AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 10a - January 13, 2012

[rattler01]

OK thx its fixed. Now is the fact that I have no VP/NM values showing, no battle info, or portraits a known issue? If not let me know and I'll post the game.


EDIT: also noticed the ledger options (not results) were not there, the turn info when seleting a scenrio, or the messsage when exiting from main menu.

[charlesonmission]

That isn't normal. Have you uninstalled all versions on your computer, deleted the install folders and started over? You should first install the version you downloaded when you bought the game, then install 1.16 v 10 in the same folder (it should automatically take you there, but double check), then install the 2 hot fixes per the instructions.

Are you in the grand campaign? The only thing I can think of is that the tutorial may have had some pics missing.

Charles

OK thx its fixed. Now is the fact that I have no VP/NM values showing, no battle info, or portraits a known issue? If not let me know and I'll post the game.

[oberst_klink]

Great pic!

here... kinda like a sad'ish expression, like JB Hood, uh?

Klink, Oberst

[rattler01]

OK, but how do i find out the serial key from the one I have installed right now has my box/manuel is in another counrty right now.

n/m found it. Thank god for recycle bins

[rattler01]

Well, after several reinstalls with the problem staying, I resigned to it being a cpu problem. However, he whipped out a old cpu that still had the game udpated it and copy/pasted it over and all is right with the world now. Just out of curiosity what my have caused this problem.

[Nikel]

Are you trying to run the game with just the patch?

I mean perhaps the game and the patch are installed in different folders.

[Captain_Orso]

Hi rattler01,

You are definitely doing something wrong. I install many a patch and beta patch and have never had such issues. First some preliminary questions:

What Windows version do you have installed?

Does the account you login to have administrative rights?

From what media are you doing your base installation?

What are you doing after that?

You've already stated that you have found where the 'serial key' is. Make a copy of it and don't lose it.

Every time you do a fresh base installation (when you install the un-patched game) or install a patch, the path to the installation directory is recorded in the registry. This means that if you want to install to a new directory, you must pay attention to what the installation program or patch is suggesting as the installation directory.

I always use the patch level in the name of the installation directory, otherwise I'd have to look in the ..\ACW\Settings\System.opt file to see which patch level is installed in which directory. So my installation directories look like this:

c:\Program Files (x86)\AGEod's American Civil War 1.16rc10a\ <-- This is the directory name and path I entered the last time I installed the game or a patch level. This string is recorded in the registry and will be referenced each time I do a fresh game or patch installation.

c:\Program Files (x86)\ is the default installation path for all 32bit programs on a 64bit Windows system. If you have a 32bit system you will have the same path, but without the ' (x86)'. Eg: c:\Program Files\ .

So if I'm doing a fresh base installation for a new patch level I will change the '.. 1.16rc10a' to what ever the new patch level is (eg: '.. 1.16rc11'). Then when I install the new patch the correct string will already be suggested.

I always do a fresh installation regardless of how many times you are told that you can patch over previous patches, nothing is as safe as a completely fresh installation.

Once you've done your fresh installation and patched to the level you wish, you can now copy the Saves directory from your previous installation to your new one, or which ever games you want to migrate to the new installation. Beware, you should only do this if the patch to which your are copying explicitly states that you can take over games from that previous patch level.

After that you, if you don't want to retain the older patch level uninstall it by running the 'unins000.exe' program in that games directory and then delete anything else than might me left over after that.

And -voila- you now have the new patch level installed on your system.

[Stauffenberg]

here... kinda like a sad'ish expression, like JB Hood, uh?

Klink, Oberst

Instantly recognizable in the game at this point, but yes I like the other better.

[Stauffenberg]

There was a discussion a while back about perhaps allowing Richmond and Washington to have automatically built-up fortifications year by year. Perhaps this can be put into a future patch. If so, the highest rated fortification on the map should go to Washington by 1864. Even as early as December 1862, the total armament actually mounted in the forts around Washington was some 642 guns and 75 mortars.

A nice touch would be to give the US the option to dismantle the "heavies" at this time, as Grant himself did, deploying those guns to front line service. In game terms just drop the fortification level by two levels or so and have some heavy artillery rgts appear in the city.

[lodilefty]

There was a discussion a while back about perhaps allowing Richmond and Washington to have automatically built-up fortifications year by year. Perhaps this can be put into a future patch. If so, the highest rated fortification on the map should go to Washington by 1864. Even as early as December 1862, the total armament actually mounted in the forts around Washington was some 642 guns and 75 mortars.

A nice touch would be to give the US the option to dismantle the "heavies" at this time, as Grant himself did, deploying those guns to front line service. In game terms just drop the fortification level by two levels or so and have some heavy artillery rgts appear in the city.

AFAIK, Grant didn't redeploy the guns, he simply created Infanrty Regiments from the "heavies"

[Pelok]

Hi! I've begun to play a new campaign with the previous patch. By July 1863 I fought many great battles but my loss was Shields from the generals only. No one else died no one else were injured not like in the real civil war....

[Captain_Orso]

Fortifications Around Washington and Richmond

I'm totally against making such things automatic. There already is an event causing the Union to garrison DC. It might be ok to stipulate in the event that artillery also be incorporated, maybe even that a fortification itself be erected, but having it appear per event, not really. DC already has a large number of units in 'reserve'--I always wonder, reserved for what--that practically never get used.

Leader Casualties

Having generals wounded during combat does not happen all that often unless the stack they are leading is completely or mostly destroyed. Having them outright killed, there is a 0.2% chance for every general to be killed in every battle regardless of rank.

This is that status quo since as long as I've been playing the game. I'm sure this system could be improved upon, but I know that in this game there will be no such changes at this late date.

[Stauffenberg]

AFAIK, Grant didn't redeploy the guns, he simply created Infanrty Regiments from the "heavies"

My bad, I thought some some of the lighter "heavies" came too--just a manpower blip then in game terms.

[lodilefty]

Fortifications Around Washington and Richmond

I'm totally against making such things automatic. There already is an event causing the Union to garrison DC. It might be ok to stipulate in the event that artillery also be incorporated, maybe even that a fortification itself be erected, but having it appear per event, not really. DC already has a large number of units in 'reserve'--I always wonder, reserved for what--that practically never get used.

Leader Casualties

Having generals wounded during combat does not happen all that often unless the stack they are leading is completely or mostly destroyed. Having them outright killed, there is a 0.2% chance for every general to be killed in every battle regardless of rank.

This is that status quo since as long as I've been playing the game. I'm sure this system could be improved upon, but I know that in this game there will be no such changes at this late date.

Leader casualty is immenently moddable!

Either individually [models] or globally [Options file in settings]

[Stauffenberg]

Fortifications Around Washington and Richmond

I'm totally against making such things automatic. There already is an event causing the Union to garrison DC. It might be ok to stipulate in the event that artillery also be incorporated, maybe even that a fortification itself be erected, but having it appear per event, not really. DC already has a large number of units in 'reserve'--I always wonder, reserved for what--that practically never get used.

They were reserved, at the very least, for political reasons, pretty much in line with why Lincoln made sure construction work on the capitol dome continued.

I think a very good case can be made for automatic fortifications appearing around Washington for these reasons. It was a manifestation of political will for all to see: control of the city would be maintained at all costs. Once McClellan took over, work on 33 miles of fortifications was inevitable, and by the end of the war there were some 1500 guns in 68 forts and 20 miles of rifle pits. It is an anomaly in game terms, and historically it had to be the most fortified place on earth by the end of the war.

Really, a move the capital to New York option is a non-starter: if Washington is lost, the war is effectively over. Hence the massive fortifications and garrison.

[lodilefty]

They were reserved, at the very least, for political reasons, pretty much in line with why Lincoln made sure construction work on the capitol dome continued.

I think a very good case can be made for automatic fortifications appearing around Washington for these reasons. It was a manifestation of political will for all to see: control of the city would be maintained at all costs. Once McClellan took over, work on 33 miles of fortifications was inevitable, and by the end of the war there were some 1500 guns in 68 forts and 20 miles of rifle pits. It is an anomaly in game terms, and historically it had to be the most fortified place on earth by the end of the war.

Really, a move the capital to New York option is a non-starter: if Washington is lost, the war is effectively over. Hence the massive fortifications and garrison.

Fertile ground for a mod.
Changes in "official" limited to bugs only....

[veji1]

I hadn't thought about leaders being injured as well.. interesting. One question. Are the odds of leaders' death or injury per battle or per round?

[Captain_Orso]

I think it's per battle, but I've never thought about it.

Making the chance of wounding or death for generals dependent on how many rounds of battle were fought, if the battle actually when to melee and in how many places, if and how many regiments retreated or were routed. The whole thing could be handled in much detail. But I think that would be a whole new game.

Lodi, I know that there is the ldrDeathBySickness parameter, but what other parameters are there that might be tweaked to affect the chances of leaders being wounded or killed? I couldn't find anything that looked relevant.

[Stauffenberg]

I think it's per battle, but I've never thought about it.

Making the chance of wounding or death for generals dependent on how many rounds of battle were fought, if the battle actually when to melee and in how many places, if and how many regiments retreated or were routed. The whole thing could be handled in much detail. But I think that would be a whole new game.

Lodi, I know that there is the ldrDeathBySickness parameter, but what other parameters are there that might be tweaked to affect the chances of leaders being wounded or killed? I couldn't find anything that looked relevant.

Off the top of my head for the CSA: Jackson and A.S. Johnston both have enhanced attack and surprise attack capabilities, and both of course were killed reconnoitering their front lines in battle. Perhaps tie it into the surprise attack trigger somehow.

[Captain_Orso]

They were reserved, at the very least, for political reasons, pretty much in line with why Lincoln made sure construction work on the capitol dome continued.

Stauffenberg, you insinuate that fortifying the capital had no military or practical use. That it was only for show; "political reasons". Well, if you consider that during the first 2 years of the war the performance of all the commanding generals in the east was at the best sketchy, and at the worst down right incompetent, and the probable affects of losing the capital on the will of the nation as a whole to continue to resist the secession, yes, you could call that political. So Lincoln and others insisted on a security buffer that was plane and simple, that not even incompetent field commanders could screw up; fortifying the capital.

I think a very good case can be made for automatic fortifications appearing around Washington for these reasons. It was a manifestation of political will for all to see: control of the city would be maintained at all costs. Once McClellan took over, work on 33 miles of fortifications was inevitable, and by the end of the war there were some 1500 guns in 68 forts and 20 miles of rifle pits. It is an anomaly in game terms, and historically it had to be the most fortified place on earth by the end of the war.

Really, a move the capital to New York option is a non-starter: if Washington is lost, the war is effectively over. Hence the massive fortifications and garrison.

There is a huge difference between actions taken to inspire the hearts and minds of the people, to instill confidence and trust of the people in the government, and practical measures.

McClellan was very fond of doing things that were as risk free as possible, especially if he looked good at doing them. It's no wonder he was successful in the rail business. So training the army, giving them unit insignias, parading them in front of each other and the general public and politicians and dignitaries, building fortifications and entrenchments; McClellan could put his heart into those things. But non of them ever changed the outcome of the war in the least.

There are historical occurrences that manifest themselves in the game, such as the Trent Affair (over which you have no influence). The newspaper's calls for an offensive was a real thing and it made the government look bad that the army was either making no progress against what was often deemed a ragged opponent or getting their asses handed to them.

It would certainly be arguable that failure to reach set goals that as are currently present in the game through events, such as taking Manassas or threatening Richmond, or if a large enough force were to threaten Washington or even a large enough defeat in the field close enough to Washington, such as the actual battles of Manassas of the invasion of Maryland, could trigger the need to fortify Washington, but then, because the triggering of this event would be through the inability of the the Union player to retain a semblance of control over the battlefields of the east, it should also be the player's responsibility to make amends for these failures.

Making fortifying Washington further than it already is now, into an automation just takes even more control over the game out of the player's hands. Why should a player who is successful at fulfilling the goals set for him through events be penalized by having his resources channeled into fortifying the capital if not necessary? Or are you suggesting that the resources needed to do this should just fall from heaven?

[Stauffenberg]

Orso, no I didn't mean to insinuate that at all, but I should have stated it clearly.
Washington as a terrifically hard nut to crack was a key consideration militarily and affected every CSA initiative in the east, no argument. The political dynamics, however, ensured that the fortifications would be on a massive scale, that was my main point.

Re automatically fortifying, obviously I would rather see it an option; I prefer to see it as a "special case" situation however, in that the fortification level in that city can go higher than anywhere else on the map. On that topic I would love to see more engineer effects re fortifications, affecting both defense and attack.

[lodilefty]

I think it's per battle, but I've never thought about it.

Making the chance of wounding or death for generals dependent on how many rounds of battle were fought, if the battle actually when to melee and in how many places, if and how many regiments retreated or were routed. The whole thing could be handled in much detail. But I think that would be a whole new game.

Lodi, I know that there is the ldrDeathBySickness parameter, but what other parameters are there that might be tweaked to affect the chances of leaders being wounded or killed? I couldn't find anything that looked relevant.

ldrDeathBySickness is not active in AACW without a lot of new params on models.

cbtLdrCasuDiceSides = 500 // Nb of sides for the casualty dice for rank 1 leaders, at the end of combat (twice as low for rank 2, rank 3 excluded)

and in models, CombatDeathChance [not set for any at this time]
[font=Times New Roman][size=75][color=#ffffff][font=Times New Roman][size=84][color=blue][LEFT]Chance per round for a leader to get killed. Expressed in hundredths of a %. (so.20 = 0.2%)[/LEFT]
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]

[Franciscus]

Soooo...

Apparently, apart from the ledger issue when units are selected and the sound bug, no other significant bugs are apparent in this beta, right ?

Time to go official ?

[lodilefty]

Soooo...

Apparently, apart from the ledger issue when units are selected and the sound bug, no other significant bugs are apparent in this beta, right ?

Time to go official ?

No. We have fixes in progress for sounds, Naval Supply inland, ship repairs, and still pondering captured equipment...

...plus additional Python check scripts to check..

Those should check out quickly, then shazaam!

[Nikel]

Those Python check scripts is a tool similar to Berto's to detect bugs?

Does it mean that AGE engine next title will have less bugs?

Is Lafrite the author of both the Piton checks and the next game?

[PhilThib]

Yes, similar but does not require Linux and faster to operate, directly onto excel files sources

This help solve a lot of pre-release "bugs" or errors, although it will require a little bit of extra time, this is a great improvement...

And yes, Lafrite is helping the team....but that does not mean he was part of it originally...so don't try to grab info from him

[Captain_Orso]

There may still be a couple of minor thingies.

Since the last couple of betas I'm seeing battle results like this every now and again



The city/town/region is still cleared of enemy, but it seems odd that eliminating the defender would result in a stalemate. AFAIK stalemate means that neither the attacker nor the defender were forced to retreat from the region, but the it appears that the game logic is ignoring the defender being eliminated before deciding the results.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm still scraping the hard copies of misplaced regional status icons together, but in the mean time

This seems like a huge number of Blockade Fleets in the build pool; not that I'm complaining or think that even the half will ever be built, but still, maybe something is amiss.

[Nikel]

Yes, similar but does not require Linux and faster to operate, directly onto excel files sources

This help solve a lot of pre-release "bugs" or errors, although it will require a little bit of extra time, this is a great improvement...

And yes, Lafrite is helping the team....but that does not mean he was part of it originally...so don't try to grab info from him

Thanks for the answer


Impossible to get any info from him, he does not post a lot precisely

[Captain_Orso]

Hmmm, seems I don't have as many hardcopies of icons as I thought

Vicksburg being blockaded - the icon in the middle of the Mississippi belongs to St Joseph LA. They all seem to be shifted about 1 icon height too low.




Pittsburgh being blockaded with a damaged railroad [DON'T LOOK AT THE UNITS, JUST THE ICONS!! oh drats ] Both icons should be shifted about 2 icon widths to the left.




Granville NC with a damaged railroad



This one had me scratching my head for a while until I found the icon hiding behind the church. Awwww, he's so shy

Just about anywhere other than there


Also, without HC, Winchester VA, the Siege icon is too far to the right. Only the very tip touches the region and gives you the tool-tip.