AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 9 - December 19, 2011

[Normalguy]

Merry Christmas Lodilefty. I will do my damndest to.

No worries, it happens. Thanks for the quick upload/fix.

Quick note. The faction files have the 3 capitalized letters at the end, and don't overwrite the files in the game folder. Once the files have the letters removed and overwrite the files in the game folder, everything works as it is supposed to do.

Attached has the names corrected. NB Use at your own risk until Lodilefty issues an official version!

[lodilefty]

Attached has the names corrected. NB Use at your own risk until Lodilefty issues an official version!

Thanks, this is what I get for trying to hurry

Files updated in original post
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=224856&postcount=26

[Citizen X]

I just ran some quick tests:

Test 1
Fleet already in destination sea/river sector day 1
Troops disembark into target sector day 5 = 5 days to disembark

Test 2
Fleet arrives at target day 9
Troops disembark day 14 = 5 days

Test 3
Fleet arrives day 12
Troops on shore day 14 = 3 days.

Test 4
Fleet sails direct into (friendly) port/town on day 5
Troops appear to be unloaded on day 5.

Conclusion - disembarkation via distant unload takes 5 days or to the end of the turn whichever is shortest time.

Target sector did not seem to affect the timing i.e. using distant unload into a swamp, a port or grass sector seems to give the same results. That seems reasonable - you are unloading troops that are 'offshore' into the ship's boats and then rowing them ashore onto a beach (unlike in Test 4 where the fleet unloads direct onto the dock side).....a beach is a beach is a beach...

Thank you so much for your effort and the quick reply.
I am not d'accord with your conclusions, however. Disembarking is one of the most complicated manoeuvres of warfare and is very much affected by the waters you are in and the size both of the fleet and the landing party. (As a sidenote: it takes even more time to embark them). It should take even some time to disembark troops into a friendly harbour (Very much dependend on the size of the force of course).
I am not convinced until now that this feature will never prove to be too powerful for AACW.

I may have overlooked something decisive here, but it seems to me that a Union landing force, that is mustered in, let's say, Atlantic City, NJ can threaten to take the following cities in one turn without warning, provided there is no delay, the ships are all capable of entering shallow waters and Farragut's trait works.

Fredericksburg, VA
Tappahannock, VA
Richmond, VA
Henrico, VA (threaten both, Richmond and Petersburg
Suffolk, VA
Norfolk, VA
Garysburg, NC
Edenton, NC
Columbia, NC
Swan Quarter, NC
Washington, NC
New Berne, NC
Morehead City, NC
Wilmington, NC
Smithville, NC
Lumberton, NC
Georgetown, SC
Florence, SC
Charleston, SC
Beaufort, SC
Hardeeville, SC
Savannah, GA
Brunswick, GA
Saint Mary, GA
Saint Augustine, FL
New Smyrna, FL

With an average delay of 3 days this list still goes down to Georgetown, NC, if Normalguys Test #4 outcome was just due to special circumstances.

Placing this landing party into Fort Zachary or somewhere in the Atlantic means that the Union can threaten to take ANY Confederate town adjacent to shallow waters within the next turn.

I am not adressing here that brigs and transports can sail the Mississppi.

The CSA, provided that the Union defences prove no problem, can likewise threaten to take ANY similar Union town at the entire east coast by mustering as far as New Berne, NC.

If this assumption is true, this provides the Union at least (the CSA to a minor degree) with breathtaking strategic possibilities.

Am I missing something?

[lodilefty]

Am I missing something?

No. You've summarized one of the major Strategic dilemmas faced by the CSA historically. Where to defend?

Plus, the "Field Armies" of the CSA suffered troop shortages because the Governors wouldn't release the Militia guarding the coasts. States Rights, ya know

[lodilefty]

Thanks, this is what I get for trying to hurry

Files updated in original post
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=224856&postcount=26

Well, I made an error while doing housekeeping on the housekeeping errors made while correcting the housekeeping errors....

