New official 1.14 patch

[Big Muddy]

I have two Blenker's, as of the moment I have 1 Hunter but expect another (no big deal), but what happened to Hurlbut? I've reached Sept 61' and he hasn't showed up in Chicago, I checked the roster and he's not there, what gives?

[enf91]

Is there a way I can download the original 1.14 patch? I got a new computer and the PBEM I'm playing uses that version.

[Captain_Orso]

I have two Blenker's, as of the moment I have 1 Hunter but expect another (no big deal), but what happened to Hurlbut? I've reached Sept 61' and he hasn't showed up in Chicago, I checked the roster and he's not there, what gives?

No Hurlbut? Celebrate! Hurlbut is a mediocre leader and his picture looks like an old woman. I try to avoid using him just so I don't have to look at his pic.

[enf91]

Isn't Hurlbut one of the generals who spawns on the first turn in Washington? It's McClernand who shows up in IL.

[Big Muddy]

Isn't Hurlbut one of the generals who spawns on the first turn in Washington? It's McClernand who shows up in IL.

He dosen't arrive in Washington on turn one, he arrives later in Chicago, or rather he should. As many times as I've done this I should know the date No big lose.

I did get my second Schurz, If he arrives in NY with his calvary that'll be 3.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Big Muddy]

Anyone observing duplicate generals needs to post which specific scenario they are playing. i.e. 1861 April Campaign, 1861 July Campaign, etc. Duplicate generals problems are specific to individual scenarios and the reasons for the duplication(s) are hard to find.

If possible it also helps to post the exact turn that one or both copies of the general in question makes his appearance. (By "turn" I mean year/month early/late format and NOT the 1st, 2nd turn type of statements)

Both Blenker's appear in late April 61', sorry I didn't keep track when the Schurz's arrive. v1, 14c & quickfix3.

I do have have a question pertaining to "noCapture", does this only include cities, because I can capture Indian villages?

[Big Muddy]

I got my third Schurz w/calvary in 1862, late April, I have the other two protecting forts and I don't expect them to be see any action

I also have 2 Steinweir's, both arrive in Washington, 62' late July.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted (obsolete)

[Pocus]

*NoCapture* is kind like a subset of *Pillager*. Pillagers ... pillage and have restriction on capturing structures.

*NoCapture* use the same restriction, but don't pillage.

The restriction is set within each structure file with:
PillagerCanCapture = 1

Indian Village have it, so even elements with NoCapture can capture them. Cities don't have the boolean, so ... they are not captured.

Hope it helps.

[W.Barksdale]

Game Balance scenario(s) testing experiment:

For the 1861 campaign -KY scenario(s) only, the draft options have been delayed until the date of their actual historical enactments.

For the CSA, the draft option (Partial and Full Mobilization) is enabled 1862/03/18 (1862 Late March).

For the USA, the draft option (Partial and Full Mobilization) is enabled 1863/03/03 (1863 Early March).

For both sides the Volunteer options are still available from the game start.

This may or may not restore some early game balance to the game in that the USA will have to spend more of his $ funds to buy more volunteers in order to keep up with the CSA 1862 volunteer recruitment + draft advantage for 1862. Once 1863 rolls around they'll both once again have the same volunteer recruitment + draft opportunities.

Your going to find out very quickly that this gives the CSA a decisive advantage. Even if the Federals do 3k volunteer bounties I'll bet CSA will have a larger army, which is not what your going for, I hope not anyway.

[enf91]

The difference is what, 3 divisions? Sure, it's a lot of soldiers, but the USA gets so many more units by event that, if anything, the CSA needs that edge to stay competitive. Look at Soundoff v Banks. With the drafts, Soundoff outnumbers Banks everywhere there is fighting: in North Carolina, Alabama, probably even in TN. Take away the draft options and Soundoff can't swarm Banks nearly as effectively or even at all.

[soundoff]

Your going to find out very quickly that this gives the CSA a decisive advantage.

+1

I also find myself agreeing with Manstein in another thread that in striving for 'historical accuracy' there is a real danger of losing sight of the fact that first and foremost AACW should be an enjoyable 'game'.


Edit just viewed the [font="Century Gothic"]Is there a missing CSA event [/font]thread. Consequently feel that the probing way of doing this alteration is correct ....wish the Corps/Division start dates had received such sympathetic consideration before introduction into the main campaign.

[W.Barksdale]

The difference is what, 3 divisions? Sure, it's a lot of soldiers, but the USA gets so many more units by event that, if anything, the CSA needs that edge to stay competitive. Look at Soundoff v Banks. With the drafts, Soundoff outnumbers Banks everywhere there is fighting: in North Carolina, Alabama, probably even in TN. Take away the draft options and Soundoff can't swarm Banks nearly as effectively or even at all.

You are referencing just one game. Any change that brings rebel troop numbers anywhere close to Federal troops numbers is not historical and will be detriment to play.

Gray:

If you want historic draft options you need also need to change the number of conscripts that calling for volunteers and drafts bring in. Only then will you get historical troop ratios between north and south.

