Public beta patch 1.03c

[Hok]

Dear players,

A patch fixing some bugs and adding even more historical accuracy.

WIA_patch103c

==============================================================================
BOA2 : War in America Update 1.03c
December 5th, 2008
==============================================================================
This patch contains all changes since the start.

[1.03c]

Bug on Option "Royal Pardon" is fixed

Fleets with too low ammo or too low cohesion will switch to defensive posture and abort all out attack ROE, before a battle.
Land units with too low cohesion will switch to defensive posture, abort all out attack ROE, abort structure assault before a battle

All naval vessels Attack and Defense power doubled
Schooners and Gunboats now contribute to port blockades
Merchants now have Transport capacity = 1 [remember Dunkirk!]


[1.03b]

Add elements for spanish interface


[1.03a]

Corrected FE reset bug
Text string and translation corrections
Fixed adjacency link between regions 137Pottawatomie and 846Lapeer
"Mud" weather is now described as "Rain"

1779 Galvez Scenario - Juan Manuel de Cagigal placed in command in Cuba [also in 1776 Campaign event]
1812 Campaign - Keane is now 2* General, McDonnell added to reinforcements

- modified 'Stockpile weapons and Uniforms' military option [1755, 1775, 1778 Campaigns]

[Longhairedlout]

Just wanted to say thanks Hok.... Im looking forward to getting back into some WIA Pbem games that have been on hold since I read about the Autoretreat bug in the 1.02c patch....

[Siekster]

I will second that!! Time to get back to the electronic 18th century battlefield!!

[Joe Bukal]

Thank you for the patch
Joe Bukal

[KG Erwin]

I like these changes. The war at sea should now have greater emphasis. I also like the land assault abort feature, which prevents a force from destroying itself. I just played the Lord Dunmore's War scenario, and was pleased when Rogers' force voluntarily called off an ordered attack. I ended up winning on points, despite being unsuccessful in capturing the Shawnee village.

[5_Star]

Is this patch compatible if I purchased from Matrix?

Thanks for the work.

[Rafiki]

Yes, it is

[LUDOPEREZ]

I'm testing the new patch and note that no buttons are activated to destroy depots and forts.
Besides earlier when a group formed only by the irregular took a city with a depot or fort they was automatically destroyed and now is not the case.
I don't know if it's a mistake or it is the result of a change in this new patch.

[arsan]

Hi Ludoperez!

I'm playing the 1775 campaign with this patch and don't have problems with the destroying buttons.
But noticed that it's not available for a stack commanded by an inactive leader. Not sure if it has been like this before and if it's abug or intended.
IMHO, if a lone unit can destroy a fort/depot, a force commanded by a leader should also be able to destroy it, activated or not.
Surely Lodilefty would clarify to us if this is intended or not.

Regarding irregulars not destroying forts/depot automatically, i have noticed this testing the beta patch but only on some cases.
Most of the times, irregulars destroy forts/depots as they should, but not on some instances
In my case, i found that playing 1755 scenario, a irregular french force commanded by Rigaud could not burn Ft. Westren. But other Indians and French leaders woudl burn other forts (Ft. Cumberladn, Ft. Allan...)
Could you give us precise info about which units/structures don't get burned??
Posting here some save games with this occurrence woudl be useful too. POst the saves of the current turn and one or two backup turns just in case
This can greatly hep the team to solve the problem.
(if you prefer to do this in spanish, don't hesitate to PM me or post in on the spanish WIA forum. I can pass the info the team later
Regards

[LUDOPEREZ]

Hi Ludoperez!

I'm playing the 1775 campaign with this patch and don't have problems with the destroying buttons.
But noticed that it's not available for a stack commanded by an inactive leader. Not sure if it has been like this before and if it's abug or intended.
IMHO, if a lone unit can destroy a fort/depot, a force commanded by a leader should also be able to destroy it, activated or not.
Surely Lodilefty would clarify to us if this is intended or not.

Regarding irregulars not destroying forts/depot automatically, i have noticed this testing the beta patch but only on some cases.
Most of the times, irregulars destroy forts/depots as they should, but not on some instances
In my case, i found that playing 1755 scenario, a irregular french force commanded by Rigaud could not burn Ft. Westren. But other Indians and French leaders woudl burn other forts (Ft. Cumberladn, Ft. Allan...)
Could you give us precise info about which units/structures don't get burned??
Posting here some save games with this occurrence woudl be useful too. POst the saves of the current turn and one or two backup turns just in case
This can greatly hep the team to solve the problem.
(if you prefer to do this in spanish, don't hesitate to PM me or post in on the spanish WIA forum. I can pass the info the team later
Regards

Hi Arsan I post in Spanish Forum

[lodilefty]

<snip>

IMHO, if a lone unit can destroy a fort/depot, a force commanded by a leader should also be able to destroy it, activated or not.
Surely Lodilefty would clarify to us if this is intended or not.

I agree it shoud not require active leader to destroy forts and depot.

Calling Pocus

Regarding irregulars not destroying forts/depot automatically, i have noticed this testing the beta patch but only on some cases.
Most of the times, irregulars destroy forts/depots as they should, but not on some instances
In my case, i found that playing 1755 scenario, a irregular french force commanded by Rigaud could not burn Ft. Westren. But other Indians and French leaders woudl burn other forts (Ft. Cumberladn, Ft. Allan...)
Could you give us precise info about which units/structures don't get burned??
<snip>

I still can't figure out what it is with Ft. Western, as I have same issue there with a different French irregular leader. It's something with the region, I think...

[LUDOPEREZ]

I agree it shoud not require active leader to destroy forts and depot.

Calling Pocus



I still can't figure out what it is with Ft. Western, as I have same issue there with a different French irregular leader. It's something with the region, I think...

Hi Lodilefty , and Arsan, I think that I have located the problem of irregulars that not destroy forts or deposits.
The problem I think is not forts or deposits in certain areas
The problem are some Leaders when leads a force of irregulars, in particular Charles de Boishebert and Contrecour, and do not know if any more but for now I have not found more
I'm playing 1755 scenary as french with patch 1.03C
If I make an attack on Williamsburg with Contrecour as leader the deposit will not be destroyed(frances3)
If I make the same attack but Contrecour not lead(lead by Lignery) the force the depot will be destroyed(frances2)

I take to report a small forgotten that he also detected
With military options for the purchase of fort battery or naval guns does not reflect the cost of Ep.
For example corsaries are 20 EP , Militia 5 EP ......etc but not show cost of fort battery or naval guns
I don't know if this will be an error of translation in the Spanish version or is general