Y'all might want to wait a while before re-re-re-re-downloading...

[lodilefty]

Would that tidying affect the loading screen bug too? The one where Jeff D keeps flashing when you try to select CSA at game start.

Not likely. That's another fish...

[Normalguy]

Well, I made an error while doing housekeeping on the housekeeping errors made while correcting the housekeeping errors....

Y'all might want to wait a while before re-re-re-re-downloading...

I was just about to report an error with those files - where the wrong flag is shown over a besieged town. I guess you found it or something similar?

[Doomwalker]

OK, so I fired up a quick short scenario and noticed that this is what the map looks like at start.



I played the scenario out completely. Flags never changed. I have since checked the other scenarios. I can confirm that all scenarios, even the tutorials are like this. All show the US flag over all cities. This happened after I downloaded the faction fix. I will try the faction fix again.

[Citizen X]

No. You've summarized one of the major Strategic dilemmas faced by the CSA historically. Where to defend?

Plus, the "Field Armies" of the CSA suffered troop shortages because the Governors wouldn't release the Militia guarding the coasts. States Rights, ya know

Thanks for the update. I believe that this dilemma has been adequately represented already. Let's presume the following: Union player forms a landing party of an entire army. 2 corps, 6 divisions. About that size. He can strike Richmond within one turn, without warning. This means the CSA player needs to garrison Richmond with at least 2 divisions through almost the entire war to prevent such thing happening.
If the new feature is to represent historical accuracy in the game, exceding what is already represented up to date, then the difficulties that prevented the Union from exploiting their advantage on the seas must also be represented imho. There are reasons why the Union undertook so few large landing operations during the war. Strategical, operational, logistical as well as propagandistical and political reasons etc. It took the Union one year to take New Orleans and pacify it. That being the exceptional case of a city that can't be defended. Still it drained up vast ammounts of material and men. I am sure that there was no way the Union could have sailed and operated a fleet with a large landing force aboard (capable of taking and holding Richmond) into the narrow James River, as is now possible for the Union player.

[oberst_klink]

The opportunity you've just described was not that impossible. Little Mac was 9 miles away from Richmond in May 1862 OK, we all know he took his time and wasted March/April for the useless siege of Yorktown. The Union had the capacity to transport and supply such a force, alas, and there you're correct, an embarking/disembarking 'penalty' should apply the more forces one wishes to transfer. I personally haven't tried/tested a large scale 'naval hopping' yet; some batteries along the James *like historically, the failed attempt of the USN -> Drewry's Bluff*, as well as a solid Garrison in Richmond should prevent that anyway. Any invading Union Army, without Corps and a proper commander, such as Grant, Sherman etc. wouldn't be able to knock on Jeff Davis' door that quickly anyway -> command penalty and the lack of an aggressive leader. But hey, what about DC? I am sure even against Athena one doesn't leave the capital without sufficient forces, no?

Klink, Oberst

[Citizen X]

The opportunity you've just described was not that impossible. Little Mac was 9 miles away from Richmond in May 1862

So was the Confederate Army.

I personally haven't tried/tested a large scale 'naval hopping' yet; ... Any invading Union Army, without Corps and a proper commander, such as Grant, Sherman etc. wouldn't be able to knock on Jeff Davis' door that quickly anyway -> command penalty and the lack of an aggressive leader.

I have. Absolutly possible even with McClellan in command.

some batteries along the James *like historically, the failed attempt of the USN -> Drewry's Bluff*, as well as a solid Garrison in Richmond should prevent that anyway.

Batteries i.g. in Norfolk don't prevent a fleet of even 4 vessels to enter James River, let alone a large invasion fleet under "evader" Farragut. And what is a "solid garrison" under these circumstances? One division? two divisions? Three?

But hey, what about DC? I am sure even against Athena one doesn't leave the capital without sufficient forces, no?

