Public beta patch 1.14 rc21 (July 8, 2009)

[Franciscus]

IMHO, either you release 1.14 without this new promotion feature or keep the beta going

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Franciscus:
As far as whether or not to retain the generic promotion system: This is a decision to be made by Pocus and the beta team, not by popular acclaim or polling. .

... I am NOT making a poll !. I am merely making a humble suggestion to the AACW "coordinator" of what I think would be the best course of action. This new feature was rightly released in a beta patch, to be tested, and that's what I did. It seems that it can bring some problems that can be deleterious to the game, so that's why I think it should not be officialized, but kept in beta for further testing. Other companies do release games/patches with known bugs, but I know that AGEOD does not willingly do that.

Everyone seems to forget and make light of the complexity of what this game represents.

I think that you know that I am not in this "everyone" group.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

GL: "THE" finest civil war game ever!! Close to being the finest computer war game EVER! Sorry to correct you. Seldom ever need to!! t

[Pocus]

1.14rc17 has been released. Michael will give more information about it, if needed.

As for the Generic Promotions, I would like to keep them for AACW. If Michael can send me a mail with the commands used to promote generals, I'll think of a way of being sure it is not a demotion in fact.

[Franciscus]

As for the Generic Promotions, I would like to keep them for AACW. If Michael can send me a mail with the commands used to promote generals, I'll think of a way of being sure it is not a demotion in fact.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[hattrick]

Hi,

In this turn that is attached, It appears unfortunately I have found bug.

Version 1.14 Rc 14 clean install over 1.13 b

General Bee who is attached to Joe Johnston's Army was attacked at Warren Va. In the save you will see in the battle report that General Bee is listed as a one star when in reality he is a two star, the battle report is wrong. Also after the the turn in the message display it has also said that General Bee and his division commander suffered a defeat when the battle was a victory.

Hope this helps some..

Here is the save, I will foreword the full save to Pocus if needed.

[enf91]

Also after the the turn in the message display it has also said that General Bee and his division commander suffered a defeat when the battle was a victory.

If General Bee's unit suffered unusually high losses in the battle without inflicting similar losses, he can lose seniority points even though the battle is won. He doesn't even have to lose any elements, although that is the fastest way for seniority to change.

[enf91]

Before I forget, in the 1862 campaign, if a militia unit is attacked in Kentucky, the "Kentucky invaded by *SA troops" event fires even though the Confederacy had already invaded Kentucky in October 1861, historically.

[mikee64]

April 1861 w/ KY, started hosting a pbem with RC 16, upgraded to RC 17 before this turn. Everything was ok until I processed the Early June 1861 turn, when I got the following 2 messages running in full debug mode:

1st message:

2nd message:


No idea what the first is but the second says something about the replay. I've asked my opponent to let me know if everything looks ok when he loads the turn/replay.

After I clicked "OK" on both of the above it seems to have proceeded to my movement phase just fine. Let me know if saves are needed.

edit> proper update rules have been followed, not installing over HotFixes, etc. This install has been updated with several earlier RC's before this game, however.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

here's the last couple of complete turns and backups including replays. No password needed.

[mikee64]

On a very minor and unrelated note, it appears you get the "maximum fortification level upgraded" mailbox message twice, at least in 1861. You get it once when (if) the random event fires, and again at the "absolute" upgrade date. The latter occurs even if you already have entrenchments at that level and have received the earlier message.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

Is there a chance that someone could check the supply ranger ability. It is not working correctly in 1.13b and I don't wish to install a beta patch. Be sure that the stack is in a wild area!

Many thanks!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Sounds like that's a carryover item from code intended for VgN. AACW does not support upgrading fortification levels. Again, Pocus, will have to check into that type of carryover error and disable it for AACW.

Entrenchment level messages and the events triggering them are not related to the "fortification levels". The message you are receiving in error has to do with fort structures not entrenchments.

Gray, I'm sorry my feedback was worded poorly, I should have only used the term entrenchment and not fortification. This is an issue I had a couple of weeks ago so it was not fresh in my mind. Specifically what I am seeing refers to this:

9.) Slightly modified the starting entrenchment levels values for 1861 to bring the scenarios into similar starting levels as Clovis' MOD. Subsequently the 1861 scenarios start with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 3 and the 1862 Campaign scenario now starts at 4. The scripted events were slightly adjusted to accomodate this change.

1861 April Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 3
1861 July Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 3
1862 Campaign - starts with MaxEntrenchLevel set to 4
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 4
---- with a definite increase to 4 in Jan 1862

What I was trying to say was the "MaxEntrenchLevel" mailbox message is reported on the turn the level increases (if it does) in 1861. Then it is reported in the mailbox again on the Jan 1862 turn, whether it has fired previously or not. So I had units sitting in level 4 entrenchments after which I got the message in Jan 1862 that the entrench level had increased to 4.

Hope that makes it more clear, I don't have a save right now.

[W.Barksdale]

Sorry, you'll have to furnish more details...

Specifically, what is not "correct" about it? To be honest, I'm juggling several projects at once and I don't have the time to test for the differences, since you obviously are famiiliar with it, please save me the time and post a more descriptive bug report, so I can more quickly check into it.

Thanks.

I didn't mean you specifically Gray! I know you are busy!

The ability says that it should reduce supply consumption of the stack that the unit is in by 15% when in wild areas. When said unit is in the stack the tooltip does not show a 15% reduction in supply consumption.

It's a trait given to the Native American units given to the CSA. Others may have it too though.

Is it possible that consumption is indeed reduced by 15% but the tooltip is not accurate?

Can anyone with the beta patch installed verify? I will be indebted as this may be the final patch and I hope everything can be fixed!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

Load up CSA and look at Ft. Smith, Arkansas. Stand Watie's Native Warriors have the supply ranger ability, however, when combined into the infantry stack the tooltip does not indicate a 15% reduction in general supply consumption.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

I'm looking at it right now.

From your previous experience, what/where are you expecting it to indicate something. (In other words, I don't recall what this was supposed to display, sorry). Hard to troubleshoot/rework something if I don't know what needs to be done. Sorry.

Well shouldn't there be a 15% reduction in supply consumption for the whole stack? Smith, AR has civilsation level wild so the conditions are satisfied.

However, hovering the mouse over the supply usage for the combined stacks just sums up both stacks supply usage as if no unit had supply ranger.

In this particular example, alone Hindman's infantry command uses 12 supply\turn. Stand Watie's Warriors use 3. After combining the two stacks into one the supply usage is 15. Should not the supply ranger ability reduce the usage of the stack to 12 or 13?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

I'm not 100% positive of this, but it seems to me Stand Watie stack's use of 3 already takes into account their reduced supply usage and being added into a common stack should indeed add up to 15. i.e. 12 + 3 =15 which is what is being displayed.

I'm pretty sure the ability is applicable only for the individual elements which possess it, not for the whole stack, especially since the ability is assigned to the individual Indian units/models and not to the leader (Stand Watie).

Also, you imply that it's applicable for $Wild regions, but the parameters indicate that it's applicable in:

$Mountain|$Wilderness|$Swamp|$Wood|$Forest terrains

Nothing said about $Wild at all in the parameters. This ability has not been edited nor changed since 6/7/2007, btw.

In summary, I suspect it's WAD in both v1.13b and v1.14. (Note I said suspect), LOL.

The tooltip description of 'Supply Ranger' is as follows:
15% reduction in supply consumption in wild areas to the whole stack this general is in

Could you double check this is an accurate description of what the ability is supposed to do? To me it sounds like it should apply to the whole stack.

Also when it says wild I think it may mean civilization level: Wild (as opposed to Cleared, or Civilizaed) rather then the terrain type. EDIT: Since they still consume the same amount of supply in Clear terrain...

If the description turns out to be misleading could we get clarification as what the ability really does? And maybe fix the tooltip?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[hattrick]

If General Bee's unit suffered unusually high losses in the battle without inflicting similar losses, he can lose seniority points even though the battle is won. He doesn't even have to lose any elements, although that is the fastest way for seniority to change.

Enf91,

I have checked Bee's Corps and it appears you are right, his Corps received over 40% casualties and his cohesion is down to 29/97. He was badly beaten up. If this is WAD then its something I was not aware of and in that case the only bug that is in my message was that General Bee didnt appear as a two star in the battle report.