Aren't those 2 companies each with 100 men?
So 200 out of 450 sounds OK.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club
-
richfed
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
- Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
- Contact: Website
richfed wrote:... in the Mailbox, the 1863 event that fires promoting a General in the Mexican Expeditionary force still reads: evt_nam_CSA_BazainePromoted1863
This was fixed, but I think that perhaps it was somehow left out or overwritten in the last beta ... It is back!
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]
-
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?
You speak of the AGE strings, not the AACW strings, right?
Another manner to proceed is to add in a new file the strings you want to add or change in the AGE strings, and I add these into the main file.
Another manner to proceed is to add in a new file the strings you want to add or change in the AGE strings, and I add these into the main file.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
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?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Carrington
- Captain
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am
-
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?
-
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?
Couple of problems from latest pbm game
Started a new pbm game using v1.16b6 patch and the quickfix3a patch. Couple of observations so far.
The quickfix v1.16 3a patch actually is described as v1.14 quickfix 5 when you run it. Is this quickfix correct ( ie is it just the description that is wrong) ?
USA just won a battle - message reports 2000 prisoners. The enemy was only a single militia unit and the F9 report correctly shows just 200 prisoners. Looks like the message report is 10x the correct number of prisoners. screens attached.
The quickfix v1.16 3a patch actually is described as v1.14 quickfix 5 when you run it. Is this quickfix correct ( ie is it just the description that is wrong) ?
USA just won a battle - message reports 2000 prisoners. The enemy was only a single militia unit and the F9 report correctly shows just 200 prisoners. Looks like the message report is 10x the correct number of prisoners. screens attached.
- Attachments
-
-
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Observation on building times in latest pbm game
Using v1.16b6 beta patch plus latest quickfix.
I have been playing the game since the initial release version and it seems that building times for all units have been reduced in the latest patches. This is especially noticeable for ships and artillery - you seem to be able to order them and 1 or maybe 2 turns later they are ready. This is most unrealistic ( building large ships in 30 days or training artillerymen in the same period ??? ). The unit building times used to be longer and more realistic - why was this changed ?
I have been playing the game since the initial release version and it seems that building times for all units have been reduced in the latest patches. This is especially noticeable for ships and artillery - you seem to be able to order them and 1 or maybe 2 turns later they are ready. This is most unrealistic ( building large ships in 30 days or training artillerymen in the same period ??? ). The unit building times used to be longer and more realistic - why was this changed ?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Battle results in latest beta
Using v1.16b6 beta patch plus latest quickfix.
pbm game. union attacked lee at richmond - lost the battle and retreated although they did inflict heavier losses and destroyed several csa elements. The message report indicated the union LOST 4 national morale points in fact they GAINED 4 national morale points. The message logs also indicate that a host of union generals were promoted after the battle.
I have seen on many occasions these odd national morale movements after battles. The loser has inflicted heavier losses on the winner but is forced to retreat. The winner losses a lot of elements but the national morale loss message refers to the loser. In fact the national morale loss is applied to the battle winner. Clear as mud ?? Couple of game screens attached to show this.
pbm game. union attacked lee at richmond - lost the battle and retreated although they did inflict heavier losses and destroyed several csa elements. The message report indicated the union LOST 4 national morale points in fact they GAINED 4 national morale points. The message logs also indicate that a host of union generals were promoted after the battle.
I have seen on many occasions these odd national morale movements after battles. The loser has inflicted heavier losses on the winner but is forced to retreat. The winner losses a lot of elements but the national morale loss message refers to the loser. In fact the national morale loss is applied to the battle winner. Clear as mud ?? Couple of game screens attached to show this.
- Attachments
-
-
Missing distant unload feature feature
I note that various ageod games seem to use the same or similar game engines. The distant unload feature is a really useful option in BOA2 Wars in America - is it practical/cost effective to refit this option to the american civil war game ? I have always found it very hard to make successful naval landings in this game because of the lack of surprise ( ie spend one turn at sea off the landing zone and only in the next turn can you move your troops to attack the land zone). This gives your opponent plenty of time to move up troops by rail to oppose the landing.
-
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?
I'm unsure what's going on with these reversed NM/VP gains... I would need a save, backup1, name of event that is firing and what he should do to pinpoint the exact problem.
Gray, I requested you your latest quickfixes changes without the EXE installer, can you forward the files please?
Gray, I requested you your latest quickfixes changes without the EXE installer, can you forward the files please?
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
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 “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests