ROP {public beta) patch 1.03 Release Candidate 4 November 30, 2010

[Pocus]

It doesn't seem to be working like this though. The units keep gaining experience so they constantly upgrade without doing anything.
Militia are going all the way to elite through several upgrades.
See my post here http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=176167#post176167

Still searching but I don't see how a bug can comes from the 1 free exp per turn, the code holds in one single line and is rather straightforward. This must be something else.

We are talking of units without training officers rights? Said units can gain several exp levels just by sitting in a city?

[Baris]

Fest Btn's in both in Prag and Eger Fortress starts with 1 experience and they convert to elite just after few turns.. In my game at the last month of 1759, only those garrisons turned to elite by staying idle. all other garrisons in forts such as in Wien stay with zero experience for the whole time and they didnt convert to elite.

[Pocus]

Indeed, this is working as designed by the database, they are German Infantry with train upgrade toward elite. So no code problem here. Perhaps this can be changed to something else if this a problem, but no bug.

[Sanz de Acedo]

Hello.

This is my first post. If RoP is good, I'll be getting PoN.
Will be playing the RoP for the first time in my life.
Just opened it, found it was at 1.0. Updated it to 1.02.
However, now I am wondering if I need to get 1.03RC4.
What's your opinion? Remember, I have never played the game before.

Also, the auto-update from the game launcher does NOT work.
And clicking update from within the game simply opens this forum.

Finally, the Paradox forum information is horribly outdated.
The essential files thread there says 1.01e is the latest patch.

Thanks.

I agree that there is a lack of information in this forum, but RoP is a great, great game, and PoN is the only game I want to buy this year, the only one that exciting me.

[Pocus]

About auto update, we had to discontinue the feature, as our team was spending extra hours preparing the separate patch needed for it.

[Narwhal]

I have had a new bug which is very, very weird and his hard to reproduce. At least I can prove it.

During my AAR, I took some screenshoot. Here is one :



On this screenshoot, you can see I have POSITIVE (116) manpower in the hundred. Woot !

Since I am short on cavalry, I wanted to build an English Dragoon Guard in Stade. The game allowed me to create it... and then send my manpower to -131 (IIRC). Weirdo


I reloaded without saving, but in my new game (same turn, before the action), my man power is now -88.

Here is a pic :



I am going to see what happens if I reload the PREVIOUS game and try to reproduce the bug. If it does not solve the problem - well, I will carry on playing, but it is game-breaking.

I play with the latest beta-patch.

[Narwhal]

OK - bug cannot be reproduced by loading the previous turn and playing again.

[Anazagar]

Indeed, this is working as designed by the database, they are German Infantry with train upgrade toward elite. So no code problem here. Perhaps this can be changed to something else if this a problem, but no bug.

I think it should be impossible to have trained infratry upgrade to elite or at least made very hard (like it would happen only after the element got 4 exp stars). The current situation leads to players having quite depleted armies of elite units and a sizable ammounts of useless regular replacement chits later in the game. To exemplify I attach a dec 1760 save from my current PBEM game - look at the daun army in dresden and the french army in the west..

[Charles]

A minor point, but the Ferdinand of Brunswick event always occurs in july 1757 before the french Army really starts to roll.

In RL, Ferdinand did not take over command of the Observation Army until november 57, after Rossbach. I would delay the event until late november 57.

[OneArmedMexican]

Small thing:

mdl: 599AUSAdolf Buckow

still references to Unit_AUS_Buckow.png while it should use Unit_AUS_Buccow.png.

The latter png actually bears his face while the former is an import from an older AGE game.

[Stoertebeker]

I think it should be impossible to have trained infratry upgrade to elite or at least made very hard (like it would happen only after the element got 4 exp stars). The current situation leads to players having quite depleted armies of elite units and a sizable ammounts of useless regular replacement chits later in the game. To exemplify I attach a dec 1760 save from my current PBEM game - look at the daun army in dresden and the french army in the west..

This are scary pictures, indeed.

I have a question: Is it possible to mod this easily?

Looking in the database files I found a column named "TrainUpg" which has entries for all types of line infantry units. Would it be enough to change the entries to NULL to solve this issue?

The maybe-effect of too experienced units could be solved with a lower experience gain in battles (which seems also moddable by augmenting (?) the ProgRate-entries),

[Stoertebeker]

Looking in the database files I found a column named "TrainUpg" which has entries for all types of line infantry units. Would it be enough to change the entries to NULL to solve this issue?

Yes, it would. At least there are no more messages about successful training of Eilte Infantry units in the first rounds, whereas there always were some before. Everything else works fine, though.

Here are the files. You can unzip them into the Gamedate/Models directory, delete the "models.cached"-file (actually I don't know if that's necessary, but I read something like this somewhere - and it doesn't hurt as a new cached-file will be created) and everything's fine.

Edit: It even seems to be savegame compatible, at least I had no problems processing another turn with an old savegame.


(If you don't want this "micromod" to irritate people looking for official patches, feel free to move it elsewhere. I thought, with the issue discussed in this thread, it somehow fits.)

[Charles]

To solve the mismatch of replacements, how hard would it be to add an event allowing the player to exchange regular for elite infantry replacements?

We already have an event to convert militia into regular infantry replacements.

[Baris]

If there is a bug(it seems so) about the number of concript companies decreasing after heavy losses(instead of 1/3 or 1/4 of losses returning to the pool as concript companies or replacement chits) then line to elite exchange event wont be sufficient.

But I think the real problem is there is also lack of line inf replacements which makes the game very difficult to continue from mid 1759. Building depot bns all the time is mandatory rather then new units.

[Stoertebeker]

If there is a bug(it seems so) about the number of concript companies decreasing after heavy losses(instead of 1/3 or 1/4 of losses returning to the pool as concript companies or replacement chits) then line to elite exchange event wont be sufficient.

But I think the real problem is there is also lack of line inf replacements which makes the game very difficult to continue from mid 1759. Building depot bns all the time is mandatory rather then new units.

Hm. I don't know. I wouldn't like changes that make replacements a no-brainer. Historically the armies didn't grow, so it should be the same in the game.
I would prefer a replacement system that gives abolut control to the player: ALL kinds of troops should be available as Depot Units and one should be able to build as much of them as one can afford in terms of manpower, war supply and money. No automated replacements. If your losses are too heavy to build new troops, it's bad luck and you have to live with it.

[Baris]

Hm. I don't know. I wouldn't like changes that make replacements a no-brainer. Historically the armies didn't grow, so it should be the same in the game.
I would prefer a replacement system that gives abolut control to the player: ALL kinds of troops should be available as Depot Units and one should be able to build as much of them as one can afford in terms of manpower, war supply and money. No automated replacements. If your losses are too heavy to build new troops, it's bad luck and you have to live with it.

Well yes. Able to build depot bns for all types of units is a good idea. But it needs some kind of extended money and manpower options for the player to be usefull.In a game Narwhal and I playing , after waiting 6-7 months of French regiments to recover(it didnt) I have decided to move them all the way to Paris.

If there is a bug about lost elements not returning to concript pool then it makes the problem deeper. I think "growing armies" is out of question. There is no way to grow armies when construction of single heavy cavalry takes 6 months

[Stoertebeker]

Well yes. Able to build depot bns for all types of units is a good idea. But it needs some kind of extended money and manpower options for the player to be usefull.In a game Narwhal and I playing , after waiting 6-7 months of French regiments to recover(it didnt) I have decided to move them all the way to Paris.

If there is a bug about lost elements not returning to concript pool then it makes the problem deeper. I think "growing armies" is out of question. There is no way to grow armies when construction of single heavy cavalry takes 6 months

You mentioned the too long buildtimes elsewhere. I don't agree. 90 days to train elite Soldiers seems already quite short to me.

But of course, if one cuts the event-replacements, one has to give more money, manpower and war supplies to the player. One would just have to give the player ressources instead of replacements in those events.

[OneArmedMexican]

I have come across a problem with leaders spawning a second time while playing some of the later scenarios (1757, 1758, etc.).

The "RoP Random Leaders" and the "RoP Options Leaders" event files contain events that don't check if a leader has already spawned in the game (like ACW does to avoid the same issue). I haven't gone over all of the events in these two files but it seems to me that this issue concerns every spawn leader event in there.

Here is an example:

Playing the 1758 campaign Austria starts with Darenberg as a corps commander (uni_AUS_Darenberg2), if you choose the "Receive Austrian General Option", Darenberg can spawn a second time (as the one star version, uni_AUS_Darenberg1).

[INDENT]SelectFaction = $AUS
StartEvent = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived_L1|999|1|NULL|NULL|NULL|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1756/01/01
MaxDate = 1762/12/01
EvalEvent = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived;=;1
Probability = 100

Actions
AddToRegList = $Wien;$Wien;$Prag;$Pressburg;$Pressburg
PickFromRegList = NotEnemy
GenMsg

SelectFaction = $AUS
CreateGroup
Posture = $Defensive
SetKind = $Land
Entranch = 0
InCS = 0
SetName = Feld Offizier
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_AUS_Darenberg1
SetName = Darenberg
Apply
SetEvtOccurs = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived;CuOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived_L1;MaxOccurs;0

EndEvent[/INDENT]

I believe ACW uses the "EvalUnqUnit =" line in the conditions part of such an event to avoid this issue.

And another slightly different example:

In 1759 Soltikov becomes commander of the Russian Army via event ("evt_nam_RUS_SaltykovCommands1759"). However that event fails to remove other versions of Saltikov from the game. Playing the 1758 campaign that would be neceassry since in that scenario Saltikov is already in the game as a two star commander. Consequently, in my last game I suddenly had two Saltikovs.

[ATTACH]15086[/ATTACH]

I know most people are playing the GC but playing any other scenario this is an annoying and frequent issue.

Am I aware that this means a lot of work since it concerns a huge number of events. But perhaps it can be adressed in a future patch anyway.

If you need a save game besides this description, please let me know.

[Durk]

I had the same duplication of Saltikov under a different event. It was the "Buturlin replaces Saltikov" event.
This returned two Saltikov units; one with 3-2-1 ability the other with 3-2-2 ability.

[PhilThib]

Do they have the same rank or the same hierarchic position? Because if it is a duplicate, the values can't be different

Anyway, as soon as PON release is done with, I shall get some time to go back again inside those weirdnesses...

[Narwhal]

I play the shorter scenarios as well - so I would like this bug solved as well

[lodilefty]

I have come across a problem with leaders spawning a second time while playing some of the later scenarios (1757, 1758, etc.).

The "RoP Random Leaders" and the "RoP Options Leaders" event files contain events that don't check if a leader has already spawned in the game (like ACW does to avoid the same issue). I haven't gone over all of the events in these two files but it seems to me that this issue concerns every spawn leader event in there.

Here is an example:

Playing the 1758 campaign Austria starts with Darenberg as a corps commander (uni_AUS_Darenberg2), if you choose the "Receive Austrian General Option", Darenberg can spawn a second time (as the one star version, uni_AUS_Darenberg1).

[INDENT]SelectFaction = $AUS
StartEvent = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived_L1|999|1|NULL|NULL|NULL|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1756/01/01
MaxDate = 1762/12/01
EvalEvent = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived;=;1
Probability = 100

Actions
AddToRegList = $Wien;$Wien;$Prag;$Pressburg;$Pressburg
PickFromRegList = NotEnemy
GenMsg

SelectFaction = $AUS
CreateGroup
Posture = $Defensive
SetKind = $Land
Entranch = 0
InCS = 0
SetName = Feld Offizier
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_AUS_Darenberg1
SetName = Darenberg
Apply
SetEvtOccurs = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived;CuOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_nam_AUS_LeaderReceived_L1;MaxOccurs;0

EndEvent[/INDENT]

I believe ACW uses the "EvalUnqUnit =" line in the conditions part of such an event to avoid this issue.

And another slightly different example:

In 1759 Soltikov becomes commander of the Russian Army via event ("evt_nam_RUS_SaltykovCommands1759"). However that event fails to remove other versions of Saltikov from the game. Playing the 1758 campaign that would be neceassry since in that scenario Saltikov is already in the game as a two star commander. Consequently, in my last game I suddenly had two Saltikovs.

[ATTACH]15086[/ATTACH]

I know most people are playing the GC but playing any other scenario this is an annoying and frequent issue.

Am I aware that this means a lot of work since it concerns a huge number of events. But perhaps it can be adressed in a future patch anyway.

If you need a save game besides this description, please let me know.

Hi,

As soon as I can find the latest Database, I'll fix thiis...

[Franciscus]

Hi,

As soon as I can find the latest Database, I'll fix thiis...

LODILEFTY !!

Welcome back, old chap.

Hope all is well with you !!

[OneArmedMexican]

I had the same duplication of Saltikov under a different event. It was the "Buturlin replaces Saltikov" event.
This returned two Saltikov units; one with 3-2-1 ability the other with 3-2-2 ability.

Do they have the same rank or the same hierarchic position? Because if it is a duplicate, the values can't be different

Anyway, as soon as PON release is done with, I shall get some time to go back again inside those weirdnesses...

This is strange: the two Soltikovs have the mdl numbers 842 (three star version) and 844 (two star version), in my example the three star version was spawned while the two star version wasn't removed. Both models have the same stats, though (3-2-1). I believe the 3-2-2 Soltikov Durk has been experiencing might be the result of experience gain or profiting from a stat bonus thanks to his army commander.

Hi,

As soon as I can find the latest Database, I'll fix thiis...

Thank you! I hope you are fully recovered.

This might be a lot of work though since the issue potentially concerns every event that spawns leaders. At least, they all seem to be lacking precautions against double-spawning.

[Baris]

Hi,

As soon as I can find the latest Database, I'll fix thiis...

Welcome back. Glad to hear from you. Hope you are fully recovered.

[pesec]

Hi

[OneArmedMexican]

If I may point to one more issue: the "Balances" event file contains a series of events supposed from keeping the gap in NM from growing too big

evt_nam_AUS_MoraleValueEvenOut1756-1760_Dec

evt_nam_PRU_MoraleValueEvenOut1756-1760_Dec

evt_nam_AUS_MoraleValueEvenOut1756-1760_Inc

evt_nam_PRU_MoraleValueEvenOut1756-1760_Inc

For some reason all these events have the condition "MaxDate = 1760/10/01". In my current campaign Austria had a disastrous summer of 1761 and by now the gap in NM has grown to more than 150 points basically making it almost impossible for Austria to win battles.

Was this condition put in by design? I have come to love the NM balance mechanism in RoP, it seems strange that it shouldn't apply to long/late campaigns.

[Taijian]

What I've done to my personal copy of RoP is the following:

- Fix 'Northerner' trait by changing the area to 'Scandinavia' and moving 'Mecklenburg' & 'West_Pommerania' there from 'Prussia'

- Disabled upgrades from 'Militia' to 'Infantry' and from 'Trained Infantry' to 'Elites'

- Changed 'Fort Battery' to '$famHvyArty'

- Changed all '$famLightInf' to '$famLine', changed replacement pool events accordingly and deleted the relevant options from the ledger

- Did the same for all '$famService'

- Changed the '$famRaiders' replacements for Russia to '$famCavalry'

- Coverted half of all supply replacements into Cavalry

- Extended the 'Balance' events to function until the end of the game

This is to help balance the replacement pool, where Service, Supply and Light Infantry replacement chits tend to pile up, while regular infantry and Cavalry chits are never enough.

Feel free to use what you like

[SAS]

Is the 1.03 RC 4 the newest Beta?

[H Gilmer3]

SAS,

Yes.