Klink, Oberst

I guard the objectives that reasonably are under threat and else try to keep my forces as tight together as possible. Only way to conduct the war against an experienced opponent. Until now you could operate with the AoNV at a railroads turn distance from Richmond and still have the capital relatively safe (as, yes, was done historically). Now you either leave an entire corps at Richmond, because Richmond is under reasonable threat all the time, thus crippling the AoNV or you stay at and very near Richmond in the first place. A severe blow to the CSA's capability for broader strategic operations, or any operations at all.

[lodilefty]

Distant unload is not new capability, is it?
I thought it had been removed in error, and so returned it.

If the Distant Unload was previously removed for a reason, I'll need help finding documentation on that reasonong...

The logic involved in actual unloading time is deep in code, and most likely will not be changed...

[richfed]

Merry Christmas! Stay Safe!!

oop. "Housekeeping error" as I tidied up the DB

12/26/2011 Edit: Corrected the file names again (I made a housekeeping error while fixing the housekeeping error made when I made a housekeeping error:wacko

Attached 6.5KB:
Extract directly into ACW\GameData
1 Folder overwritten (\Factions)
8 files overwritten

This does fix the flag issue ... thanks, Lodi ...

[Captain_Orso]

Whether Distant Unload existed in which patch version previously or not, is to me irrelevant. It addresses an issue that was completely illogical; transporting units and having them have to remain embarked on their transport for many days while waiting on an artificial barrier, the next turns start, when they could debark into their destination.

I agree that debarking should have some time penalty, but only dependent upon the size of the force debarking. At the moment units debarking always take 5 days, be the unit a single general or an entire corp, whether they are using Distant Unload or unloading from their turn-end position. I rather doubt that debarking times could be adjusted at this late date.

As far as Richmond being more vulnerable because of Distant Unload, dropping a corp on top of Richmond is only half of the story. They still have a supply base and have some path of egress; plus assaulting a well entrenched defender on the same turn as the attacking troops debark will bring substantial combat penalties on the debarking troops.

Ultimately there is nothing that you can do with Distant Unload that you couldn't do with generic River Transport, which was never susceptible to the turn-end pause.

[lodilefty]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=224971&postcount=5

[caranorn]

Maybe it's been a bit too long since I last played AACW, but as far as I recall corps don't stay formed once moved onto a ship. So an invasion by an army with two of it's corps won't happen. To keep these as three separate forces you'd have to use three different fleets for transportation. Said fleets would likely have differing delays leading to three forces landing on different days. Of those three forces one would be an army and two simple forces, so fewer command points and less likelyhood of one to support the others. All in all this should make large scale invasions impossible, as it should be for AACW. Not to mention these three forces would have to be set on assault to take a city like Richmond, which reasonably would house a decent garrison (at least division sized) equipped with at least some artillery and of course deeply entrenched...

What I'm not sure of is that there is a good spot on the James for the Confederate player to emplace a battery or two, possibly even build a fort to fire on an invasion fleet sailing towards Richmond (the batteries existed historically, at least prior to the Peninsula campaign, they were the cause of som of the earliest skirmishes in that area)...

All in all I like that distant unload has been ported to AACW. Before this amphibious assaults were too easy to counter by the Confederates and campaigns along the Tennessee, Mississippi and other rivers, as well as the campaigns in the Carolinas and/or Louisiana were much harder for the Union. Meaning a large part of the Anaconda plan could not be enacted in AACW...

P.S.: It might be justified at some point to review recruitment on both sides. Essentially players should be forced to maintain large garrisons in the rear, for various reasons. But right now we'd probably be short on manpower if we tried to do so...

[Citizen X]

Maybe it's been a bit too long since I last played AACW, but as far as I recall corps don't stay formed once moved onto a ship. So an invasion by an army with two of it's corps won't happen. ... All in all this should make large scale invasions impossible, as it should be for AACW.

That's correct but as I said, I did it. Nonetheless.

Not to mention these three forces would have to be set on assault to take a city like Richmond, which reasonably would house a decent garrison (at least division sized) equipped with at least some artillery and of course deeply entrenched...

Thats excactly my point, as I said above. How many divisions can the AoNV field? And how many does it need to operate and does it fall short of these because now it has to keep "at least" one of them in Richmond?

What I'm not sure of is that there is a good spot on the James for the Confederate player to emplace a battery or two, possibly even build a fort to fire on an invasion fleet sailing towards Richmond (the batteries existed historically, at least prior to the Peninsula campaign, they were the cause of som of the earliest skirmishes in that area)...

As I stated above batteries at the James won't prevent invasion. With the fortrunner trait on the commanding admiral there is chances that they wont fire at all and then only do 65% of damage. To the ships, mind you. Not to the troops. Build a big fleet and then do the maths how many cannons you need to sink it.

Before this amphibious assaults were too easy to counter by the Confederates and campaigns along the Tennessee, Mississippi and other rivers, as well as the campaigns in the Carolinas and/or Louisiana were much harder for the Union.

As should be for game balance reasons and as was historically.

Meaning a large part of the Anaconda plan could not be enacted in AACW...

How so? The Anaconda plan didn't involve landing operations (in its original version didn't even involve land operations) and none were carried out successfully to my knowledge, safe the taking of New Orleans. If you want to call it a landing operation. It was special in many ways. Actually the Anaconda Plan of all is what can be executed almost by the letter.

P.S.: It might be justified at some point to review recruitment on both sides. Essentially players should be forced to maintain large garrisons in the rear, for various reasons. But right now we'd probably be short on manpower if we tried to do so...

I don't believe it is the right time and place to discuss such.

[Citizen X]

Distant unload is not new capability, is it?
I thought it had been removed in error, and so returned it.

If the Distant Unload was previously removed for a reason, I'll need help finding documentation on that reasonong...

The logic involved in actual unloading time is deep in code, and most likely will not be changed...

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10706

Here is a discussion about landing operations. It is from 2008 and game version was 1.11. Everybody but one back then was considering the situation without a shortcut help for disembarjḱing appropriate and tatics to circumvent that one turn of warning for the south as gamey.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5905

Here is a thread from 2007 even where someone complains that some waters around NO are coastal making it too easy for the Union to take the city.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9196

Another thread that proves that naval system has been discussed right from the start. Although this is the case, I dont think that it has ever been implemented. It dawns me that there was some discussion on naval warfare also in the thread of the beta to 1.16 ( http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=17600 ) but now I can't find it in those 10 pages.


Only thing is that it is implemented into BoA, where it might make more sense. But I didn't play it much, so I can't say.

[caranorn]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10706

Here is a discussion about landing operations. It is from 2008 and game version was 1.11. Everybody but one back then was considering the situation without a shortcut help for disembarjḱing appropriate and tatics to circumvent that one turn of warning for the south as gamey.

Don't misrepresent ;-) . The gamey part was to unload on the high seas and then use riverine transport to land the troops. Otherwise there was exactly one voice against landing during the turn a fleet moved...

[Citizen X]

Don't misrepresent ;-) . The gamey part was to unload on the high seas and then use riverine transport to land the troops. Otherwise there was exactly one voice against landing during the turn a fleet moved...

That's not entirely true. Mostly this discussion is about that there are means already to conduct landings for the Union, without having a distant unload button or use flaws in the game mechanics. There are examples given even. There is only one voice, of the op, that clearly speaks for the implemantation of a distant unload button.

According to the definition of "gamey" given to Dixicrat in that very same thread:
"1. an ahistorical strategy or tactic, used to take advantage of a "hole" in game rules
2. an ahistorical modeling of a situation created by game rules"

in this meaning this button imho is highly gamey.

Another thread from this year
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=21020
gives another good example on how to conduct landing operations and why large scale landing operations in a short period of time are highly ahistorical and tip the gamebalance highly in favor of the faction that has naval supremacy and/or fewer coastline to defend.

There are several threads that explain how landing operations can be conducted which I wont disclose here. All the tricks are explained in detail. There is actually no need for a distant unload button but lack thereof only makes a small compensation for the huge advantage that the union gets.

[lodilefty]

Ok, here's the decision:

1. Distant unload stays in.
2. Riverine Transport will be restricted to Coastal and Shallow water.

Thank you for your inputs.

Are there any Game-stopper bugs to prevent this patch from becoming official (Game-stopper = doesn't work at all, CTD, etc.)?

You can set house rules in a game to preclude anything you wish.
And, I'll be delighted to help you mod the game if you don't like a rule or setting.

[Doomwalker]

Are there any Game-stopper bugs to prevent this patch from becoming official (Game-stopper = doesn't work at all, CTD, etc.)?

I haven't run across any so far.

[Normalguy]

Ok, here's the decision:

1. Distant unload stays in.
2. Riverine Transport will be restricted to Coastal and Shallow water.

Thank you for your inputs.

Are there any Game-stopper bugs to prevent this patch from becoming official (Game-stopper = doesn't work at all, CTD, etc.)?

You can set house rules in a game to preclude anything you wish.
And, I'll be delighted to help you mod the game if you don't like a rule or setting.

That all works for me.

No game stoppers either that I have found.

[Franciscus]

Are there any Game-stopper bugs to prevent this patch from becoming official (Game-stopper = doesn't work at all, CTD, etc.)?

None that I found, so far...

The only reported issue (non-game stopper) that I am not sure is solved is the "flashing Jefferson" when selecting CSA in a new game...

[lodilefty]

None that I found, so far...

The only reported issue (non-game stopper) that I am not sure is solved is the "flashing Jefferson" when selecting CSA in a new game...

Thanks for reminder.

Found and fixed!
Yet another self-inflicted wound due to "housekeeping" with Factions DB

[Captain_Orso]

Most of the threads linked in this thread have to do with brown water blockading and are thus irrelevant. Jabberwocky's big secret is never relieved and I still have no idea what it might be other than something that is so obvious that I'm overlooking it, or so devious that it might be called gamey or downright cheating. I'm not say that it is, at all, just that I don't know.

Back in 1.15 you could debark as much of your land force from a fleet as you wanted, you simply selected all the units you wanted to land and dragged them to an adjacent land region and voila, in 5 days time they were on shore.

If it is gamey, the amount of troops that you can land from one fleet in one turn, then it has nothing to do with the so called Distant Unload button; not having it is gamey. Two situations:

1. A fleet transporting troops arrives in a coastal region on Day 15 of Turn 1. On Turn 2 the land units are debarked onto an adjacent land region; this takes 5 game-days, and the landed troops could conceivably, if wished, use the remaining 10 game-days to to move overland.

2. A fleet transporting troops arrives in a coastal region on Day 1 of Turn 1. On Turn 2 the land units are debarked onto an adjacent land region; this takes 5 game-days, and the landed troops could conceivably, if wished, use the remaining 10 game-days to to move overland.

The difference between the 2 is that in the second example, as was also stated in one of the above linked threads, the land units sit around pointlessly for no better reason than that the game did not allow them to debark upon arrival in their destination.

Additionally, when using the Distant Unload button, the land units debark automatically onto their destination region, but cannot move further, because you cannot give them a move command until they are on land, which is first in the turn after their landing. If the destination is enemy controlled you take a huge cohesion hit, abut 30%, which doesn't happen when debarking onto friendly territory.

BTW if anybody thinks that you could not use Reiverine Transportation from an ocean region in previous patch-levels, then you haven't tried it out. I certainly works in 1.15.

Broken IMHO is that you can drag a land unit onto transports that are at sea and they will "walk" their way to those transports over the ocean at no cost at all other than the time they need to "walk" that distance, they move at a rate of 5 days per region, which is pretty fast, but hey, it's open ground/water , and they cannot be attacked while doing so. Also if you drag the fleet they are on away from them they will simply land on a random nearby land region at no cost. What happens if there are enemy units there I have no idea, but at first probably nothing, because they appear on shore at the end of the turn as if they had warped there, and I therefore assume that there would be not time for any sort of engagements.

I don't think there should be an even greater penalty for landing on a foreign shore. AFAIK on top of the cohesion loss there already is a combat penalty in having to fight to get ashore. Should there be yet a lager one? There are also historical examples of moving troops by naval transports and sending them straight into battle, or impending battle. The troops that came to Washington's rescue during Early's in '64 invasion were sent by boat/ship from the Petersburg area, landed directly in or next to Washington and marched straight to the front and they certainly stopped Early in his tracks.

Lacking are maybe things having to do with the size of harbors and how many ships they might serve or how quickly they might debark troops. But then again, the harbors at Fort Monroe, in game Fort Monroe has a level 1 harbor, sure seemed to manage the entire Union Army of the Potomac landing there.

All in all, other than maybe learning something about the penalty for attacking while landing, other than the known bugs, I see no reason for change from the current. I'll can't see myself using the Debark button to invade. It's great for transporting units from one friendly location to another without having to wait for the turn to end before sending your transports back to shuttle the next load. The only thing I might like to see changed would be the time it takes for small forces and generals using generic Riverine Transportation to debark is just a silly, PITA. I mean, they don't have to go an visit every brothel in town every time they get off a boat do they

Edit: wow, it took so long to test and write all this, more post have arrived :P

Lodi, the ability to drag troops to transports in the ocean is certainly not a good thing.

[Normalguy]

None that I found, so far...

The only reported issue (non-game stopper) that I am not sure is solved is the "flashing Jefferson" when selecting CSA in a new game...

Having reported that bug first I should have reminded LL myself. Doh!

Thanks

[Jim-NC]

@ Captain_Orso - It depends on which general it is. They may be spending time at the local saloons drowning their troubles instead, or maybe they're insulting the local populace. They also could be tearing down rebel flags all day.


Or maybe a combination of all the above.

[Rexor]

Excellent Report
This is a stellar example of how to report a bug and what files to upload!

Fortunately for us, this is actually a script event bug with the Trent Affair

Note: there is a 10% chance that Trent Affair escalates (which is what occurs in your save) which increases FE by 35!!!

FUBARR with Trent Affair:
1. CSA Events are procressed after USA. so the CSA notification of the Trent Affair occurs 1 turn later, but the effects occur immediately = confusion for CSA player
2. CSA notification event if escalation occurs bugged = duplicated event name so it could never fire!!!
3. Strings missing for the CSA escalation notification event
4. 90% chance that the turn after escalation, the Trent Affair "cooler heads" event could still fire = Wrong!

So fixed:
1. I moved the 3 CSA events to the USA Events script, placed just afer the USA events = same turn notification now occurs
2,3,4. All events and strings corrected and tested to work properly

In your save, the mystery of your FE change is the -19 effect of the Embargo failure was mushed into the huge +35 effect of the Trent Affair escalation. Your game status is OK so you can continue, and "next time" the notifications will work properly! (somewhere else is the other +4 FE. Many things can cause that )

Attached:
Extract directly into your \ACW directory
2 Directories affected
4 files overwritten

I know I sound like a loser, but you have to realize that some of us need very specific instructions for this sort of thing. I'll be more specific: I have downloaded the file in question. What precisely do you mean by "extract directly into"? I now have a file folder that isn't replacing the files in question. I love this game, and gaming in general, I just need a bit more detail. Again, sorry to be a pain in the ass.

[Rexor]

Oh forget it, I'll wait for the patch. The quick fixes are killing me.