Coming fury mod for 1.09 with Kentucky revamp

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Potential bug? Just started a PBEM, I am host and both using 1.09a and your latest download. We are using winrar for turns. When I got his orders back and executed I got a few error messages (looks like they are related to weather). I just hit "non" a few times and turn went fine. Here are the errors from the log:

9:29:23 AM (Reporting) Starting CalcWeatherPatterns
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1511 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1512 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1513 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1514 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1515 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1516 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1517 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1518 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1519 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1520 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1521 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM [Warning ] TWeather.CalcWeathers Erroneous logic, region: 1522 has not weather set.
9:29:23 AM (Reporting) Ending CalcWeatherPatterns

I'll let you know if this persists with second turn. Hope this helps, but maybe it's just me.

Fixed in the next version ( being the New England Region and some "false" regions, has no impact on actual play.

[satisfaction]

Fixed in the next version ( being the New England Region and some "false" regions, has no impact on actual play.

What I thought, as I checked the map id's and they didn't seem important. Obviously still get error each turn, but we are ignoring it.

[Clovis]

Great to hear, as this is my biggest issue. Being a bit of a Civil War historian the massive fortifications early in the war really tweaked the flow and "reality" of the game. Especially reading of numerous cases in the first half of the war where generals wouldn't dig in because the thought it was unmilitary and would hurt morale. Even Lee at Fredericksburg (great defesive victory) relied much more on terrain (I'm saying the stone wall was terrain, they did not build it) than digging in. Seems it really wasn't until the 40 days that entrenchments really begin to swing battles. I would be in favor of having this value be almost 0 in 1861, maybe 1 (double these for artillery present) in 1862 and first half of 1863 then fall 1863-summer 1864 make it 3 and 4 from then on. Is there a discussion area for this? Will this be in a future official patch or is it being modded? Can't wait.

I keep a more balanced view of the matter. Halleck used heavily entrenchmeents during his advance on Corinth in 1862. Lee used fieldworks until his first victories in 1862 then discarded them for the reasons you mentioned.

I really believe , under the trend leading to massive use of entrenchments, the first years showed contradictary evolutions in their use.

[sabbot]

Started a PBEM with the Clovis mod under 1.09b. Eventhough the game is executing the unit orders in the map fine, it is not executing any ledger commands for the non-host player (me). That is, no reinforcement, replacements, drafts, bonds, etc. Any suggestion how to solve this?

Sabbot

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Started a PBEM with the Clovis mod under 1.09b. Eventhough the game is executing the unit orders in the map fine, it is not executing any ledger commands for the non-host player (me). That is, no reinforcement, replacements, drafts, bonds, etc. Any suggestion how to solve this?

Sabbot

What say the hostlog file in the logs folder ( in the Struggle mod folder)?

I will try to simplify the install process. I haven't the prog skill necessary for create an automatic install but at last I will reorganize modded files...

[Big Muddy]

Started a PBEM with the Clovis mod under 1.09b. Eventhough the game is executing the unit orders in the map fine, it is not executing any ledger commands for the non-host player (me). That is, no reinforcement, replacements, drafts, bonds, etc. Any suggestion how to solve this?

Sabbot

Try it with 1.09a

[satisfaction]

What say the hostlog file in the logs folder ( in the Struggle mod folder)?

I will try to simplify the install process. I haven't the prog skill necessary for create an automatic install but at last I will reorganize modded files...

I'm BACK...actually I am the host of this game (gee imagine that). Looking through the host log I do not see any of these events named. For me USA they work (for my events, i do not recall for his as I don't know exactly when he did them), just do not show up in list for my opponent to see. I'll be happy to send you my log if you want it.

Also on my entrenchment discussion I've got an idea! Seems to me in the early war (1861-1862) there are 2 great fortifiers....and they both moved incredibly slow. Halleck and Mac...both of which do (know Mac does, Halleck should) have the Slow Mover trait. There is a strong correlation between these two slow movers and why they were moving slow.....they dug in every few miles. Halleck in the Corinth campaign and Mac in the Peninsula. So maybe you allow slow movers to entrench at a higher level than would otherwise be available at that time early in the war. Thoughts?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

I'm BACK...actually I am the host of this game (gee imagine that). Looking through the host log I do not see any of these events named. For me USA they work (for my events, i do not recall for his as I don't know exactly when he did them), just do not show up in list for my opponent to see. I'll be happy to send you my log if you want it.

Also on my entrenchment discussion I've got an idea! Seems to me in the early war (1861-1862) there are 2 great fortifiers....and they both moved incredibly slow. Halleck and Mac...both of which do (know Mac does, Halleck should) have the Slow Mover trait. There is a strong correlation between these two slow movers and why they were moving slow.....they dug in every few miles. Halleck in the Corinth campaign and Mac in the Peninsula. So maybe you allow slow movers to entrench at a higher level than would otherwise be available at that time early in the war. Thoughts?

Send me the log. i've really no clue about this problem as I never pbemed with my mod.

The number of abilities by leader is free. moreover, abilities are divided in classes with various effects. So it's impossible to have one ability affecting both movement and entrenchment.

About giving both abilities to halleck and McClellan, I fwill look into that.

[satisfaction]

Send me the log. i've really no clue about this problem as I never pbemed with my mod.

The number of abilities by leader is free. moreover, abilities are divided in classes with various effects. So it's impossible to have one ability affecting both movement and entrenchment.

About giving both abilities to halleck and McClellan, I fwill look into that.

We are going to swap hosts and try and play a "clean modded" 1.09a and see if problem persists. Will let you know if it does. Also on the entrenchments...sounds like seperate abilities is the way to go. Just thinking that the correlation between the heavy diggers was strong with their slow movement. Would be interested to see if this could lower fortification early on overall, but still account for the few that did it with a special ability. Aside from these offensive fortifiers (fortifcation while on the offensive) I am having a hard time finding anything beyond simple piling up of a few rocks or fence rails in 1861 or 1862.

[satisfaction]

I am having trouble backdating my ACW copies. My 1.09a works great (having a good game vs AI), but can't get an old 1.09 to work. My opponent doesn't have anything before 1.09b....so my question is the current version of mod posted compatible with 1.09c? If so then maybe we go that route.

[Clovis]

It should. I can't be totally affirmative as I'm myself using a new version of the mod with the 1.09c but I don't see anything since the 1.09a to be incompatible with the mod.

[Big Muddy]

It should. I can't be totally affirmative as I'm myself using a new version of the mod with the 1.09c but I don't see anything since the 1.09a to be incompatible with the mod.

How's the new version and 1.09c working together.

[satisfaction]

Question on forts and naval blockade. If I control the forts do I control the adjacent sea lane for blockade purposes? Seems to me it should be as forts were placed in chokepoints on critical sealanes. Also to account for the fact forts were on these strategic points it seems they should not interdict sealanes that were not part of these. For instance the forts outside Charleston. If they are controlled Charleston should be blockaded (Charles River), but if they are not USA ships should still sail past in Charleston Bay. Was not hard to sail outside the range of guns at this time. I see a few changes that would needed to be made, a la the RR Mod. Like Savannah, Ft Pulaski would need to be made adjacent to Savannah Mouth and blockade that. Have you looked at these for your mod? If not I would love to try my limited skills at helping (or making a mod that is compatible with yours), would begin to do do for the Navy what you have done for the land war. Anyone else have thoughts....sorry to post this in your mod thread but thought you might have/plan to address.

[Clovis]

Question on forts and naval blockade. If I control the forts do I control the adjacent sea lane for blockade purposes? Seems to me it should be as forts were placed in chokepoints on critical sealanes. Also to account for the fact forts were on these strategic points it seems they should not interdict sealanes that were not part of these. For instance the forts outside Charleston. If they are controlled Charleston should be blockaded (Charles River), but if they are not USA ships should still sail past in Charleston Bay. Was not hard to sail outside the range of guns at this time. I see a few changes that would needed to be made, a la the RR Mod. Like Savannah, Ft Pulaski would need to be made adjacent to Savannah Mouth and blockade that. Have you looked at these for your mod? If not I would love to try my limited skills at helping (or making a mod that is compatible with yours), would begin to do do for the Navy what you have done for the land war. Anyone else have thoughts....sorry to post this in your mod thread but thought you might have/plan to address.

interesting ideas. Naval part isn't my outmost priority for now by lack of time and any help would be useful

[Clovis]

How's the new version and 1.09c working together.

Well, I want to:

- achieve to fix some errors in OOB at start ( I've reworked CSA forces in Missouri and I've yet eastern theater to shape)
- give at last full texts for events
- put some pictures for some new units and model
- modify slighty the proportion of rifled and muskets regiments at start


before releasing the new version.

[Clovis]

Here's the new CSA forces in Missouri. The Missouri State guards, an hedgepodge of militia, irregular cavalry and a few guns, are concentrating in "Little Dixie" and peculiarly Boonville and Lexington under Sterling Price command. Lyon's force has seized Jefferson city... CSA AI is genrally flying South on the next turn as CSA units start with few cohesion points and understrenght units

[satisfaction]

interesting ideas. Naval part isn't my outmost priority for now by lack of time and any help would be useful

I'll start looking into it tonight. Think I can figure most out, but no idea how I would adjust the graphics to account for any changes. Glad to help.

[JB Hood]

playing as csa, i can´t drag my brig´s into any blockade box at sea.

message " can´t reach destination"

why?

[Clovis]

playing as csa, i can´t drag my brig´s into any blockade box at sea.

message " can´t reach destination"

why?

I will check that.

[Big Muddy]

When will new version be ready?

[JB Hood]

I will check that.

did a fresh install, now it works

i think i mixed up some files

[Clovis]

When will new version be ready?

Soon.... I need around 3 work days... but Unfortunately I get only a few moments a day to complete the mod leure:

[Clovis]

did a fresh install, now it works

i think i mixed up some files

Certainly... I see AI putting vessels into these boxes regularly.

[Clovis]

Some screens from August 61. Playing against CSA AI with low aggressiveness and small Fog of war advantage settings and I'm really thrilled:

1) I've made some changes about battle settings to get better losses ratios



2) AI even under harsher constraints isn't lacking ressources:



3) I've introduced some new abilities; here for example Halleck's poor foraging trait... depicting his relunctance to forage in Southern regions



4) Kentucky is yet neutral but the defense of Fort Donelson is impressive:




5) In Western Virginia, active campaign has occured between McClellan and Magruder. CSA AI has captured Steubenville in Ohio:



6) In the East, CSA AI is currently maneuvering around McDowell 's army in oreder to retake Manassas after having repulsed Patterson action on Harper's ferry:



8) In the Missouri, the offensive led by Lyon has been halted by Sibley's force at Springfield:



9) The loss ration between me and AI is a shame for me:

[Evren]

Wow Clovis,

You seem like you are proud of seeing your kid doing the right stuff after all the efforts you've made and all the difficulties you faced in raising it . You must be (or will be) a great father .

I'm impressed by the way. I feel respect for your hard work.

Regards,

Evren

[Clovis]

September 61: CSA AI invades Kentucky. My forces are plotted to rush on Kentucky. With the limitations on War supplies, and the gretaer lenght to get brigades built ready for service, I've only few units:




CSA ai has planed too moves into Kentucky...Here are results for late september turn:

[Big Muddy]

I'm still using v109a, holding off "e" for now until problems are solved. When mod is finished would 109d be good choice.