Personally, it seems like a lot of work to do for such a minor thing. The game works fine with options that the devs had in place already. Besides, who is to say that there coulnd't have been a northern draft in 1861? Remember that the full campaign scenarios are pretty much 'what if' scenarios already.

[soundoff]

The difference is what, 3 divisions? Sure, it's a lot of soldiers, but the USA gets so many more units by event that, if anything, the CSA needs that edge to stay competitive. Look at Soundoff v Banks. With the drafts, Soundoff outnumbers Banks everywhere there is fighting: in North Carolina, Alabama, probably even in TN. Take away the draft options and Soundoff can't swarm Banks nearly as effectively or even at all.

Now I accept this might not be at all accurate...but its the best I can come up with and if anywhere close to the reality then the edge I have over Banks is totally historic.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/armysize.htm


Edit My previous post must have co-insided with that of enf91's as I should also have added....just look at the respective losses to date in my game against Banks. For every 3 I've lost Banks has lost 4. There's so much more going on in our game than cannot be explained by simply saying its down to the draft options.

[Banks6060]

Yeah...while I think a rework of the draft options provides some nice historical flare. I just don't think it will add to the game....quite the contrary.

The comparison of Confederate to Union army sizes, at least using mind and Soundoff's game as a guidepost...ends up being just about right if you use what the devs had in place to begin with. You just have to use it right.

If you think about it....In early 1862....I had around 80 or 90 thousand total troops in the field in Virginia...about as many as the south every had historically at any one time.

In the west...I had around 50 thousand or so. If you take into account all the various garrisons here and there...I had probably close to 180,000 or so thousand total troops on the map. While that's pretty well short of actual numbers of Confederate service men...it's close enough for me. I think it about matches what the Confederate army could field at any given time throughout the war.

[enf91]

Yeah, but in real life some people had only temporary enlistments and went home. The current game engine doesn't represent this.

[Nikel]

Is there a way I can download the original 1.14 patch? I got a new computer and the PBEM I'm playing uses that version.

Look here

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/americancivilwartheblueandthegray/patch/32441.html

[W.Barksdale]

Yeah, but in real life some people had only temporary enlistments and went home. The current game engine doesn't represent this.

I don't think the simulation loses anything by not modelling this. Something like this may add to flavour, however, it would be a nightmare for us players.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

Your going to find out very quickly that this gives the CSA a decisive advantage. Even if the Federals do 3k volunteer bounties I'll bet CSA will have a larger army, which is not what your going for, I hope not anyway.

That is a subjective guess, but I'm curious to see reality. Of course the goal isn't for the CSA to have a larger army. But somehow the army sizes have to be controlled. Seems like a good start toward improving this.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

...USS Alexander McCook primarily with Don Carlos Buell, secondary at Cincinatti (Clermont, OH), alternates at OH, IN, IL in that order.
...USS L. Rousseau primarily with Don Carlos Buell, secondary at Cincinatti (Clermont, OH), alternates at OH, IN, IL in that order.

Will the database have a corruption if Cincinnati is spelled as above in some areas of the database files but not in others? (No pedantry intended; just trying to avoid a crash, etc.)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

Even though we know this playstyle issue exists, we won't allow it to stiffle further game improvements especially since all the "oldsters" have to do is NOT upgrade beyond the version of the game that they are quite happy with.

+1

[Big Muddy]

Big Muddy:

I tested the 1861 April Scenario extensively last night for dual Blenkers and then checked the database files. I could not get a second Blenker appearance and now you are pointing out multiple Shurz's and Steinweir's AND there are no other reports from other gamers. Sorry, but I highly suspect you have a corrupted installation. In order for multiple copies of leaders to appear there has to be more than one place in the database for them to be introduced. From 1861 thru 1862, the only way Blenker gets introduced is thru a single event "61 Generals". Once this event fires, it can't fire again if the installation was done correctly.. Also, the Quickfix has nothing to do with the "61 Generals" event in which Blenker is introduced. Finally, your saved game will retain these multiple copies of the leaders even if you reinstall the game, so the saved game will be corrupted also.

You'll probably have to uninstall/reinstall and start a new game to get rid of the problem.



Pocus would have to answer this. He designed the "game engine" code for the *NoCapture* attribute. All I did was assign the *NoCapture* attribute to the affected models' database entries.

Thanks for taking the time for checking this out. I made an extra copy and played off that. I use a couple of mods, that I believe one of them cause the problem for whatever reason. Playing w/mods, duplicate generals, without no problem.

He's were I'm confused, playing vanilla all of the generals start in washington, w/mods I don't get all of the same generals , humphey's, griffin for example. I do get hurlbut but not w/mods. Playing v1.14c/qf4 are all the generals supposed to start in washington? I don't have a problem w/duplicate's, I just use them to garrison forts anyway.


Again thanks for you're time

[MrT]

Even though we know this playstyle issue exists, we won't allow it to stiffle further game improvements especially since all the "oldsters" have to do is NOT upgrade beyond the version of the game that they are quite happy with.

If that was the case will Ageod provide older game versions for people to use, to ensure you can have the same version as you and your PBEM opponent would desire?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted