This is a MAJOR malfunction and deserves to be corrected in future patches. The USA already owns the riverways.
-
SkyWestNM
- Sergeant
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:20 pm
- Location: High atop a desert wonderland
Confirmation in 1.13b
I can at least confirm that yes, in 1.13b, the bombardment labels are incorrect. My Mississippi batteries at last have started to fire now when I press the button telling them not to.
This is a MAJOR malfunction and deserves to be corrected in future patches. The USA already owns the riverways.
This is a MAJOR malfunction and deserves to be corrected in future patches. The USA already owns the riverways.
SkyWestNM wrote:I can at least confirm that yes, in 1.13b, the bombardment labels are incorrect. My Mississippi batteries at last have started to fire now when I press the button telling them not to.
This is a MAJOR malfunction and deserves to be corrected in future patches. The USA already owns the riverways.
What is the issue here?
CptCav
[AACW.exe 1.13d beta; all other files 1.13b]
Confirmed that the ship bombard button is still working backwards.
Attached turn, Sherman is at Austin MS (south of Memphis) with a CSN fleet just downriver ready to play with the guns.
Confirmed that the ship bombard button is still working backwards.
Attached turn, Sherman is at Austin MS (south of Memphis) with a CSN fleet just downriver ready to play with the guns.
- Attachments
-
- BombardButton.zip
- (372.92 KiB) Downloaded 267 times
-
ShovelHead
- Sergeant
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:02 am
- Location: Huntington Beach, California
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
That would be like a cat chasing it's tail.
Ne'er a truer word.
A sample bombardment scenario five posts above, works back-to-front under the .exe from 1.13b and 1.13d both.
The strSpecToLandBombard string seems to be only a multilingual text for the tooltip to describe what the button does, not a 0/1 switch which determines what happens. Changing the wording would still leave the button graphics wrong so - unless there is some other moddable text file which has the logic in it - which I doubt -looks like it is the code which needs fixing.
[Edit: suggested 5 posts below that the coding remains the same, but the button graphic is changed and the tooltip descriptions are reworded. Default would then be no bombard until the button is pushed which seems sensible, also makes for an easy fix
.]-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
An oddment is that all of the buttons (I think) by default do nothing - don't build a depot, enter a structure, form a division or corps, force march, destroy the railroad &c &c. The buttons get ignored if they are not pushed.
The "engage passing ships" button is supposed to work in the reverse way: do something depending on conditions (guns, entrenchment levels) unless the button is pushed in which case do NOT (capitals in the original). Messy and actually works the opposite way anyhow...
I think from other posts that I have read, that entrenched forces can only engage ships if they have long-range guns - 6lb, 10lb, 12lb won't work whatever the setting.
If so it would seem reasonable to fix this by reversing the way the button appears (not the way it actually works) - a stack will not by default engage ships unless the player pushes the "engage passing ships" button -which engagement will only happen anyway if the stack includes some heavy artillery... and enough by the player's reckoning to counter whatever naval forces are sent against it. Engaging ships from entrenched positions would then be a deliberate decision not a default.
The "engage passing ships" button is supposed to work in the reverse way: do something depending on conditions (guns, entrenchment levels) unless the button is pushed in which case do NOT (capitals in the original). Messy and actually works the opposite way anyhow...
I think from other posts that I have read, that entrenched forces can only engage ships if they have long-range guns - 6lb, 10lb, 12lb won't work whatever the setting.
If so it would seem reasonable to fix this by reversing the way the button appears (not the way it actually works) - a stack will not by default engage ships unless the player pushes the "engage passing ships" button -which engagement will only happen anyway if the stack includes some heavy artillery... and enough by the player's reckoning to counter whatever naval forces are sent against it. Engaging ships from entrenched positions would then be a deliberate decision not a default.
Maybe the button should stay doing the same thing - like the other buttons, do nothing unless it is pressed. Changing the button graphic and rewording the tooltip descriptions would achieve this.
Mostly stacks will not be along major rivers, and the player may not want to take the losses involved in an artillery duel anyway, so bombarding ships would become a player decision not a default (and maybe a nasty surprise if one forgets to push the button).
Mostly stacks will not be along major rivers, and the player may not want to take the losses involved in an artillery duel anyway, so bombarding ships would become a player decision not a default (and maybe a nasty surprise if one forgets to push the button).
-
SkyWestNM
- Sergeant
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:20 pm
- Location: High atop a desert wonderland
I quite agree with you, Chertio, becuase bombarding passing ships with artillery along a river is NOT without risk. Therefore making the player choose bombardment forces them to make a conscious decision to accept that risk.
In my newfound bombardment ectasy to turn on all bombardments, the union blew one of my artillery positions to oblivion with two huge passing river fleets. As it should be. To keep the guns silent IS a viable option in that it will not draw return fire and stay safe. I am learning that nuance.
Now that I have bombardment working, there is a whole 'nother game afoot. This is a great game because new tactics/strategies show themselves gradually. And learning progresses from newfound thought to newfound tactic/strategy. The designers, developers, grognards and beta testers are to be congratulaed for staying committed to the constant development of a good product into an exceptional one. This button problem is just a small part of that development process and should not detract from the congratulations due their fine efforts and positive work achieved.
Thank you team. Drive on!
In my newfound bombardment ectasy to turn on all bombardments, the union blew one of my artillery positions to oblivion with two huge passing river fleets. As it should be. To keep the guns silent IS a viable option in that it will not draw return fire and stay safe. I am learning that nuance.
Now that I have bombardment working, there is a whole 'nother game afoot. This is a great game because new tactics/strategies show themselves gradually. And learning progresses from newfound thought to newfound tactic/strategy. The designers, developers, grognards and beta testers are to be congratulaed for staying committed to the constant development of a good product into an exceptional one. This button problem is just a small part of that development process and should not detract from the congratulations due their fine efforts and positive work achieved.
Thank you team. Drive on!
I also just got turned on to this and am trying it out vs Athena as Union. Provides a nice CSA response to Union interdicting river crossings using small groups of gunboats/ironclads.
"I'm a darned sight smarter than Grant; I know a great deal more about war, military histories, strategy and grand tactics than he does; I know more about organization, supply, and administration and about everything else than he does; but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."
William Tecumseh Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
-
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?
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests