as.cities.burn wrote:I don't see Victory Points or Morale in the top left pane after 107.f
I did a clean install and patch but no fix.
Did you restart your computer after the install? I had the same problem and couldn't figure out what in the world is going on. I remembered I had not restarted my computer so I rebooted and it worked fine. It has to do with the fonts needing you to reboot. Once you do they show up just fine.
Clovis wrote:Is it me or the AI in the last iteration of the 1.07f patch is a little too more aggressive? I've seen AI commiting much more attacks at low odds than before...
They are extremely aggressive compared to 1.06!! I was having a fairly easy time against the AI because I was able to build up and move on them. The AI in 1.07f is doing what I expected all along, attacking me and trying to prevent my huge manpower from building up to squash them.
Right now the AI has overran my Western front. Springfield was under attack so I force marched Lyon out there only to have a bigger division come up to Rolla. Paduhca (sp) was being assaulted at the same time as was another area (can't remember now) and I spread myself thin to counter it and the raiders broke through. Right now I am scrammbling to get a line set up. I am absolutely loving this game even though right now I am decidedly getting beat out West.
I'm impressed with the new AI. I launched an attack from Harpers Ferry into Pennsylvania with 2 corps commanded by Jackson and Johnson. Meanwhile, the Army with Lee and another Corps with Beauragard threatened DC from Alexandria. I figured one of two things would happen....the AI would do nothing and keep the 2 corps in DC while I made my way through Harrisonburg and on to Wilmington/Phily...or...the AI would move north out of DC to handle the corps in their rear. Well, the AI did neither. Instead, the AI sent one corps out of DC to cut my supply lines to Jackson and Johnson by taking Harpers Ferry. He left one corps and some heavy arty behind to defend.
I thought this was a great move. I was forced to move the two divisions I had in reserve (forced march)from Fredericksburg to Harper's Ferry so that my lines would not be cut. Luckily, these 2 divisions got there first (Jeb cut the rail lines from DC two turns before.)and with the 2 brigades there already, held out.
Also, I was able to take DC but with heavy losses.
It didnt work out for the AI force, but I have to say that it was a great aggressive move.
I thought this was a great move. I was forced to move the two divisions I had in reserve (forced march)from Fredericksburg to Harper's Ferry so that my lines would not be cut. Luckily, these 2 divisions got there first (Jeb cut the rail lines from DC two turns before.)and with the 2 brigades there already, held out.
Also, I was able to take DC but with heavy losses.
It didnt work out for the AI force, but I have to say that it was a great aggressive move.
In bad or in good, your remarks are important about the AI, because it helps me decide where should my attention focus next time I get some time for 'her' 
Not saying that we don't appreciate having congratulations, true!
Not saying that we don't appreciate having congratulations, true!
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
runyan99 wrote:About the redeployment option. The setting for this option isn't contained in the .trn file, so when playing a PBEM, one player can be using the redeployment, and the other can have the option turned off. It depends on what each player has the option set too. That seems like an issue.
Right, I'll look at that, thanks.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:In bad or in good, your remarks are important about the AI, because it helps me decide where should my attention focus next time I get some time for 'her'
Not saying that we don't appreciate having congratulations, true!
I have also found that the AI is much more agressive (Normal setting), then with 1.06, especially out west (at least for me). I am playing as the Union and the Southern AI has attacked me in force in the KS/MO areas. I will have to do much mopping up, which will delay my advance in the West.
Overall, the AI is forcing me to react and play to it's game of delaying tactics.
Nice job guys!
-
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 wrote:Ah, Grasshopper (Kung Fu stuff, LOL), there isn't any RR link problem with Norfolk to Suffolk. Rather, there is a matter of Rebel Control (or low amount thereof), at the start of the 1861 April Campaign (v1.07f vanilla). If you instead load up the 1861 July Campaign as the Rebels, you will see that the RR Links work just fine.
However, I will toss this little bone to you that the rules state that you have to have at least 25% control of a region in order to utilize RR movement. Maybe it should read greater than 25% control instead. I don't have time to confirm this however, though you might test it yourself, if you have units available to either seize Norfolk as the Rebs, or seize Suffolk as the Union. This could possibly be a small bug in regard to the control percentage logic. Have to ask Pocus...
Regards
edit: Don't feel too bad, LOL, it took me an hour to figure this one out myself, hence my slightly smug "grasshopper" comment...
You are right Master Gray!!! Thank you for the enlightenment!!
And sorry for making you lose and hour checking it!
leure:
Cheers!
I downloaded 1.07f tonight for the synchronized movement fix.
After installing the patch and checking that it was installed, I checked synchronized move by using the 1863 scenario and moving all of Grants army one region.
It took Grant and his HQ, 5 days, activated corps, 10 days and unactivated corps, 15 days to make the move.
Now, I didn't install the unit/model parts of the update because I wanted to keep my unit/model mods in place.
Is anyone else having problems with synchronized movement after installing the patch?
If not, is the synchronized fix within the unit/model files? Will I need to install the units and models to fix the problem?
After installing the patch and checking that it was installed, I checked synchronized move by using the 1863 scenario and moving all of Grants army one region.
It took Grant and his HQ, 5 days, activated corps, 10 days and unactivated corps, 15 days to make the move.
Now, I didn't install the unit/model parts of the update because I wanted to keep my unit/model mods in place.
Is anyone else having problems with synchronized movement after installing the patch?
If not, is the synchronized fix within the unit/model files? Will I need to install the units and models to fix the problem?
Hi
One quick quiestion: are this patches compatible with the newly edited spanish version of AACW???
I think it came patched to 1.07e but some spanish players are asking if they can update...
If there is compatibility issues... how will the translation of patches be done??
Should us bug you (Ageod) or Friendware (spanish editor of AACW) with it???
One quick quiestion: are this patches compatible with the newly edited spanish version of AACW???
I think it came patched to 1.07e but some spanish players are asking if they can update...
If there is compatibility issues... how will the translation of patches be done??
Should us bug you (Ageod) or Friendware (spanish editor of AACW) with it???
Pocus wrote:The Army HQ is with synch on, but not the corps. It worked for me.
My apologies. I just loaded 1.07f into my copy of the original unmodded ACW. When I checked the synchronized move in unmodded game, it worked great.
Unfortunately, it is not working in my PBEM modded game. Apparantly one of my modded files has overwritten the fix. Would you tell me the specific file with the fix? It is a fairly important fix with the short command range used by my mod.
Did the problem lie with moveratios of different type units and HQ's?
I found the problem.
I replaced the models and units files with modded models/units files in my original ACW 1.07f copy with working synchronized movement. Synchronized movement stopped working. I replaced my modded models with the original models and it worked. Then I reinstalled modded models and used the 1.07f n0n-modded model HQ instead of my modded HQ.
Now synchronized movement works!
Although when I look at the data differences between the two models, I can't see a difference which should have impact on synchronized movement???
I replaced the models and units files with modded models/units files in my original ACW 1.07f copy with working synchronized movement. Synchronized movement stopped working. I replaced my modded models with the original models and it worked. Then I reinstalled modded models and used the 1.07f n0n-modded model HQ instead of my modded HQ.
Now synchronized movement works!
Although when I look at the data differences between the two models, I can't see a difference which should have impact on synchronized movement???
arsan wrote:Hi
One quick quiestion: are this patches compatible with the newly edited spanish version of AACW???
I think it came patched to 1.07e but some spanish players are asking if they can update...
If there is compatibility issues... how will the translation of patches be done??
Should us bug you (Ageod) or Friendware (spanish editor of AACW) with it???
Can somebody shed some light about this, pleeease????
Cheers!!
To give a semi-educated guess (sorry, that's the best I can do), there shouldn't be any problems, except for the localized parts. You can copy the two "localstrings"-files elsewhere, so that you can put them back, should the patch overwrite them (which means that there will be some added strings that will be empty/missing)
There is one way to find out, though; apply the patch and fire up the game
(Just be prepared to do a full reinstall in case things go really, really bad...)
Hmmm... looking back on what I've written, I see that this isn't very helpful. Might provide some basis for further thought, though?
There is one way to find out, though; apply the patch and fire up the game
(Just be prepared to do a full reinstall in case things go really, really bad...)
Hmmm... looking back on what I've written, I see that this isn't very helpful. Might provide some basis for further thought, though?
The synchronization problem is fixed except in certain situations involving the pontooner ability.
If the army HQ contains a sailor/marine unit with pontooner ability, it will always move faster when using synch order than its corps if the corps do not contain a sailor or marine unit. Same is true of a corps. If one corps contains a sailor/marine, it will move out of synch with other corps/Army HQ lacking marines/sailors.
So if you want the synch order to work properly in launching a coordinated attack, either all corps and the army HQ contain marine/sailor units or none of the units contain marine/sailor units.
If all or none contain sailors/marines, then you can launch a coordinated attack with all active formations when using synch order.
If some corps/Army HQ's contain sailors/marines and others do not, the formations containing the sailors/marines will launch their attack before the other formations lacking sailors/marines when using synch order. In this situation, you will not have a coordinated attack.
The reason I had so much difficulty finding this problem is the test situation had an engineer with Grant's army HQ. In my modded model database, my engineers have the pontooner ability. In the non-modded model database, engineers do not have the pontooner ability.
If the army HQ contains a sailor/marine unit with pontooner ability, it will always move faster when using synch order than its corps if the corps do not contain a sailor or marine unit. Same is true of a corps. If one corps contains a sailor/marine, it will move out of synch with other corps/Army HQ lacking marines/sailors.
So if you want the synch order to work properly in launching a coordinated attack, either all corps and the army HQ contain marine/sailor units or none of the units contain marine/sailor units.
