User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:23 pm

richfed wrote:Has anyone else experienced this phenomenon?


Yep, and Pocus' post confirms it. In a current pbem game with most recent patch I see that it will take at least 150 days/21+ weeks for a Union Army HQ to be ready. Haven't built any militia yet, but 25 days seems a reasonable amount of time to raise, "train" and outfit some militia - though I am ill informed about how such things actually worked in 1861, FWIW.

This change in unit availability rate will require more careful planning ahead and handling starting forces a bit more cautiously.
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:39 am

deleted

User avatar
Krec
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:42 am
Location: SF Bay Area
Contact: ICQ

Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:42 am

Sounds good, me likey!!

richfed
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:51 pm

Pocus wrote:As for the build speed I doubled it, the calculation is now different. Now you'll recover when being built 2% of your MaxCohesion per day, for a BR of 100 and you are 'unlocked' at 50% cohesion for land units. It means that Militia will be unlocked after 25 days, not 50.


If I'm reading this correctly, you have made an adjustment since I last posted this observation? Is it possible we could get the .exe file with this update as a quick fix download?
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:03 pm

deleted

von Sachsen
Captain
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:52 pm

Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:28 am

This is something of a request, but can you make it easier for leaders to lose seniority in defeats? I rarely if ever see it happen. For example, in my current game I sent Fremont at the head of the AOP to charge Manassas. The conferderate army showed up and the army lost 18k men to the south's 10k. Not one of my generals lost seniority. If that had really happened, they would most likely have ended up with their political head on a pike. (No chit losses though, that could affect things, but even with it, seniority losses are rare.) I completly understand if there is no time for a change, but it would be greatly appreciated.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:31 am

deleted

richfed
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:36 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:No more time for me to make Quickfixes, you'll have to wait for Pocus. (see post #381} above)

_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.


I was aware of that, Gray. I was addressing this to Pocus in hopes he could possibly post the new .exe file that includes the sped-up build times, if, indeed, it is the .exe that has those in it. I have no idea. I just play! :neener:
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm

deleted

richfed
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:16 pm

I am confused then. Pocus says he has sped up the build times. Militia to 25 days; one+ turns. Using the most recent downloads, militia can take 3 turns. If the issue is "fixed," can we get the updated files? Is this WAD? Is there a change to come? Has this beta been abandoned? Should I revert to the legacy patch? :) Am I being a pain? :)

Happy Thanksgiving!!
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:11 pm

richfed wrote:I am confused then. Pocus says he has sped up the build times. Militia to 25 days; one+ turns. Using the most recent downloads, militia can take 3 turns. If the issue is "fixed," can we get the updated files? Is this WAD? Is there a change to come? Has this beta been abandoned? Should I revert to the legacy patch? :) Am I being a pain? :)

Happy Thanksgiving!!


I share your pain... :D

Without wanting to pressure anyone, is there any realistic ETA for the definite, official 1.16 patch ?

Regards

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:51 pm

Definite until the next? Seriously I can give you in on mn an updated EXE, but what also slow me down is this whole 'assemble patch again and again' thing for the 4 games. I'm considering providing in a single archive the 4 EXE once per week and that's it, so I can concentrate on VGN.

Also, has bugs are often reported, the official patch is always postponed...
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Rasher
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:59 am

Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:59 am

Hi Pocus

All due respect to you, ever thought of clearing up the remaining small ammount of fix's that are still reported in the game and making this 1.16 patch once and for all then declare that support for the game is over. This way you wont annoy everyone who payed money for the game only for you to leave it in limbo so as to concentrate on more games. I mean you either support the game or you don't?

Sorry but I have been waiting so long to play this game as a finally patched product. I don't think its fair to abandon it with attitude as your last post reflects. realise the final patch and that will be that. :thumbsup:

Cue the wrath of Gray & Pocus :bonk:

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:04 am

deleted

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:57 am

Rasher wrote:Cue the wrath of Gray & Pocus :bonk:

This is hardly the way to invite to a respectful, productive discussion about the matter at hand, is it? :eyebrow:
Rasher wrote:This way you wont annoy everyone who payed money for the game only for you to leave it in limbo so as to concentrate on more games. I mean you either support the game or you don't?

Sorry but I have been waiting so long to play this game as a finally patched product. I don't think its fair to abandon it with attitude as your last post reflects. realise the final patch and that will be that. :thumbsup:

As Gray is saying, you always have the option of using the last regular patch. The game is quite polished in that state, and I'm quite sure you'll be able to have hours and hours of enjoyment with it, your money's worth for sure :)

I have to say that I consider it to be quite unfair to say that when AACW even now, over three years after its release, is supported and improved (albeit more intermittently now than previously) as "abandoning it and leaving the game in limbo".

Also, "supporting a game" is not a black-and-white thing. It's not a binary "do or don't"; there are considerations and degrees in every aspect of it. is the report a serious bug, or more of a cosmetic one? is it something that is more an expression of player preference? How much time do we have to spend on this, i.e. how do we need to prioritize among the issues at hand? Where do we draw the line?

In short, though I understand your frustration over not seeing a finalized patch, I do think it would help to have a more nuanced view of the situation :)
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:24 am

What I meant is that I can finalize the patch and say it is official, but what I also know is given the size of the code base and the complexity of the engine, new bugs are bound to be found...

There is an overhead involved in continuously patching the games with comprehensive patches. What would work for me is that I only send the main executables, as I don't fiddle with data generally, and people are welcome to mod them in any case.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:02 pm

deleted

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:19 pm

We all know that AACW is an old game (but is your most successful and best game so far, IMHO), 1.15 is a stable patch, and it was even supposed to be final (it was released more than a year now). The decision was made, nevertheless, to make a new patch, and now you guys have to live with it.
Either you keep it perpetually in a beta state (Lots of games are left forever with "beta" patches, we all know that), but that does not give really a good image to new customers to your new games (and that, righteously, is/should be your main concern), or you wrap it up and call it quits.

Either way, it's your call - and IMHO the time to do it.

Regards from a loyal supporter (downloading the full RUS as we speak, BTW :D although I am also still waiting for 1.03 RoP, but that's another story - or is it ? ;) )

richfed
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:09 pm

There are just a few things that need fixing in this beta ... off the top of my head the 3 main things are the build times issues, the signature not appearing [a flag, instead] in the political options, and the stack name issues, particularly as they relate to tabs [all non-divisions - and up - are called CSA force, as an example, even if a General is in the stack]. The game itself seems very stable.

My preference, and hope, is that you finish this project up.

Then, I look forward to VGN!!!
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:15 pm

Pocus wrote:That's come from a clean up on the naming conventions. I could certainly twist the code to maintain AACW 'as is' but as it don't involve much work in the faction files, perhaps that Gray can do it. Basically, the old data named LeaderForce = $fac_LeaderForce should be replaced by Leader1Force, Leader2Force, Leader3Force, and there must be a ¤ within it to leave room for the leader name. The good thing is that depending of the rank of the leader, the name can be different.



I can make these changes, but the AACW Databaser I just downloaded does not have a Factions excel file.... ;)

Is it out there somewhere, or should I create it?
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:25 pm

In fact all these items are fixed since a week or so on my side... So patch there will be today. Then Steve can take over maintainance if need be.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

richfed
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:34 pm

Awesome! Much thanks, Pocus ....
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]

Rasher
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:59 am

Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:41 pm

deleted - not contibutory towards beta testing.

User avatar
Farseer
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:12 pm

deleted - not contributory towards beta testing

Rasher
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:59 am

Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:49 pm

deleted - not contributory towards beta testing

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:27 pm

deleted

Rasher
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:59 am

Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:46 pm

No need for handbags at dawn Gray :)

I think the post was very relevant to the flavour of the thread. You may as well go ahead and delete the previous ten or so posts as well then?

Rasher

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:02 pm

deleted

Rasher
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:59 am

Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:16 pm

Thanks for your speedy response Gray

I hardly think it was disruptive Gray :) It was 2 people expressing an opinion, both of which you supressed. There is enough supression and agression in the world at the mo don't you think :(

Anyway's, are we to see a new patch finalised soon or? :)

No harm inteneded and thanks again for your hard work Gray, Pocus and the rest. Cheers

Rasher

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:18 pm

deleted

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest