New official 1.14 patch

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

...

A little new here, but to make sure units = elements? And do the 2 regions include Richmond area? Like would it have to be in a area like New Kent or will Williamsburg count?

For everyone's clarification, if you re-read the documentation, AGEOD is clear on this terminology: an element is a sub-unit and a sub-unit is an element.

Therefore, the use of the term 'unit' implies that which is a level higher than an element or sub-unit. Armies, Corps, Divisions and Brigades all may be referred to as a unit. Regiments and their kind, which comprise Brigades and associated formations, are elements, i. e., sub-units.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted - obsolete

[Colonel Dreux]

Here's the change listing so far for the next release of the QuickFix1a. (1a because it corrects earlier rework dates to even better dates... I hope).

Good stuff. Looks good. I've actually never seen Marmaduke in a game yet.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted - reposting

[Vegetius]

Great job boys, Ageod is team number one !

May i only regret that Foreign Intervention is still so hard to gain ? May i suggest to increase the chance to get 1 FI point by leading in NM and VP to 75% ?

And why the French Intervention in Mexico give a -10 to FI, i think it could be the contrary...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

Playing the April 1861 GC with the Kentucky option as the Union. I have been able to occupy the regions surrounding Nashville, Charlottesville and Richmond. It has been several months and the regions are all under 100% Union MC, but the CSA forces are not being reduced due to their supplies being cut. Is this WAD?

I have the game turn in a rar file (9.64MB) and can send it if you tell me where. Thanks

[Gray_Lensman]

<deleted>

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

Do the CSA forces retain possession of Nashville, Charlottesville and Richmond? If so, they are probably getting some supply from those cities themselves. If not, you can post the saved game files, but you'll have to reduce the overall size of the zipped save files by going thru the file and all sub-folders for that specific saved game and DELETING the relatively huge .rpl files. We don't need them. (or go into your .rar file and get rid of them by deleting them specifically)

Yes the CSA retain possession of Nashville, Charlottesville and Richmond. However, the forces defending these cities are too large, IMHO, to be supplied solely from the cities/regions themselves.

Richmond has 22 units with a PWR of 2,769.
Nashville's forces have a PWR of 1,627.
Charlottesville's forces have a PWR of 804.

Is this WAD or should I post the save game?

[arsan]

Hi Le Ricain

Do you mean you have those cities under siege or those regions surrounded by regions controlled by you??
If the later, for what i know each region generates a certain amount of supply independently of the surrounding ones.
In the case or big cities like Richmond or Nashville i guess its high enough to supply quite a garrison, specially if it has a depot which can stockpile lots of supply. Not enough for the whole ANV but enough for some divisions.
Probably its not 100% historic (even if the regions are quite big and include large rural areas) but i woudl say its WAD (until a future AACW2 maybe )

Its also possible that the units supply is declining slowly (like, they need 100 per turn, the region provide 75 each turn and they have a stockpile of 500: you will need 20 turns before they start to starve :blink

Cheers

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bburns9]

Gray - I was just running through the game with the latest QF for the changes in appearance for some generals and may have found an issue. I set the AI to inactive and just click next turn and cycle through the game verifying date and location of appearance. I did the Union first (verifying Schurz, which isn't fixed to Late April 1862, it's still via the event (I'm guessing WAD), I'm assuming between 4/1862 and 6/1862 as was the previous). Then I switched over to the CSA to verify Winder & Taliaferro (both to appear with Jackson), but they don't show up. Apparently while doing the Union, Jackson and his force in Shenadoah starved and Jackson was no longer on the roster for the CSA, so neither general showed up in the game (or at least through Sept 1862 when I stopped). That may be WAD, but I just wanted to confirm. Because that essentially means if you lose a general like that (Buell on the Union side gets McCook and Rousseau), you lose everyone else associated with him. I'm attaching the game files (minus the replay files) if you want to investigate.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bburns9]

Yes, WAD, Jackson personally promoted Winder, bypassing several other brig-generals in the process and Taliaferro succeeded Winder, when Winder was killed. You have discovered a rare sequence of events to have Jackson dead before either Winder or Taliaferro make their appearance. (I did not tie Taliaferro's appearance to Winder's death however, though I used that date for Taliaferro's appearance.) This event sequence was modeled after the Grant/Sherman event design relationship (from before I had anything to do with reworking the database files.) I had thoughts about changing these events, but decided the rare combination of events offered some non-historical flavor if by a rare combination of events you allow certain high command leaders to die prematurely fo rwhatever reason.

Works for me. I wasn't aware of the relationship so I can certainly see the logic. Ran through a new one (making sure to feed Jackson and his boys) and everyone showed up as advertised.

BB

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

I am thinking about adding some sub-events to maybe randomize these non-historic flavor events. For instance, at the moment the other player positively KNOWS if he manages to corner and destroy an HVA (high value asset) he'll positively cause a certain chain of events. If I added randomization such as a 50% chance of a leader showing up elsewhere even though the original event did not fire, it would add some more random non-historic flavor to the game wouldn't it?

Feedback everyone?

I'm of the opinion that it is kind of strange to have an event where because one general is killed, others don't become division generals. The pool of generals shouldn't be affected by one guy's death in my opinion.

So the more random or less likely to happen, if at all, the better.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bburns9]

I'm of the opinion that it is kind of strange to have an event where because one general is killed, others don't become division generals. The pool of generals shouldn't be affected by one guy's death in my opinion.

So the more random or less likely to happen, if at all, the better.

I tend to disagree slightly. I'm not an expert on civil war generals but from what I've read, certain higher seniority generals had significant input on the careers of others (Fitzjohn Porter & McClellan comes to mind). With the new McClellan/McDowell event (which I'm a big fan of btw), if McClellan doesn't get appointed to AoP, I wonder if F. Porter should enter the game (or maybe at a later date)? This becomes a game of what ifs, and no one can predict what would have happened if one thing happened and another didn't.

What I would really like to see (but is not possible with the current design from my extremely limited knowledge) is all of the Brigadier generals in the game at the start with a proper seniority. I.e. Hancock was a BG in 9/1861 but didn't get divisional command until 9/17/62. This would require higher NM and VP costs for forming a division with a lower seniority leader, but that puts the options out there for the player.

So my long answer to a simple question is Yes Gray, I like the idea.

Sorry for my rambling. Maybe a few beers too many.

BB

[Colonel Dreux]

I tend to disagree slightly. I'm not an expert on civil war generals but from what I've read, certain higher seniority generals had significant input on the careers of others (Fitzjohn Porter & McClellan comes to mind). With the new McClellan/McDowell event (which I'm a big fan of btw), if McClellan doesn't get appointed to AoP, I wonder if F. Porter should enter the game (or maybe at a later date)? This becomes a game of what ifs, and no one can predict what would have happened if one thing happened and another didn't.

What I would really like to see (but is not possible with the current design from my extremely limited knowledge) is all of the Brigadier generals in the game at the start with a proper seniority. I.e. Hancock was a BG in 9/1861 but didn't get divisional command until 9/17/62. This would require higher NM and VP costs for forming a division with a lower seniority leader, but that puts the options out there for the player.

So my long answer to a simple question is Yes Gray, I like the idea.

Sorry for my rambling. Maybe a few beers too many.

BB

The problem with this though is seniority. Yes, every general had their friends and favorites, but if Lincoln, Davis, or the commanding general said put this guy in charge, the guy was put in charge. They followed seniority, etc...

Taliaferro for example was not Jackson's friend. They didn't get along very well and he was simply the next guy in seniority behind Winder. Then once he recovered from his wounds in the Second Manassas campaign, he was sent down to Savannah and Charleston and led the forces in that district.

Jackson had nothing to do with any of that, and if Jackson had been killed Taliaferro would have still been in line to take command of the division if Winder was killed or wounded.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ShovelHead]

Some correspondence on the promotion/assignment process;

O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 5 [S# 5]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating Specially To Operations In Maryland, Northern Virginia, And West Virginia From August 1, 1861, To March 17, 1862.
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#6

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
Centreville, February 2, 1862.
General S. COOPER, Adjutant and Inspector General:
...Several of the colonels of this army are well qualified to be brigadier. generals. Besides Cols. A. P. Hill and Forney, whom I have mentioned before, Colonels Hampton, Winder, Garland, and Mott are fully competent to command brigades.
Host respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. E. JOHNSTON,

O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 7 [S# 7]
CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, NORTHERN ALABAMA, AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA FROM NOVEMBER 19, 1861, TO MARCH 4, 1862.
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. --5

General G. T. BEAUREGARD, Jackson, Tenn.:
...The President has nominated to-day as brigadier-general Adjutant-General Mackall. He was not willing to raise him at once to the rank of major-general. Several others of the officers recommended by you have been nominated, as, for instance, Col. A. P. Hill, Colonel Winder, Colonel Stevenson; but General J. E. Johnston is so reluctant to allow any of his officers to be withdrawn from his command that I scarcely know who can be sent to you.
Your telegraphic recommendation of Colonel Gantt was received, but not acceded to, as we were aware you did not know the officer personally, and others were presented who appeared to possess higher merit. Colonel Churchill, of Arkansas, has been nominated, but is not, I fear, in your command. In order to insure you such general officers as you need it is thought best to wait until you get your re-enforcements from General Bragg, and then that you, with Generals Bragg and Polk, select from your own command your most promising officers, so as to avoid the bad feeling that always seems to attend the withdrawal of officers from one command to another.
I am, your obedient servant,
J.P. BENJAMIN,
Secretary of War.
-----

GENERAL ORDERS No. 35.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
Rapidan, March 25, 1862.
I. Brig. Gen. Charles S. Winder, Provisional Army of the Confederate States, is assigned to the command of the brigade now commanded by Col. George B. Anderson.
II. Brig. Gen. D. H. Hill is assigned to the command of the division now acting under his orders.
By command of General Johnston:
THOS. G. RHETT,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

[Colonel Dreux]

Not rambling to me... I call it idea "tossing" ... but some good ideas sometimes come out of the process.

I have no sources as to which Brig. General's are senior to which others except for rare recorded instances. Winder happened to be one of those instances. It's a recorded fact that Stonewall's brigade did not take lightly to his being placed in command of them because they felt he didn't deserve it and it didn't help that he was a strict disciplinarian.

True, true... the Army of the Shenandoah was a mess the winter of '61-'62. Loring was obstinate. Taliaferro was prickly. Turner was a wild man and the Stonewall Brigade had their furloughs denied for the first time and didn't like they not being able to walk home when they wanted to. Jackson also tried to do too much and at a bad time, and was too quick to judge people like Garnett. Winder wasn't an ass, so Jackson liked him and could work with him.

Good subordinates seem to be the only kind of generals Jackson ever got along with. Lee was similar in this vain as well.

I just want to see all the generals in the game. If they get killed, they get killed, but just not showing up bothers me.

If you could have a turn on/turn off switch, that would work. It's not really a deal breaker kind of decision, but if I had to vote I'd say let them all show up at some point.

I always replayed the games whenever Sterling Price wouldn't show up. I wanted him there and in real life he'd have been there because he was a leading man in Missouri, with a big ego.

It does make the game dicier, which is interesting though.

[cptcav]

Do the Missouri Militia units built for the CSA indicate that the are from Delaware for anyone else? Or, is it just me?

Regards,
CptCav

[Le Ricain]

Exactly... This is why I can't/won't say if it's WAD unless I'm given more information or the the saved game files are posted here by getting rid of the .rpl files. If the saved game file is still too large, then get rid of some of the larger numbered Backup folders. In reality the most I would need would be the main saved game files and those in the .../Backup1 subfolder.

I absolutely do not give my other email links for these types of uploads since they tend to overload up my email server.

Another saved game posting solution is to register to use http://www.mediafire.com. It's free and you can upload files up to 100 MBytes in size then post the download link.

Arsan & Gray,

The situation is as you described it, Arsan. The CSA forces are being supplied solely by the regions they are in. If this is WAD, then I will not bother stripping out files and posting my saved game.

Thanks for the tip on using mediafire.

[arsan]

Arsan & Gray,

The situation is as you described it, Arsan. The CSA forces are being supplied solely by the regions they are in. If this is WAD, then I will not bother stripping out files and posting my saved game.

Thanks for the tip on using mediafire.

Hi!

In the case of Richmond, being the capital an a big city, i bet several divisiosn can be feed there permanently by the supply produced there plus the stockpiled on his depot.
Nashville is a little different: it does not create so much supply (maybe enough for one division, but can have stored up a lot on his depot before being surrounded.
Charlottesville is probably the best place to check if its WAD or not.
It can't produce much supply ans it doesn't have a depot (at least at game starts). So eventually the units there should starve. But how soon depends of the stockpile.
You can see the supply each region produces each turn by pointing the mouse on it and looking at the blackboard on the top of the screen.

And can make a gross deduction of how many supply his force need by looking at the supply tooltip of one of your stacks with similar size.

Or better still, if you are playing single play load up as the enemy and check his supply status and needs and the production and stockpiled supply at the region to see if its being drained or not.
It may be a bug... or it may be just WAD
Cheers

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Foreign Intervention is hard to gain because in reality there was not much of a chance for it.

If the book Lincoln and His Admirals is a viable source of information in this regard, the closest that FI ever came to triggering in real life was following the Trent affair. Lincoln played his cards right and gave the Brits the "saving face" out they wanted. The Brits didn't want to be seen as lending support for slavery by taking sides with the CSA. At least according to this particular book.

[Le Ricain]

Hi!

In the case of Richmond, being the capital an a big city, i bet several divisiosn can be feed there permanently by the supply produced there plus the stockpiled on his depot.
Nashville is a little different: it does not create so much supply (maybe enough for one division, but can have stored up a lot on his depot before being surrounded.
Charlottesville is probably the best place to check if its WAD or not.
It can't produce much supply ans it doesn't have a depot (at least at game starts). So eventually the units there should starve. But how soon depends of the stockpile.
You can see the supply each region produces each turn by pointing the mouse on it and looking at the blackboard on the top of the screen.

And can make a gross deduction of how many supply his force need by looking at the supply tooltip of one of your stacks with similar size.

Or better still, if you are playing single play load up as the enemy and check his supply status and needs and the production and stockpiled supply at the region to see if its being drained or not.
It may be a bug... or it may be just WAD
Cheers

Loading up as the CSA shows that the AI has stockpiled supplies.

Richmond:
In stock: 1,484
Consumed: 201 per turn
Produced: 17 per turn

Charlottesville:
In stock: 589
Consumed: 57 per turn

Nashvile:
In stock: 574
Consumed: 110 per turn
Produced: 2 per turn

[arsan]

Loading up as the CSA shows that the AI has stockpiled supplies.

Richmond:
In stock: 1,484
Consumed: 201 per turn
Produced: 17 per turn

Charlottesville:
In stock: 589
Consumed: 57 per turn

Nashvile:
In stock: 574
Consumed: 110 per turn
Produced: 2 per turn

hi!
The 17 produced at Richmond and 2 at Nashville are normal supplies?? they look like very few.
I woudl suppose Richmond will produce more than a 100 per turn.
Maybe you have mistaken the regular supply (food) with war supplies (which 17 and 2 looks like a good number) used to buy new units??
Even Charlottesville should produce normal supplies (but zero WS).
According to the stockpiled supplies it looks like it will take a while until they starve
Cheers!