1.09 patch in public beta test

[Big Muddy]

It does not get fixed unless you post a log file.

How do I do this?

[runyan99]

After a crash, go into ACW/Logs and post the !Mainlog file here. It should contain info on what caused the crash.

[Le Ricain]

Yes ....he becomes active in the log.....then becomes locked during the activation check...
This is the way I see it.

you can check the status of any leader of a stack by looking at the "envelope" above the info box.


bigus

OK...so WAD? As I said, this is not a problem that affects game play. The stacks on the map are clearly marked as to their status. Why not just eliminate the log messages dealing with activation all together? They serve no useful purpose.

I must admit that I do like the new activation rule. It is making me rethink the strategy for the Union in the East. Do you go with powerful mutually supporting corps that are fixed in place 2/3 of the time or go with independent and mobile divisions that are vulnerable. Interesting...

[Pocus]

California is like in the Italian TV with the difference that here all is real.

One thing didn't change in the last 5 days: AgeOd's commitment to improve AACW. It's now time to install AACW here!

PS: Mc Pherson's book is a bomb!!!

Move done then? So how are the girls (you know, the song...)

Attention all, there is an important thread to read in the Lounge, for whose who have the rights, that is

[Pocus]

Strange, nobody see the new arrows if too much unit in the recruit window?

Can one of you open the file acw\frontend\EventWindow.fte and tell me if these values are found:

Param8 = 0 // Offset for Flags
Param9 = 40 // Offset for Text
Param10 = -430 // Offset for NATO Symbol
Param11 = 25 // Number of lines

[Pocus]

UPDATE! The NATO icons positions depend of the resolution used (I just tested).

Fix underway...

[Pocus]

UPDATE

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/patch_AACW_v1.09_beta5.zip

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Pocus:

Okay, arrows are now inside the box, however, when scrolling with the arrows I get errors as shown on the screen below. The "!Main.log" is in the attached .zip below

....

Regards
.

I got CTD when scrolling. Scrolled OK until I clicked down scroll when nothing was left to scroll to...

[GShock]

Move done then? So how are the girls (you know, the song...)

I have a fiancee in bucharest ouch i am not looking at girls but yes SF and all the bay area is full of chicks...the move is done and eh, tonite is my first day at work in uncle's restaurant. This morning we met a man whos selling another one and next year my uncle is buying another one in Las Vegas...eh...im still upside down...trust me girls are the last issue...i cant even dial a phone number here! lol

Attention all, there is an important thread to read in the Lounge, for whose who have the rights, that is

I wanted to post about my move there but couldn't find the forum...

[lodilefty]

I'm a bit confused, and/or concerned.

So far, it seems that on "max" activaton rule (tooltip says "Inactive leader always locked") I get locked when inactive - OK, then next turn, I get "Leader Active" message, but leader locks again if he fails activation test... Weren't we trying to have the penaly be just 1 turn?
If this (locking multiple turns in a row) is our intent, I've got to adjust my mod (reduced a lot of strategic ratings, which could paralyze the armies!)

Second point: what is the equivalent of the "pre activation lock" rule? Is it "always active" [first check box], or "severe penalty" [second check box]

[runyan99]

The 'normal' rules would be the second check box.

[runyan99]

So far, it seems that on "max" activaton rule (tooltip says "Inactive leader always locked") I get locked when inactive - OK, then next turn, I get "Leader Active" message, but leader locks again if he fails activation test... Weren't we trying to have the penaly be just 1 turn?

I don't see any errors in a quick test. I suspect you are seeing leaders who are getting released by the scenario on a certain date ("Leader Active" message) but are failing their activation check on that turn, as so remain fixed. As far as I can tell, no active leaders are not getting locked.

[runyan99]

What's the deal with Dallas/Kaufman?

[Paul Roberts]

I don't see any errors in a quick test. I suspect you are seeing leaders who are getting released by the scenario on a certain date ("Leader Active" message) but are failing their activation check on that turn, as so remain fixed. As far as I can tell, no active leaders are not getting locked.

I think the confusion comes from the word "activation," which is ambiguous here. The message "This leader is now active" refers to his being available for the player's use, but "activation" is a term also used to describe whether a leader can give orders without penalty (the white vs. brown envelope).

Perhaps the message should be changed to "This leader is now available for service" or some such.

[Jagger]

Has the Army coordinated attack feature been fixed?

In 108.d patch, I just massed three corps together to attack a large Union army at Manassas. Unfortunately, in plotting the attack using the coordinated army attack feature, one corps will arrive in 5 days, the second corps in 6 days and third corps in 7 days. None of the corps have engineers, marines or sailors which affect speed.

I can't attack because they will attack piecemeal and each will suffer bad defeats. So I don't attack and I have to concede the town. This problem happens regularly.

Not having a working coordinated army attack function has a significant negative impact on gameplay.

Is it fixed in this latest patch? If not, is a fix for the coordinated attack on the "to do" list? Hopefully it is fairly high priority.

[Le Ricain]

I don't see any errors in a quick test. I suspect you are seeing leaders who are getting released by the scenario on a certain date ("Leader Active" message) but are failing their activation check on that turn, as so remain fixed. As far as I can tell, no active leaders are not getting locked.

It appears that all leaders, who were locked on the previous turn, get a message the following turn informing you that they are now active. This fits with the idea that the lock is only for a single turn. Then all of the leaders go through an activation check...some pass and some fail. In my current game McClellan has failed 16 consecutive activation checks. However, there is no message informing you of the results of this activation check.

The confusion comes because of the activation message. You are informed the someone is active, when they plainly are not.

The message is redundant and should be eliminated. All leaders are active up until the point that they check for activation. I do not need a message informing me of this.

[lodilefty]

It appears that all leaders, who were locked on the previous turn, get a message the following turn informing you that they are now active. This fits with the idea that the lock is only for a single turn. Then all of the leaders go through an activation check...some pass and some fail. In my current game McClellan has failed 16 consecutive activation checks. However, there is no message informing you of the results of this activation check.

....

16 straight turns locked is what worries me. Is there a way to "flag" that he was locked so he can be unlocked (but maybe still inactive) the next turn??? At least then he could move every other turn.....

[runyan99]

16 straight turns locked is what worries me. Is there a way to "flag" that he was locked so he can be unlocked (but maybe still inactive) the next turn??? At least then he could move every other turn.....

Damn, that's a string of bad luck. Even McClellan should activate more than 1/6 of the time, or almost 3 times in 16 turns.

But, examples like this are another reason I think the current setting is too restrictive for AACW, and I hope Pocus will use the MC%-25/100 chance to not be locked (or 25% chance to lock in 100% controlled territory), so that even being inactive will only give a CHANCE to be locked, but not always.

[Le Ricain]

Damn, that's a string of bad luck. Even McClellan should activate more than 1/6 of the time, or almost 3 times in 16 turns.

But, examples like this are another reason I think the current setting is too restrictive for AACW, and I hope Pocus will use the MC%-25/100 chance to not be locked (or 25% chance to lock in 100% controlled territory), so that even being inactive will only give a CHANCE to be locked, but not always.

I like the sound of your proposal.

Using the activation rule changes the game dramatically for the Union. This is not to say that it is a bad thing. The Union is forced to re-think his strategy. My current plan is to use strong divisions and avoid using corps or armies until such time that the good 3* generals emerge. This may be in line with the RL situation of 1861/62. So far, this plan seems to be working.

Your proposal would solve the McClellan problem. In my game, if Little Mac were to find himself unlocked after 16 turns, what am I going to do with him?
The war has passed him by. I will probably leave him sunning himself in Cincinnati.

[Paul Roberts]

Small resolution bug:

Since installing the 1.09 beta patch, my game frequently exits out without restoring my original desktop resolution. This occasionally happened before 1.09, and also happens with Napoleon's Campaigns, but it is more frequent now.

I've also noticed that, since installing 1.09, the game often starts in my desktop resolution, ignoring my configuration settings from previous sessions. This never happened before AACW 1.09. I haven't seen it in Napoleon.

I've use the following configuration settings:
Full screen, 1152x864, color 32, frequency 75
(My desktop is 1024x768, color 32, frequency 75)

[Jagger]

I just did some battle tests.

Union army with two corps attacked three CSA corps. Only one CSA corps fought in three separate battles. Jackson's Corps was completely wiped out. Johnson and Beauregard's corps never fought in any of the battles.

This bug of only one formation fighting was squashed way back when but is back.

I am still testing with 1.08d. I don't know if it is in 1.09.

Here is the battle log.

[Pocus]

I just did some battle tests.

Union army with two corps attacked three CSA corps. Only one CSA corps fought in three separate battles. Jackson's Corps was completely wiped out. Johnson and Beauregard's corps never fought in any of the battles.

This bug of only one formation fighting was squashed way back when but is back.

I am still testing with 1.08d. I don't know if it is in 1.09.

Here is the battle log.

The code was reviewed on this part and the bug cleared. Since that, there was no changes about that, so I would need more results like this one so to not double check in vain (with the backup to reenact battle too).

[Pocus]

Small resolution bug:

Since installing the 1.09 beta patch, my game frequently exits out without restoring my original desktop resolution. This occasionally happened before 1.09, and also happens with Napoleon's Campaigns, but it is more frequent now.

I've also noticed that, since installing 1.09, the game often starts in my desktop resolution, ignoring my configuration settings from previous sessions. This never happened before AACW 1.09. I haven't seen it in Napoleon.

I've use the following configuration settings:
Full screen, 1152x864, color 32, frequency 75
(My desktop is 1024x768, color 32, frequency 75)

be sure to check what are the setting really stored in the file display.opt, perhaps they are not saved correctly?

[trajan]

I don't know the game mechanics very well, so please forgive me if this is a dumb question. Has anyone else noticed that generals with a 4 or 5 Strategic rating seem to be inactive more frequently with the new beta patch? I'm pretty sure I'm playing with the default activation rule (I haven't changed anything to my knowledge). I am using moderate randomization for stats though. One example of what I'm seeing is General McDowell (the starting Army commander in the East) got a strategic stat of 4, yet he's been inactive for over half of the turns so far. Same thing with General Keyes (one of the starting '61 generals). His strategic stat is 5, and he's constantly inactive as well.

I thought I remembered reading in the manual that anything 3 or above for Strategic should be a good indicator that the general will be active most of the time.

Is it possible that activation roll is checking the "default" stat but that the number used in game for battle calculation is the "randomized" one?

Thanks for any answers you can give me.

[berto]

[resurfacing after working intensively on a EU3 modding project for the past 2-3 weeks...]

There seem to be more than the usual bug reports with the 1.09 beta series. More than one bug are purported to be essentially game breakers.

Is this a correct perception?

Is the latest 1.09 beta unplayable? Sort of playable? Very playable?

How far are we from the release of a fairly clean, stable, official 1.09 patch?

I ask all of this because--my constant refrain--I simply don't have the time to "waste" on playtesting/debugging beta patches. I'm dying to return to actual game play (huh, what's that?) again. And hopefully a late version that incorporates bigus' scenarios (as I still don't have time play the full campaigns).

So, what's the state of the current 1.09 beta? Are we getting close to "official"?

[Le Ricain]

[resurfacing after working intensively on a EU3 modding project for the past 2-3 weeks...]

There seem to be more than the usual bug reports with the 1.09 beta series. More than one bug are purported to be essentially game breakers.

Is this a correct perception?

Is the latest 1.09 beta unplayable? Sort of playable? Very playable?

How far are we from the release of a fairly clean, stable, official 1.09 patch?

I ask all of this because--my constant refrain--I simply don't have the time to "waste" on playtesting/debugging beta patches. I'm dying to return to actual game play (huh, what's that?) again. And hopefully a late version that incorporates bigus' scenarios (as I still don't have time play the full campaigns).

So, what's the state of the current 1.09 beta? Are we getting close to "official"?

Berto,

I am playing the Union in the April 61 GC (vers 1.09 beta 4) with activation lock option and standard leader stats. I now in mid-1862. I have found the game to be bug free and stable so far. I would say that the game is very playable.

The only anomaly I have noticed is that I have had McClellan locked in place for 24 consecutive turns.

[Franciscus]

I must say that I got a critical error (it's been months since the last time I got one of those )with 1.09 beta5, playing April campaign as CSA on June 1861. I sent the files to Pocus.
It seemed to be something about a region - Rensselaer, NY (?), but not sure. It was reproducible with my saves, even with no mods, but apparently not with a new game.
Waiting to hear from Pocus

[bloodybucket]

The game seems stable with (vers 1.09 beta 4). I am disturbed, however, that with all this constant improvement to the game I still suck as a commander, however.

[Jagger]

Berto,

I am playing the Union in the April 61 GC (vers 1.09 beta 4) with activation lock option and standard leader stats. I now in mid-1862. I have found the game to be bug free and stable so far. I would say that the game is very playable.

The only anomaly I have noticed is that I have had McClellan locked in place for 24 consecutive turns.

When you have multi-corps battles over several day period, are all corps fighting? Or are all casualties concentrated in a single corps.

When you use the army command for coordinated, simultaneous attacks are all corps arriving on the same day in the attack region? Or are they arriving on different days and fighting separate battles?

If the army coordinated attack command is working properly, then all corps should take exactly the same number of days to travel into the attack region.