IN designing the Trans Mississippi senerio I wanted to block the Mississippi from Union Movement to a degree. I had at Island 10 , New Madrid and Arkansas Post ,Forts at level 5+ entrenchment all with Garrisons and heavy guns. I also had created a river fleet with 6 gunboat elements and 8 transport elements stationed at Island 10. Here's the problem.
when I move units south in transports with escorts, the forts will fire on the ships and take quite a punishment. HOWEVER if I use normal movement and then click on "move by river" I can bypass the forts and navel units with no damage! This does not seem right IMO!
My question is.....Is this intentional or a bug?
I know that the forts will block supply but too be able to move a full division
past heavily fortified positions just does'nt seem right.
bigus
I can confirm that--after testing this in bigus' Trans Mississippi scenario--by means of the "Move by River" order, one can move a "virtual" naval force, loaded with infantry, cavalry, HQ, and four Supply Wagons, past one fort after another without any of the forts firing a shot! Yes, the "virtual" naval force suffers from loss of cohesion and attrition along the way, but there are apparently no direct combat losses whatsoever. 
By contrast, an "actual" naval force of river transports and gunboats, loaded with troops and sailors, gets completely blown out of the water by those very same river forts.
By contrast, an "actual" naval force of river transports and gunboats, loaded with troops and sailors, gets completely blown out of the water by those very same river forts.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
-
willgamer
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:41 am
- Location: Mount Juliet, TN
berto wrote:I can confirm that--after testing this in bigus' Trans Mississippi scenario--by means of the "Move by River" order, one can move a "virtual" naval force, loaded with infantry, cavalry, HQ, and four Supply Wagons, past one fort after another without any of the forts firing a shot! Yes, the "virtual" naval force suffers from loss of cohesion and attrition along the way, but there are apparently no direct combat losses whatsoever.
By contrast, an "actual" naval force of river transports and gunboats, loaded with troops and sailors, gets completely blown out of the water by those very same river forts.
Yikes!
Is it too obvious to suggest the quick fix is to restrict "virtual" transport to safe river segments only. Specifially, as soon as a v-transport encounters a river segment capable of inflicting damage, if immediately stops moving in the preceding segment.
willgamer wrote:Yikes!
Is it too obvious to suggest the quick fix is to restrict "virtual" transport to safe river segments only. Specifially, as soon as a v-transport encounters a river segment capable of inflicting damage, if immediately stops moving in the preceding segment.
Yes that would work!
As well as having "virtual transport" units only able too drop off units in friendly controlled regions with harbor values.
Too invade enemy regions or regions fully controlled by the enemy you would need transport "units" etc..
I thought I read in the manual that this was the case?
bigus
Pocus wrote: I plan to put online a new patch within some days, but it won't be compatible with previous games though.
I'm not sure what you mean by this Pocus.
Is the DB and CSV splitter etc about too change?. IE: Will my other scenerios have too be redone?
On the other hand The Trans Mississippi scenerio is WIP so I'm not worried about losing a save if this is what you meant.
Bigus
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
@gray....... Ya I'm not sure. I don't change anything To the game DB. I generate my own DB too use for the scenerio. At the very least I won't have the new rail links but I think the scenerio will run. At the very worst Pocus & co will change the names of the regions, then I'm in trouble. Likewise if they change leader names etc then I'm back too re-doing the scenerio.
I will be submitting All files when I send them in though.
now back on topic.......
I tested out more on the river movement and I can say that even though you can bypass the forts in this way, it is virtually impossible to maintain a force of any size for very long. The attrition rate is not forgiving. So even though it might be a bug I don't think even the dumbest commander would subject his force too this kind of punishment. Even with a navel force I was hard pressed to keep my force from melting away.
bigus
I will be submitting All files when I send them in though.
now back on topic.......
I tested out more on the river movement and I can say that even though you can bypass the forts in this way, it is virtually impossible to maintain a force of any size for very long. The attrition rate is not forgiving. So even though it might be a bug I don't think even the dumbest commander would subject his force too this kind of punishment. Even with a navel force I was hard pressed to keep my force from melting away.
bigus
Return to “AACW Technical support / Aide technique”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests