AACW (public beta) Patch 1.16 rc3 (November 30, 2010)

[Franciscus]

This has always been like this. The name in the brackets is always the name of the first regiment/brigade you select when adding units to the division. The same holds true if you just have a leader attached to a single brigade.

You'll notice a similar tool-tip when you look for intelligence on enemy stacks. If it's a division, even if you can't see the full strength you'll see the asterisk and the name of the brigade. If it's just a commanded brigade you'll see the brigade name and whatever strength you have detection enough to see.

I admit that I may be mistaken apy:, and it's been many months since I played AACW, but I would swear that this has not always been like this.

I reinstalled my 1.00 version, and at least back then it was NOT like this.

In the attached pics you see that a division is named after the commander (ie, Richard S. Ewell (R. Ewell's Division)), and a brigade too (ie, James E.B. Stuart (Stuart's Bde))

Later I will check and see how it was in 1.15

I do not know when this was changed. Gray_Lensman or lodilefty maybe could help

But nevertheless, even if not specific to 1.16, that's beside the point. Recent or old, the present system is useless, counter-intuitive and misleading. Why in a Division we need to know the name of the first brigade ? Why in a merged brigade we need the name of the commander twice with no mention that it is a Bde ?

At least for the newer games (RUS, ROP, PoN) this should be revised, IMHO

Regards

[soloswolf]

I admit that I may be mistaken apy:, and it's been many months since I played AACW, but I would swear that this has not always been like this.

I reinstalled my 1.00 version, and at least back then it was NOT like this.

In the attached pics you see that a division is named after the commander (ie, Richard S. Ewell (R. Ewell's Division)), and a brigade too (ie, James E.B. Stuart (Stuart's Bde))

Later I will check and see how it was in 1.15

I do not know when this was changed. Gray_Lensman or lodilefty maybe could help

But nevertheless, even if not specific to 1.16, that's beside the point. Recent or old, the present system is useless, counter-intuitive and misleading. Why in a Division we need to know the name of the first brigade ? Why in a merged brigade we need the name of the commander twice with no mention that it is a Bde ?

At least for the newer games (RUS, ROP, PoN) this should be revised, IMHO

Regards

It changed when they got rid of division HQs. I am quite sure that the reason it says that in the 1.00 version is that the leader was merged with the division HQ unit first, then the rest of the units were added to the container division. My point is, it has been around for a LONG time.

As far as it's usefulness, I have never had an issue determining my OOB. I also have found it an interesting facet of the game. I like to look at it from the role-playing perspective that the men in the division know they are bolstered by the Stonewall Bde. (or whatever Bde. it is) Further, I have found that it adds a bit of fun to PBEM games to change division composition around and mislead my opponent as to the threats he may be facing.

Essentially, it's been around forever and I think it would be a waste of time to change something cosmetic.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Well, it's official, I am getting old...

Definitely this "feature" is present also in 1.15, and as soloswolf stated, goes probably way back.

Nevertheless, guys, if a game's feature is counter-intuitive and goes against common wargame's rules, one may ask if:
a) it's wad
or
b) it's a bug (an old one, but a bug)

If it's wad, I may disagree with the designer's decision, and would like to hear Pocus word about this. I am not asking for changes in AACW, those times are gone, IMHO. But this manner of referring to Divisions and Brigades in the tooltips is also present in RUS (matbe in RoP, I didn't check) and maybe in PoN, and again IMHO should be revised.

If it's a bug, again, not in AACW, but in the newer games at least it should be corrected.

And please, don't talk to me about deception. FOW exists for this. What is the historical parallel of spotting an enemy brigade and reporting it as a lone general ? What is the use of spotting a Division and reporting the first (not the best, not the biggest, not the most famous, or even the front one) Brigade that the opposing player decided to merge with the Division commander ?

Pocus ?

[soloswolf]

And please, don't talk to me about deception. FOW exists for this. What is the historical parallel of spotting an enemy brigade and reporting it as a lone general ? What is the use of spotting a Division and reporting the first (not the best, not the biggest, not the most famous, or even the front one) Brigade that the opposing player decided to merge with the Division commander ?

Pocus ?

I'm not sure why it bothers you so much... Just look at all the info you have access to (power rating, the number and color of the dots on the icon, the OOB of the stack, etc.). You are getting way too hung up on a silly point (one that has literally existed for years).

[Franciscus]

At least we agree that it's "silly"

A bit more seriously:

My dear soloswolf: I thank you for pointing me that this is an old "feature", but I do not want to turn this into a personal argument between you and me. I am not "hung up" about this. This is just a game, and I assure you I have far too many RL issues to really worry about.

So, why do I care ?
Because Ageod's games have given me good hours of pleasure and I like these guys and want them to succeed. I have always tried to give small contributions to improve their games, ever since I began posting here, and that's simply what I am doing

So, why this point (force tooltip) ?
Because numerous and useful tooltips are a distinctive feature of Ageod's games. Yet, I think that force tooltips are broken and/or bugged in more ways than one, and this has also been felt by other players, in the newest Ageod game, RUS (check: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=194901#post194901). In the same vein, the issue of the messages about merging forces (also in RUS: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19629), although small, is IMHO a significant, "silly" issue that also merits to be corrected.

I am not asking for anything in AACW, in my mind AACW's development is finished. But I think it's fair to ask that improvements should be made in the newest Ageod games. I think that few things have to be "written in stone".

Nevertheless, I think I made my point sufficiently clear, and will stop here, waiting (specially in the RUS subforum) for a feedback from the devs, if/when they want to give it.

Best regards

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Thanks, Gray, for pointing me to those two interesting threads, that had previously passed "under my radar".

Nevertheless, I still fail to see the reasons/advantages, of substituting a system that gave us (if sufficient intel is available) the name of a division commander followed by the division name for one that gives us the first attached unit to that division (apart from some advantages in a deception game - put cav first to fool your enemy into thinking the div is weak, intimidate your enemy putting first your elite units - that has nothing to do with the actual historic Civil War, but may be good to win PBEM games, so I will always pass it - and I am pretty sure the AI does not play that sort of "game", and would also like to hear Pocus say if this is at all relevant to the way the AI builds her divisions), and especially why substitute a system that gave us the name of a Brigade commander followed by the brigade name for one that gives us twice the name of the commander (this for no apparent benefit, that I can see)

The more I think of it, the more I am beginnng to think that this is simply a long overlooked side effect of some error in some tooltip generator script somewhere...

[marecone]

In my current game I am close to the end of 1861. Rebel AI is close to perfection so far. No deep raids that drew me crazy in 1.15. AI even tried to brake my blue water blockade near Richmond. He is building troops and placing them at all the right places. Rebs even made an effort for recogniton wich I beleive I have never seen before.
Today or tommorow I will post a link here to AAR section where I will post few pics and my thoughts of new and improved AI. Clovis showed us in his svf mod that Athena always had this potential and now it is finally showing in original game.

[Pocus]

The more I think of it, the more I am beginnng to think that this is simply a long overlooked side effect of some error in some tooltip generator script somewhere...

That's more along these lines indeed. It is an overlooked side effect of another change. Now, is it desirable? I would tend to like as a player to see under brackets the name of the division and not the name of the first brigade of the division ... But I admit also that as of now I'm slightly busy with others more urgent tasks, so if it is changed, that won't be this week.

[Franciscus]

That's more along these lines indeed. It is an overlooked side effect of another change. Now, is it desirable? I would tend to like as a player to see under brackets the name of the division and not the name of the first brigade of the division ... But I admit also that as of now I'm slightly busy with others more urgent tasks, so if it is changed, that won't be this week.

"...that won't be this week." !!

My dear Pocus, you have my undying admiration

I am not even asking for changes in AACW; those, if/when they happen would be more like a bonus.
What I would suggest is that this may be corrected, if possible, in the newest (RUS) and future games.

You are the best

(BTW, AACW 1.16 is awesome, thanks. The AI is top !)

[GraniteStater]

I assume it displays ver 1.15? That's what I'm seeing; but earlier RCs for previous decimal releases showed 1.13rc2, for example.

Just being a nudge - thx.

UPDATE.

OK, apparently I needed to go another directory down, and saw the 30 Nov .exe. Fine.

But now I'm being prompted for a serial number - IIRC, I've never been prompted for my S/N on an RC or Patch before.

Let me guess - I have to find my disk - somewhere. When you have one wife, two stepdaughters and the occasional maid running around "improving" and "organizing" things, trying to keep your manstuff where you want it can be a whole module in Project Management.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[cwhomer]

Not a game breaker but mousing over John Dahlgren's Artillerist ability icon in the unit bar causes a CTD if you have his unit card open. After a little inspection, I found this:



I checked a couple other generals and admirals, doesn't seem to affect anyone else.

[GraniteStater]

If installed correctly it will display v1.16 rc3 on both the startup screen lower right corner and the credits.

edit > It does not require the serial number when applied as a patch. It sounds as if your installation is corrupted.
_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.

Thx, GL, I was getting quite confused.

OK, walk me thru something: the generic directory structure. It seems like if you just vanilla install the original, for example, you get C:/ProgFiles/AEGOD American Civil War. Under the last, there are subdirectories for .../ACW/.., etc.

I copied my 1.15 install by Copying all files & folders from just under C:/.../AEGOD Amer. Civ. War/. Then I ended up installing that set of files & folders in C:/.../AEGOD Amer. Civ. War/AACW 116 rc3/.

But the root under .../AACW 116 rc3/ shows an October executable for the program and the 30 Nov .exe is a directory down.

I must be frank & say that I have never understood why the vanilla directory structure is, err..so 'convoluted'. I assume is has to do with where you want to park libraries, ease of maintenance and updating, etc.

I shall run the patch again and specify an AACW 116 rc3 directory right under C:/ and see what happens, unless you, or other informed kind souls, wish to enlighten me.

Thx,
GS

UPDATE

All I did was just Copy the /AACW 116 rc3 folder and all elements and parked that right under C:/ProgFiles/. It launched and displayed the rc3 designation. Seems to be OK.

Thanks for all,
GS

[lodilefty]

Not a game breaker but mousing over John Dahlgren's Artillerist ability icon in the unit bar causes a CTD if you have his unit card open. After a little inspection, I found this:



I checked a couple other generals and admirals, doesn't seem to affect anyone else.

Known bug with this RC version. Model detail panel's new ability display seems to be the cause.

Fix in place already for today's WIA patch, other game patches in progress.

[bigus]

If your changing model attributes, could you change the ocean transports "Move type" to OceanMv? This would prevent ocean transports from moving up the Atchafalaya Bay and into the Mississippi through the Atchafalaya and Red river.

As per this thread.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=189479&postcount=13

[ATTACH]13968[/ATTACH]

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

I must have missed reading the link posted above but there are better ways to block movement into non-historical water routes than changing the movement type of the ships in the models. Changing the models movement types could have unintended consequences. It can be more specifically applied to the map or using Naval Interdiction JumpLinks.

I disagree!
I have not seen any unintended consequences by using the OceanMV for ocean transports.
What I get from your statement is that an ocean transport is meant to be able to travel through any water region which includes shallow rivers based on the movetype attributes in the Models file. I disagree with this. I think an ocean transport should be able to move through deep river, coastal and ocean regions only. Hence the OceanMV movetype.
This subject applies to any deep water vessel that is currently able to travel through shallow river regions.


Anyhow....

So far the RC is looking good.

[McNaughton]

I disagree!
I have not seen any unintended consequences by using the OceanMV for ocean transports.
What I get from your statement is that an ocean transport is meant to be able to travel through any water region which includes shallow rivers based on the movetype attributes in the Models file. I disagree with this. I think an ocean transport should be able to move through deep river, coastal and ocean regions only. Hence the OceanMV movetype.
This subject applies to any deep water vessel that is currently able to travel through shallow river regions.


Anyhow....

So far the RC is looking good.

I can forsee certain consequences due to limitations, such as certain ports, or construction zones, being outside of the intended ocean areas, resulting in either transports being unable to move into the port, or out of the port. Plus, I believe that there may be certain movement determined by class of warship as well. There are many little reasons as to why certain models were done so, some are based upon simplicity of model, which I believe that this is the reason for 'ocean' going tranpsorts to have such a limitation.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

I can forsee certain consequences due to limitations, such as certain ports, or construction zones, being outside of the intended ocean areas, resulting in either transports being unable to move into the port, or out of the port. Plus, I believe that there may be certain movement determined by class of warship as well. There are many little reasons as to why certain models were done so, some are based upon simplicity of model, which I believe that this is the reason for 'ocean' going tranpsorts to have such a limitation.

I'm not sure if I understand you fully McNaughton, but as for Ocean vessels being built, I've never seen an ocean vessel built in a shallow river port or harbor. The OceanMV movetype allows the vessel to travel in deep river, coastal and ocean regions.
Is the issue the Great lakes?

I don't want to go off topic here.

I'll leave this in my modded files for now.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Pocus / Lodilefty

You'll have to delay the patch a couple weeks if this work is to be included.
_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.

How about we post an RC today that fixes reported bugs, then decide when to add fixes and finalize.

There is a new name retention feature that may require recompiling all scenarios...

[Franciscus]

How about we post an RC today that fixes reported bugs, then decide when to add fixes and finalize.

Sounds good to me !

There is a new name retention feature that may require recompiling all scenarios...

(as in... Division name retention ?? )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

However you want. I'm just suggesting that a finalized v1.16 may have to be delayed if the graphic items above are to be corrected. I'll have to make the changes on the master map then re-cut the regions. That takes some time.

Pocus is the decider, you are the AACW fixer, I is just the patchmaker

However you wish

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

On to RC4

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19690

[Pocus]

We can't wait another month ... Because there is always something to fix, a sometime a line has to be drawn. I would like to have the official patchs out before Christmas, sorry.