---> AACW Patch 1.10b release

[pepe4158]

FYI, about 90% of my cavalry escapades in our game involved riverine movement. Even if this stays broken, you still wouldn't catch them with trains.

I'm on a roll tonight.

No kidding huh...geesh your Cav will now be out-running trains cuz they went by river...geesh dont tell me, they all took white water rafting courses! (even the horses right?)

You know Barksdale decided by turn 3 to sail (raiders) by ocean up to Brooklyn Ny. I had to do a big as I envisoned this barge, sailing in rough sea water, up the New England coast line, full of confederates and horses

Oh yeah that could happen theoreticaly too! (my butt in RL) Geesh what a logistical nightmare that mission would be.

N since you mentioned it...cav shouldnt get to just willy nilly use the rivers for movement...what do you do with the horses...put them on too? Infantry yes, cav no IMO ; at the very minimum some type of penalty for building the boats in loss of days for either type of unit.

[Gray_Lensman]

< deleted >

[Mickey3D]

Hi all,

Here is what is written about the 1.10 patch :

To prevent troops from crossing rivers, you must now have at least 4 ships elements in offensive posture (was 1 in any posture)

But in a PBEM game I'm playing, I was unable to prevent the crossing of a river to an ennemy corps I was within an ace of surrounding leure:

Is there some special constraints like the type of boat to use or is the number of boats to use proportional to the size of the enemy unit ?

Thanks

[W.Barksdale]

The feature is busted for now....You can't block any crossings as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I'd suggest you go back to 1.09 for your pbem since there seems to be quite a few problems with this patch.

[Mickey3D]

To go to version 1.09 you have to reinstall the whole application, isn't it ?

[Hohenlohe]

Please read the Patch description,there is explained that you need now 4 riverboats to block enemy from crossing as I know.I will not install the new patch because of this.

heartly greetings

Hohenlohe

[W.Barksdale]

Please read the Patch description,there is explained that you need now 4 riverboats to block enemy from crossing as I know.I will not install the new patch because of this.

heartly greetings

Hohenlohe

As I've said, this patch is botched, river crossings cannot be obsctructed at all in 1.10.

[Mickey3D]

Please read the Patch description,there is explained that you need now 4 riverboats to block enemy from crossing as I know.I will not install the new patch because of this.

heartly greetings

Hohenlohe

And that's what I did : I set 5 boats in offensive posture

[Inside686]

The feature is busted for now....You can't block any crossings as far as I can tell.

That explains why I've never succeeded in blocking rivers since I installed the new patch, thank you W.Barksdale. What are the other problem you were talking about with 1.10?

[W.Barksdale]

That explains why I've never succeeded in blocking rivers since I installed the new patch, thank you W.Barksdale. What are the other problem you were talking about with 1.10?

You'll find all the problems with the patch in the Official 1.10 thread.

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]Merged threads since the river-crossing issue relates directly and only to patch 1.10[/color]

[AndrewKurtz]

As I've said, this patch is botched, river crossings cannot be obsctructed at all in 1.10.

Well that is a pretty important feature to get fixed, especially with a Grand Campaign being played. Puts us Union boys at quite a disadvantage.

[Pocus]

I don't see any obvious bug in the code on the river crossing problem, I'll have to check that tuesday (away until that) with a save. If someone can send be a save with the trouble at pmalacher@age-studio.com, it will speed up my search, thanks.

AI & RR: yes this will be the first work to be done.

[runyan99]

File sent.

[Jabberwock]

Yes... But the lack of control over where newly built ships are placed will also work against the CSA if they end up with a ship placed up river (for instance Chattanooga). It won't be able to get past Middle Tennessee River (Muscle Shoals) down river either.

Hold on... I'm putting it together now along with the vanilla settings to revert back when you want. It's just 5 .rgn files believe it or not! I'll just attach it here in a few minutes.

Here they are in (fast install) format... You'll probably have to test with 1863 Campaign Scenario in order to not have Fort Donelson interfere...

This seems to be WAD. Troops using riverine movement can sail right on through - a. probably WAD and justifiable, b. difficult to modify anyway.

[Jabberwock]

N since you mentioned it...cav shouldnt get to just willy nilly use the rivers for movement...what do you do with the horses...put them on too? Infantry yes, cav no IMO ; at the very minimum some type of penalty for building the boats in loss of days for either type of unit.

Oh, my boys never build boats. We steal them.

Yours truly,
"Missouri" Jeff Thompson, commanding officer, CSS Grand Rapids II

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pepe4158]

Oh, my boys never build boats. We steal them.

Yours truly,
"Missouri" Jeff Thompson, commanding officer, CSS Grand Rapids II

Yes...I suppose it was durn nice of us to buy & build boats ahead of time that would accomodate room for your horses ........ wooa nelly now Ive heard everything! Is your job succesfully selling ice to eskimos?

[Drambuie]

Was just reading through this thread - was getting a little mystified as to why my deployed boats were not stopping the Union from river crossing etc in the West.

Bit of a side issue too - in ref to the building of reinforcements, ships or men etc, is there any reason why the location of building is randomised? I guess for infantry the state does the mobilising so perhaps there is a good reason but I have had a brigade 'appear' in a city that was threatened by siege and the losses it took because it was only half formed etc were really painful.

In terms of ships, should the building location really be random? Gray's comments about the divided river and the problem of where boats will appear seems to highlight that this is a little awkward.

Thanks

[Turbo823]

Regarding the river blocking:
I hope the river blocking stays broken -- the feature is unrealistic and silly. In addition, I doubt the AI uses it anyway.

At best, there should either be a slight movement penalty for crossing the river or a low probability roll of preventing it.

Consider that the Union could not 100% successfully blockade port entrances which are considerably smaller in distance. That river gunboats of this era could successfully maintain a constant and 100% success movement interdiction given the map scale, the technology of the gunboats, and the time scale is really ridicious. Seriously...

Regarding the reinforcement location:
The game seems to take into consideration whether the city is strategic and the city size. A random location fits the lack of central planning that was involved during this period.

[W.Barksdale]

I think it's a bug anyway. May be due to historically attrition...but every element is gone so I find it suspect. Clarification would be appreciated.

Look up Hooker in WV. He was promoted to ** and subsequently lost all the elements in his division. I've attached the appropriate saves.

[Jabberwock]

Is your job succesfully selling ice to eskimos?

Talk to enough eskimos, one of them will need ice ... or can be convinced that he needs ice.

[berto]

This reminds me: How is work on properly implementing the Cumberland Gap proceeding?

Every effort--Gray's RR mod, fine tuning the rivers, redoing certain critical regions, etc.--that accurately models the quirks and nuances of The Real Game is all to the good. Blandness and generalizations diminish the experience. A truly great game gets all (or as many as possible) of the details right.

[Turbo823]

Is this a bug? I have 2 corps with the same name. One is a 'naval' corps headed by Buchanan. I can't get rid of the Naval Johnston corps.


Edit: I was able to get rid of it by moving the leader out of the naval group. It then formed a Buchanan corps and I was able to disband it. Didn't know that naval leaders could form a corps.

[Jabberwock]

Yes this is a bug. Separate out Buchanan, and see if you can 'remove corps' from him. If he no longer has the corps symbol, add the rest of the stack to his new stack.

[Turbo823]

Yes this is a bug. Separate out Buchanan, and see if you can 'remove corps' from him. If he no longer has the corps symbol, add the rest of the stack to his new stack.

That worked. Thanks!

[Franciscus]

Well, now that the gunboats went sailing somewhere else , any ETA on a new patch (correcting the small problems of this one, namely divisions replacements and river crossings) ?

[Pocus]

soon

[R.E.LEE]

soon

Pocus can you hack my post count and make me a Gaurd of Honor.
This is great by the time i get enough ram to play this great game,it will be all patched up to da nutz. apy:

[Rafiki]

Pocus can you hack my post count and make me a Gaurd of Honor.

He could, but where would the satisfaction then be in actually achieving that title by actively participating in the life of these forums?

Also, every single member here (except AFAIK one... ) have earned their postcounts the hard way; no reason to start changing that now.

(And this has very little to do with the 1.10-patch, BTW )