Big Muddy

Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:41 am

runyan99 wrote:It does not get fixed unless you post a log file.


How do I do this?

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:03 am

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

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3284
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:06 pm

bigus wrote: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...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

'Nous voilà, Lafayette'

Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:14 pm

GShock wrote: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 :sourcil:
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:19 pm

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
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:04 pm

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

Fix underway...
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:44 pm

Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:07 pm

deleted

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:43 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote: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...

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:03 pm

Pocus wrote: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

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


I wanted to post about my move there but couldn't find the forum... :(
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Activation rule

Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:23 pm

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? :8o:
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!) :nuts:

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] :8o:

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:30 pm

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

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:14 pm

lodilefty wrote:
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? :8o:


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.

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:37 pm

What's the deal with Dallas/Kaufman?

User avatar
Paul Roberts
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:26 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:01 pm

runyan99 wrote: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
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:09 am

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. :siffle:

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3284
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:29 am

runyan99 wrote: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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:43 am

Le Ricain wrote: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.....

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:12 am

lodilefty wrote: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.

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3284
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:18 pm

runyan99 wrote: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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
Paul Roberts
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:26 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:05 pm

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
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:39 am

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.
Attachments

[The extension txt has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:08 pm

Jagger wrote: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).
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:49 pm

Paul Roberts wrote: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?
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

trajan
Civilian
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:26 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:27 pm

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.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:39 pm

[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"?
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!

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3284
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:50 am

berto wrote:[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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:09 am

I must say that I got a critical error (it's been months since the last time I got one of those :king: )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 :bonk:

User avatar
bloodybucket
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:41 am
Location: Shoreline, WA

Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:25 am

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
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:56 am

Le Ricain wrote: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.

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests