was at full cohesion, at least 95% strength and hadn't moved at all for two turns, was set to fall back and on defend/retreat if engaged and did not retreat through days of combat. Also, Stuart was commanding. So you have the evasion of cavalry, plus his ability, plus retreat if engaged! I guess I could have just found the (very) short end of the percentage-stick in that situation, but geez!

Yes this does seem strange. I wonder if the "probability" factors are bugged.
I have noticed events firing even at very low percentages as well as a lot of blizzard conditions even though the percentages are low for that particular month?. Could be just me though.

As for the Replacements I can't say just yet but I have seen the new "divisions replacing lost elements" working O.K.

bigus

[runyan99]

I do think the number of replacement chits that are being used are very high. Even on turns with little combat (and little combat the prior one/two turns) I can easily use up 15+ line infantry replacement points. And this is with my stacks on regions with cities, depots, etc. I am also way ahead in VP and NM... So why are my men going home?

They are mostly dying of disease. More men died during the war from disease than from combat, almost in a 2-1 ratio. The attrition option is meant to simulate this constant manpower drain.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

[richfed]

Whoa Nellie!!!!

Playing this new patch --- mostly on normal settings, but I give the AI more time and a slight FOW advantage. I am getting KILLED as the CSA!

It's October '61 ... Richmond and Nashville just fell. I had Cooper inside with a smallish force and Lee outside - entrenched - with all the reserve brigades, cavalry, and a bunch of artillery. Artillery was all captured and I lost every man plus Lee, Cooper, and Winder laid up in hospitals.

Joe Johnston's Corp had to withdraw from Winchester, after just building a depot he couldn't hold - was pursued and retreated to Charlottesville. Beauregard's army is still holding at Manassas.

AS Johnston's little army was pushed out of Nashville.

Plus, there are all kinds of raids in Arkansas/Texas and North Carolina.

I will need to completely rethink how I play this game against the AI. Tough! My morale is at 50.

As far as AI railroads not being fixed, I can't say that I see that. My raiders tore up rails around Baltimore/DC and they were quickly fixed. Attrition - on historical settings - is not abnormal, either ... at least not in this game. I'm just getting my rear-end handed to me.

Great patch ... even though the AI is going berserk!

[soloswolf]

They are mostly dying of disease. More men died during the war from disease than from combat, almost in a 2-1 ratio. The attrition option is meant to simulate this constant manpower drain.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

And I appreciate that, but these stacks are (primarily) in supply, in regions with cities, harbors and depots. And these hits are often happening while men are not marching or fighting. I know they are not by any means living in perfect conditions, but some adjustments ought to be made if stacks are in civilized, supported regions. I am not starved for money, supply, etc. Why can't I take care of these men?

I just feel that the numbers are too high. If I build 15 line inf. replacements, that is assumed to be enough to outfit 15 new regiments, or 15,000 men. If that pace holds up, even discounting battles, the casualties by wars end will be way over historical numbers.

[Pocus]

Sorry to intrude, but can you remind me if this is with or without Historical Attrition?

Great report Richfed!

[soloswolf]

Yeah, Pocus. Real nice of you to interrupt.

It was (is, really) with historical attrition. The game between Pepe and I is going well for both of us (each in our own way of course...), but the replacement issue has been a big one. We just got our resets on the bi-yearly options, and all of my volunteers are almost already used up. I maxed out the option (paying $3,000 each) and I ran through them in two turns! I will be going back to building 2/3 a turn for the next six months.

I am all for making this as realistic as possible, I just don't think that it is right now. If I can attrit. through 15+ regiments of replacements each turn, that is 30,000 men a month, 360,000 a year. (Granted, I am not averaging that many a month, but even half of that is a ridiculous number, and that is not even including battle deaths on top of everything!)