1.09 patch in public beta test

[Pocus]

Jagger, the days indicated are the travel days without taking into account synch. But if you execute the move, they arrive in synch.

The official 1.09 has been released. There is a bit of refinement pending on the new optional activation rule, but so far so good.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

Sorry my mistake, I mixed my mind with the release of NCP 1.03.

So we are still in beta.
What about arrows, they should appears theorically?

As for the HQs, as I have changed nothing in events since at least 4 months, this comes as a big surprise.

[Rafiki]

What about arrows, they should appears theorically?

In the new "Units built"-screen, if you build a large enough number of units so that you'll need to scroll to see them all, if you click the scrolling-arrows, the game crashes.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

Thanks gents, we are investigating the crash scroll and missing HQ issues.

[Pocus]

The new activation rule has been improved, you get fixed 100% of the time, with -1% for each 2% of MC and another bonus of 10 to 20% if you are unsupplied. This will help leaders move in due time.

[Le Ricain]

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.

First off, I made an error in my post. I am using beta 5.

I am afraid that I can not comment on the co-ordination of simultaneous attacks. Using the activation lock option, the best strategy for the Union seems to be to use divisions (especially in the East) so that you do not get strategic rating decreases due to the army commander. In my current game, I now have Grant in command of an army and will be able to judge this.

In the previous beta, I saw no problem with simultaneous attacks.

[Le Ricain]

The new activation rule has been improved, you get fixed 100% of the time, with -1% for each 2% of MC and another bonus of 10 to 20% if you are unsupplied. This will help leaders move in due time.

Excellent change...there yet is hope for McClellan.

[Jagger]

Jagger, the days indicated are the travel days without taking into account synch. But if you execute the move, they arrive in synch.

Pocus, are you sure on that? In patch 1.08, the travel days indicated were equal for all traveling corps when using synched movment. The only time I saw different travel times was when marines/sailers/engineers were in some corps but not others. The system worked beautifully otherwise.

Actually all the battle components seem to work properly in 1.08 including synched move, all formations participating in combat and proper retreats. The only problem was when engineers, sailors or marines were involved in synched moves. It was not until 1.08d that I started seeing the weird battle problems popping up.

I don't have any of the 1.09 patchs yet so I can't test the battle results at this time. I have asked a number of times if the problems are present in 1.09 but I don't think anyone has tested them yet. So no response.

But if the problems are still present, the battle process is broke. Although the system is very black box and people may not realize it for some time. Big multi-corps battles are fairly rare, at least in my games

Someone should open up a late war scenario like 1863 or the Shiloh scenario and run some tests involving muli-corps battles to confirm if the problems are present in 1.09.

The potential problems I see are synched multi-corps attacks, only one formation of a multi-corps group fighting in multi-day battles and some weird non-retreat results. Those are the problems I see in 1.08d. They may or may not be present in 1.09 but I assume they are if the battle process has not changed between 1.08d and 1.09.

[berto]

Pocus, are you sure on that? In patch 1.08, ...

I don't have any of the 1.09 patchs yet so I can't test ... at this time. I have asked a number of times if the problems are present in 1.09 but I don't think anyone has tested them yet. So no response.

...

Someone should ... run some tests ... to confirm if the problems are present in 1.09.

... Those are the problems I see in 1.08d. They may or may not be present in 1.09 but I assume they are if ... has not changed between 1.08d and 1.09.

Pocus & co. have so much to do that, so as not to confuse the issues and waste their time, I humbly suggest we should set then follow some bug reporting ground rules here.

This is the "1.09 patch in public beta test" thread. We should restrict all comments in this "1.09 patch" thread to definite bugs observed in 1.09, and not some earlier version.

To report earlier bugs, use earlier bug report threads specific to the version (i.e., 1.08* bugs in the 1.08 bug report thread(s)).

Also, within a version thread, when making a bug report, be very clear about which sub-version you are using, for example, 1.09a, 1.09b, 1.09c, and so on; or 1.09 beta1, 1.09 beta2, 1.09 beta3, and so on.

Then, Pocus can reply with "Oh, no problem, your 1.09 beta1 bug was fixed in 1.09 beta3 and thereafter."

It would also help if:

--We report what mods, if any, we are using when observing the bug.
--We attach the appropriate save game and/or mod files with our bug reports.
--Pocus clearly marks his beta patch releases (includes ensuring accuracy of patch names in his sig).
--Pocus creates a sticky publicly, comprehensively, and in one place reporting fixed bugs (sort of a work-in-progress, rough draft patch feature report).

Make sense?

[Brausepaul]

...
--We report what mods, if any, we are using when observing the bug.
--We attach the appropriate save game and/or mod files with our bug reports.
--Pocus clearly marks his beta patch releases (includes ensuring accuracy of patch names in his sig).
--Pocus creates a sticky publicly, comprehensively, and in one place reporting fixed bugs (sort of a work-in-progress, rough draft patch feature report).

Make sense?

May I add that bugs / issues / martians noticed in a modded game are more or less worthless for an official bug report. At least that's my opinion, but no software developer will take bug reports if you changed his software (and you can swear as long as you want that the mods shouldn't affect the "bug" you'd like to report).

[Jagger]

Pocus & co. have so much to do that, so as not to confuse the issues and waste their time, I humbly suggest we should set then follow some bug reporting ground rules here.

This is the "1.09 patch in public beta test" thread. We should restrict all comments in this "1.09 patch" thread to definite bugs observed in 1.09, and not some earlier version.

To report earlier bugs, use earlier bug report threads specific to the version (i.e., 1.08* bugs in the 1.08 bug report thread(s)).

Also, within a version thread, when making a bug report, be very clear about which sub-version you are using, for example, 1.09a, 1.09b, 1.09c, and so on; or 1.09 beta1, 1.09 beta2, 1.09 beta3, and so on.

Then, Pocus can reply with "Oh, no problem, your 1.09 beta1 bug was fixed in 1.09 beta3 and thereafter."

It would also help if:

--We report what mods, if any, we are using when observing the bug.
--We attach the appropriate save game and/or mod files with our bug reports.
--Pocus clearly marks his beta patch releases (includes ensuring accuracy of patch names in his sig).
--Pocus creates a sticky publicly, comprehensively, and in one place reporting fixed bugs (sort of a work-in-progress, rough draft patch feature report).

Make sense?

I disagee with restricting bug reports to the current patch. Patches come out very quickly and are extremely large. At the moment, it takes 5-6 hours to download the latest patch on my connection. I am not downloading beta patches until their stable.

A bug missed in an earlier patch very well may still exist in later patches. So any bug spotted in a relatively recent patch should be reported. Pocus will know if the bug has been fixed or not.

Bugs are often very difficult to spot. It is very easy for them to slide from patch to patch until reported. So if a bug is spotted or suspected, it never hurts to report them, IMO.

Rules and structure to bug reporting are usually useful as long as they don't reduce reporting of problems. Too many rules and structure and people just throw up their hands and walk away.

[berto]

I disagee ...

Okay, there will always be room for disagreement.

I suggest that Pocus decide the issue and set some ground rules, or not. Maybe he's just fine with the current arrangement.

I'd like to add that a sticky, with an ongoing, work-in-progress State of the Patch Report has this merit: Forum members can refer to it and answer some of the questions (A says to B, "oh, the sticky says that was fixed two betas ago"), thereby offloading some of the answering burden from Pocus' shoulders.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

May I add that bugs / issues / martians noticed in a modded game are more or less worthless for an official bug report. At least that's my opinion, but no software developer will take bug reports if you changed his software (and you can swear as long as you want that the mods shouldn't affect the "bug" you'd like to report).

I disagree. As long as a bug encountered in a modded game is explicitly stated to be in a modded game, I think it still can have value. I wouldn't blame the devs for disregarding it, though, if they have reason to believe it is due to the modding, but it might still uncover something that's in need of fixing. It might also trigger others (possibly with ummodded games) to add their own information and experiences concerning the bug.

Also, I believe it has value to uncover bugs in the mods that have been made for the game. There can be little doubt that the mods add value to the game, seeing as they increase the enjoyment people get from the game, and that they also can prove as good testing grounds for concepts, changes and tweaks that might not yet be ready for the official version. The modders have also helped push the boundaries of the game engine (e.g. with regards to scripting commands) which in turn benefit everyone.

In short, just as our local independent developers deserve support, so do our local modders, and a bug report is of value, no matter whose door it ends up at

[Jagger]

I suspect that Pocus just does not have the time to chase after unconfirmed bugs, especially ones that require game play to validate.

Currently, I am the lone voice pointing out the land battle problems which I have looked at closely. I am not enough to confirm the problems as I am on 1.08d and confirmation requires a second individual. Although Clovis did confirm some weird retreat results as well. I have asked three or four times on this thread for confirmation from those with 1.09 and have had no response. So I am assuming no one with 1.09 has tested the situations. But that doesn't mean the problems do not exist. It just means no one else has tested the situations or recognized the problem.

I agree that Pocus and team probably has very little time to test. I am amazed at the number of quality projects they are producing with such a small group. But at the same time, the ultimate responsibility for a well functioning product rests with the Ageod team. It is in their best interest to have as bug free a product as possibly as their reputation and future growth depends on the quality of their products. At the moment, relying on players to test for these problems is only partially working. As the problems I have found in 1.08d were not spotted by anyone else. Although if no one else notices a bug, I guess it isn't really that important.

But for me, I consider the game unplayable with 1.08d because of the land battle problems which did not exist in 1.08. I would go back to 1.08 but then naval battles did not work in 1.08. Hopefully 1.09 does not have the land battle problems but if not confirmed, I don't know. I guess I am going to have to download overnight and check myself. But I suspect they are still there but unrecognized.

[Jagger]

As long as a bug encountered in a modded game is explicitly stated to be in a modded game, I think it still can have value. I wouldn't blame the devs for disregarding it, though, if they have reason to believe it is due to the modding, but it might still uncover something that's in need of fixing. It might also trigger others (possibly with ummodded games) to add their own information and experiences concerning the bug.

I agree. The features which can be modded still rely on the underlying, unmodded engine. The same bug from the untouched engine will appear in both modded and unmodded games.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jagger]

Jagger:

If you'll start a separate thread and describe in detail what needs to be done to test for this problem, I will be more than happy to attempt to confirm whether or not it exists in the v1.09 betas. Occasionally, I have to take a break from the RR work for a day or so, and since I have the next 2 days off, (real life time), a little game play bug research will do just fine. That's the reason I confirmed the HQ bug cited above. It might save you the frustration of downloading this relatively large "beta" patch, which would only have to be downloaded again when it is fixed.

Regards

P.s. I'll be gone for a few hours which should give you time to work up a description for when I return.

Ok, that sounds good. I will find an easy to test situation in one of the scenarios and let you know what to look for.

[Rugie]

Please forgive if I am asking a question that has already been asked as this is my first post in this forum. I am playing 1.09 beta 2. I've noticed a couple of starting position errors and duplicate units which I will report this evening when I get home but I wanted to ask if others have seen the same problem with Naval operations.

I've yet to see a battle on the ocean but the most disturbing thing is that there appears to be no conflict on the rivers either. There have been numerous times that gunboat squadrons from both sides pass each other on a river and nothing takes place. I've set the stance to attack. Also gunboat squadrons seem to be able to run right past cities and forts that have guns with no combat.

Thanks,

Carl

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rugie]

Thanks Gray. Would you guys also want to know about units arriving in a different state. ie an Indiana Brigade appearing at a city in Iowa or and Ohio Brigade appearing in a Kentucky City?

Thanks,

Carl

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rugie]

Here are a few things I ran across using 109 Beta 5 in no particular order.

When selecting "Total Blockade" the text indicates the Union will receive $50,000, 15 VP's and 1 National Morale. After this is selected if you examine either the Replacements or Reinforcements Screen the text showing your resources indicate that you are losing the 15 VP's and 1 Morale Point instead of gaining. Checking the Financials Tab shows the $'s are being added as indicated.

Late June two Militia units show up in Rochester. One is the Rochester Militia and the other is the Utica Militia. Should the Utica Militia arrive in Utica? No unit shows in that city.

Late July in Indianapolis there are two brigades both named 1st Indiana Volunteers. They do have different component elements but the name is exactly the same and oddly they both show the same Col. Grisham as their officer above the elements display box.

Late June two militia units show up in Louisville. Both named "Louisville Milita". Perhaps these are two different legitimate units but wanted to mention them since they have exactly the same names and the elements are not individually ID'd.

The version label shown no longer shows 109 beta 5 but simply 109.

In Early June 1861 a brigade appears in Philadelphia. It is listed as the California Brigade and shows containing 4 Infantry Regiments. The 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th California. My knowledge is by no means great but I am not familiar with a unit that was formed at this time made up of California men.

It does appear the navy combat problem I saw in beta 2 was resolved. I am now seeing ship to ship combat.

Thanks,

Carl

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

1.09 is deemed stable enough to be released (3 bugs fixed today). Thanks you all for your participation! The effort can continue for the next patch. Is a game ever finished?

[Rafiki]

Is a game ever finished?

Not the best ones; that's part of what makes them great, IMHO