If all or none contain sailors/marines, then you can launch a coordinated attack with all active formations when using synch order.
If some corps/Army HQ's contain sailors/marines and others do not, the formations containing the sailors/marines will launch their attack before the other formations lacking sailors/marines when using synch order. In this situation, you will not have a coordinated attack.
The reason I had so much difficulty finding this problem is the test situation had an engineer with Grant's army HQ. In my modded model database, my engineers have the pontooner ability. In the non-modded model database, engineers do not have the pontooner ability.
Here is an example.
Say you have an Army HQ and three corps at Stafford, Virginia and you want to attack two Rebel corps at Fredericksburg in a coordinated attack. A synched attack is necessary because we only have three corps vs two corps. Within your army HQ and three corps, you have one marine unit with the pontooner ability. The corps or army HQ containing the marine unit will enter combat several days prior to the arrival of the rest of the army. In a quick check in game with clear mud conditions, the one corps containing the marine unit arrives 5 days prior to the rest of the army. So the first corps will more than likely attempt a retreat or be defeated before the arrival of the rest of the army. The reality is you should not use the one marine regiment. Leave him behind to ensure all of your army arrives synchronized.
If you moved the sailor unit to Fredericksburg also but separately from the corps, the sailor unit would launch an attack by itself 5 days earlier than the rest of the army. So in practice, sailors/marines with the pontooner capability must be left behind in a major attack unless all formations, HQ/Corps, contain sailors/marines.
To me, it seems the synch order needs to adjust the entire armies speed, HQ and corps, to the fastest or slowest formation taking into consideration the speed adjustment provided by the pontooner ability. Right now, the synch order is not considering the speed adjustment of formations when the pontooner ability is present.
Say you have an Army HQ and three corps at Stafford, Virginia and you want to attack two Rebel corps at Fredericksburg in a coordinated attack. A synched attack is necessary because we only have three corps vs two corps. Within your army HQ and three corps, you have one marine unit with the pontooner ability. The corps or army HQ containing the marine unit will enter combat several days prior to the arrival of the rest of the army. In a quick check in game with clear mud conditions, the one corps containing the marine unit arrives 5 days prior to the rest of the army. So the first corps will more than likely attempt a retreat or be defeated before the arrival of the rest of the army. The reality is you should not use the one marine regiment. Leave him behind to ensure all of your army arrives synchronized.
If you moved the sailor unit to Fredericksburg also but separately from the corps, the sailor unit would launch an attack by itself 5 days earlier than the rest of the army. So in practice, sailors/marines with the pontooner capability must be left behind in a major attack unless all formations, HQ/Corps, contain sailors/marines.
To me, it seems the synch order needs to adjust the entire armies speed, HQ and corps, to the fastest or slowest formation taking into consideration the speed adjustment provided by the pontooner ability. Right now, the synch order is not considering the speed adjustment of formations when the pontooner ability is present.
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Rafiki wrote:To give a semi-educated guess (sorry, that's the best I can do), there shouldn't be any problems, except for the localized parts. You can copy the two "localstrings"-files elsewhere, so that you can put them back, should the patch overwrite them (which means that there will be some added strings that will be empty/missing)
There is one way to find out, though; apply the patch and fire up the game
(Just be prepared to do a full reinstall in case things go really, really bad...)
Hmmm... looking back on what I've written, I see that this isn't very helpful. Might provide some basis for further thought, though?
Thanks for trying, Rafiki!
I´m going to open a new thread to try to get noticed and recieve an official answer.
I´m sure a foreign retail version will get better support from AGEOD than trying and reinstalling
Cheers!
Minor bug in 1.07f, maybe already fixed:
At the end of a hands-off game (played the North, just hit the Next Turn button throughout the game, did nothing else) of bigus' Atlanta scenario-in-the-making, I saw the dialog box:
Huh? How did I "manage to score more"? How is 48 > 48 ?
(Note: NM was unchanged. Only VPs changed. And indeed the map showed my VP as 48. A subsequent check of the Objectives screen also showed 48 VPs for both sides.)
At the end of a hands-off game (played the North, just hit the Next Turn button throughout the game, did nothing else) of bigus' Atlanta scenario-in-the-making, I saw the dialog box:
... This is a stalemate but you managed to score more than your opponent.
Your score: 48, Opponent score: 48.
Huh? How did I "manage to score more"? How is 48 > 48 ?
(Note: NM was unchanged. Only VPs changed. And indeed the map showed my VP as 48. A subsequent check of the Objectives screen also showed 48 VPs for both sides.)
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
In my full PBEM campaign 1.07e we had the bizarre circumstance where I was told I won a CSA victory while Gene was told the game was a stalemate!
If we hadn't checked the others closing positions we would not have realised - or may have had some very odd email exchanges about the game result
Cheers, Chris
If we hadn't checked the others closing positions we would not have realised - or may have had some very odd email exchanges about the game result
Cheers, Chris
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests