Patch 1.10d - public release

[Pocus]

==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.10a-b-c-d
May 16th- June 11th, 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.

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

[1.10d]
- fixed a bug in gunboat blockades.
- Historical Accuracy mod: Removed spelling deficiencies, corrected weather for Texas, removed a left over Division HQ in 1862 West scenario.
- Artillery can now bombard if entrenched to level 4 (was 5). The gun range should be 5 though (all units with this range can fire in fact).

********************
- progressive entrenchment Max level:
1861 April Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 4
1861 July Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 4
1862 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 5
1863 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 6
1864 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 8

The Scripted Events change these levels over time on the following schedule:

In 1861, there is a small chance each turn from Aug thru Dec for the Level to increase to 5
---- with a definite increase to 5 in Jan 1862

In 1862, there is a small chance each turn from May thru Dec for the Level to increase to 6
---- with a definite increase to 6 in Jan 1863

In 1863, there is a small chance each turn from May thru Aug for the Level to increase to 7
---- with a definite increase to 7 in Sep 1863

In 1863, there is a small chance each turn from Oct thru Dec for the Level to increase to 8
---- with a definite increase to 8 in Jan 1864

********************

[bschulte]

I still love AGEod's constant patching of games. Excellent work guys! I don't know of any other company who listens to their customers as much as you do!

[berto]

I still love AGEod's constant patching of games. Excellent work guys! I don't know of any other company who listens to their customers as much as you do!

+1

[Ian Coote]

+2

[Doomwalker]

Ouch, have the patches always been this big, or has my connection slowed down?

[Dadaan]

Love the entrenchment max!!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

I was playing version 1.10c by the way Gray . This would certainly be something that needs looking into I think.

[Pocus]

It is not a bug, but a feature. Yes, really

When a region has a transport network (track, road, railroad), then it takes at most, whatever the terrain of the region:

track: 150% of clear terrain cost
road & railroad: 100% of clear terrain cost

This was done in Birth of America, because roads were rares and there was not so much tracks. Now perhaps that AACW is too much full of tracks and roads that the feature is a bit too convenient, even unrealistic. Checking the map I indeed see that it is rare than hills and even mountains don't have a track, in essence negating the terrain cost of the region.

We would not mind adjusting slightly the code to reduce this effect in AACW (it just shows that no game can even be completed if you look hard at all the little touches which can be added continuously!).

[Banks6060]

Hence the reason I thought I might get creamed

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Bertram]

I think it makes sense for some forces, in some kind of terrain.....

When I am hicking alone, it does not matter much if the road (well, track usually) I am on is going through clear terrain, woods, marsh or any other reasonable flat terrain. My speed wil not vary much. Going into mountains though will cut down on my speed for sure, unless I have a modern, nice graded tarmaced road.

But when moving lots of men the story changes. Moving the 8th army over a single road across a polder (Arnhem), or moving lots of wehrmacht soldiers over a few roads across wooded and hilly terrain (the Bulge) sure slows them down.

It will be pretty difficult to come up with a formula that does not give strange results for large and/or small bodies of men, if you dont take in consideration the density of the roads, the size of the troops moving and the type of terrain and the weather....


Bertram

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[denisonh]

Movement of larger bodies is more difficult. Having been involved in planning and executing movements of troops from platoon to division level in real life, that is a fact jack.

Sounds like there may be room for some kind of factor to impact movement based on the size of the formation? I know the leader activitation already penalizes stacks but a penalty for large fromations moving would present a trade off for creating those monsterous "super corps" that the Union moves around in the later stages of the game if the bigger they are there was an incremental cost in increasing movement time.

An Army moving along different axis of advance in smaller corps would move faster than an entire Army along the same axis of advance I would think. Current movement mechanics in AACW does not bear that out.

[berto]

It will be pretty difficult to come up with a formula that does not give strange results for large and/or small bodies of men, if you dont take in consideration the density of the roads, the size of the troops moving and the type of terrain and the weather....

I think it is pretty amazing that in a high-level strategic/operational game like AACW we can even think about finely-grained modeling such low-level details and game mechanics as these. And a year after game's release, much less hope for or expect the game designers to actually implement them!

[Clovis]

Imho:

1)tracks should give 200% of clear terrain cost, except for mountains whose cost should be 300%

2)Roads should be less numerous on the map, by transforming them in tracks.

3)Penalty tied to size would be nice, especially for regions really difficult, like marshes and mountains.

2 is moddable. 1 and 3 seems to belong to patch.

[Banks6060]

Movement of larger bodies is more difficult. Having been involved in planning and executing movements of troops from platoon to division level in real life, that is a fact jack.

Sounds like there may be room for some kind of factor to impact movement based on the size of the formation? I know the leader activitation already penalizes stacks but a penalty for large fromations moving would present a trade off for creating those monsterous "super corps" that the Union moves around in the later stages of the game if the bigger they are there was an incremental cost in increasing movement time.

An Army moving along different axis of advance in smaller corps would move faster than an entire Army along the same axis of advance I would think. Current movement mechanics in AACW does not bear that out.

I disagree with this. The regions in the game cover quite large areas and armies routinely travelled along the same general axis....perhaps in three parallel routes (Roscrans to Murfreesboro for example)....but not SO far apart as to be represented in the game as three REGIONS apart.

[Banks6060]

Imho:

1)tracks should give 200% of clear terrain cost, except for mountains whose cost should be 300%

2)Roads should be less numerous on the map, by transforming them in tracks.

3)Penalty tied to size would be nice, especially for regions really difficult, like marshes and mountains.

2 is moddable. 1 and 3 seems to belong to patch.

I dunno about this one....road infrastructure was pretty well fleshed out in this time period...especially in the major theaters of operation. Perhaps Missouri would be an exception....but I think roads are well modelled.

Now as far as roads in the mountains...and some other select areas....perhaps some need to be changed for historical accuracy.

[tagwyn]

denisoh: My study of the ACW indicates that the army often moved on different axes by division/corps. A good example would be Sherman's army moving through Ga. They just did not move in a long column along a single road except where absolutely necessary. Let the the Nazis move one of their uber tanks along a narrow path surrounded by water or marsh land. Hit the lead tank and Voila!! instant road block. apy:

[wyrmm]

denisoh: My study of the ACW indicates that the army often moved on different axes by division/corps. A good example would be Sherman's army moving through Ga. They just did not move in a long column along a single road except where absolutely necessary. Let the the Nazis move one of their uber tanks along a narrow path surrounded by water or marsh land. Hit the lead tank and Voila!! instant road block. apy:

The whole problem would be solved with a finer grained map, the would be actual areas with NO tracks or roads.

[runyan99]

I disagree with this. The regions in the game cover quite large areas and armies routinely travelled along the same general axis....perhaps in three parallel routes (Roscrans to Murfreesboro for example)....but not SO far apart as to be represented in the game as three REGIONS apart.

I agree.

[Pocus]

The whole problem would be solved with a finer grained map, the would be actual areas with NO tracks or roads.

You can always recreate the map into 65536 regions of hexagonal shape

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Now, really, leave poor Pocus alone. AACW is fine, now.
IMHO further improvements on this outstanding game should only focus in:
- AI improvements
- Maybe detailed battle reports (and OOB ?)

WIA coming out soon, maybe some improvements in the engine, covering these areas will be retrofitted, hopefully.

Modders efforts are another thing, of course

[Clovis]

AI: works fine in the new version except:

- the very long range raid toward a VP region by a lone unit or a very small force is back. Regularly, CSA AI is targeting Chicago , Niagara and other Northernest regions. I personnaly think a special attrition rate if a lone brigade is entering consecutively 4 or 5 regions with enemy loyalty > 95 % should be implemented, leading to the probable loss of the unit

- from time to time Semmes bombards with one vessel land units in fort. Results are disastrous.

[Pocus]

Arsan and MikeB are helping me on the AI, reporting things. But it will takes me some time. One report can occupy me one day

[mikee64]

Pocus, next saves I send I will try to get you the wildly aggressive CSA AI as Clovis mentioned.

Clovis, I'm pretty sure he has already looked into the over-aggressive (suicidal) behavior of some ships against forts. It's just not in 1.10d. Overall I think naval and amphib ops will be improved in an upcoming patch.

[Clovis]

Arsan and MikeB are helping me on the AI, reporting things. But it will takes me some time. One report can occupy me one day

The new AI is better but suffers yet of teething problems. Things I noticed:

- a lesser emphasis on naval trading activity
- a difficulty to invest sufficiently as US in industrialization at start
-the same relunctance to build units when all resources are plentiful, AI prefers create huge reserves which is rather a nonsense
- the raid routine needs to be modified as targets are often far VP regionsthat can't be reached in one turn
- a slight preference to concentrate forces in one stack when small gauarding groups of units for secondary objectives would be useful.