AACW patch 1.12 - release candidate 1

[Pocus]

This is a modified version of 1.11g public beta patch. It is now promoted to 1.12, because of a major rework of the tutorial, courtesy of Gray_Lensman (discrepancies appeared because of versions changes). Also, an important User Interface improvement was done, to remove the problem of big stacks slowing down the application when selected. Resume problem is fixed too. All in all, a good patch.

If nothing weird is spotted, it will become available officially soon.

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/patch_AACW_v1.12RC1.zip

The patch comes with a complete readme for the curious.

[Inside686]

Thank you the team !

[tagwyn]

Dear Pocus: Thanks again! et. al. ... . apy:

[Ian Coote]

"best Game Ever Keeps Getting Better"

[Jarkko]

Works fine here, great work!

[ohms_law]

Awesome! Thank you Pocus!

[Daxil]

Thanks, these patches keep coming out faster than ive ever seen any game. A heartfelt thanks for this gatling gun of a team. This game is truly a work of Art now. Hang it on your wall!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Zebedee]

Awesome.

[berto]

Please make special note, and report, if you observe all larger scale engagements to be single-day only.

[richfed]

Installed this patch and notice no major or obvious problems after a fast run-through to mid-1862 with the full Campaign.

Except for one thing: I like the new messages appearing in the Mail Box. Some, though, have little meaning ... for example, I may get a message along the lines of " 1st Virginia Volunteers have been destroyed in Lexington, MO due to lack of supplies." Of course, 1st VA was not IN Missouri!!!! Also, some of the messages refer to non-descript units. EXAMPLE: 7.1 What is seven point one?

Other than that, as I said, it is running very smoothly.

Berto: I have had only one day battles thus far. Casualties are fine. Playing as the CSA.

[AndrewKurtz]

Please make special note, and report, if you observe all larger scale engagements to be single-day only.

How many multi-day battles where there in the Civil War that this should simulate?

I can think of include:

Shiloh
Gettysburg
Seven Days

Any others that we should consider? I ask because we need to make sure that we are looking for the right frequency.

[arsan]

Hi guys!
Could some of you testing the patch check if on cities you can see the little colored lights that show the size and state of the garrison??

Latest beta versions of WIA and NCP are missing any visual indicator of garrisons inside structures (both friendly and enemy) and i'm curious to know if AACW is also affected by this .
Cheers!

[berto]

How many multi-day battles where there in the Civil War that this should simulate?

I can think of include:

Shiloh
Gettysburg
Seven Days

Any others that we should consider? I ask because we need to make sure that we are looking for the right frequency.

Among the ten costliest land battles of the American Civil War, as measured by casualties, listed at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles

nine out of the ten were multi-day battles, and just one, Antietam, was single-day. (Note: Stones River had a second day of fighting, on January 2, 1863, after a pause on New Years Day.)

(One must be careful about battle dates, because some cited dates encompass battle preliminaries and aftermaths, where little fighting occurred. Dating multi-day engagements is not an exact science.)

In-game, there is no problem with smaller engagements, where indeed Real War small- to mid-scale battles were mainly, even in the vast majority of cases, single-day.

The concern is with larger engagements, where total forces are, say, 100K and up. Some of us are seeing that large-scale battles have gone virtually all single-day, with multi-day battles rare to non-existent. Playing the latest beta patch, if you see otherwise, by all means speak up.

For larger engagements, and for game puprposes, I suggest that battle durations average about two days, with the mode two days, some battles single-day, and some three days or more.

Whatever the exact mix in-game, large-scale battles all (or almost all) being single-day does not jibe with history.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rastan]

Hi!

I think I've found a bug in the 1862 scenario "struggle for the heartland". Don Carlos Buell starts this scenario in Clarksville leading the Army of the Ohio, but you can also find him in Louisville after a few turns, with the message "Major General Buell is awaiting a new command"

Regards!

[AndrewKurtz]

Among the ten costliest land battles of the American Civil War, as measured by casualties, listed at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles

nine out of the ten were multi-day battles, and just one, Antietam, was single-day. (Note: Stones River had a second day of fighting, on January 2, 1863, after a pause on New Years Day.)

(One must be careful about battle dates, because some cited dates encompass battle preliminaries and aftermaths, where little fighting occurred. Dating multi-day engagements is not an exact science.)

In-game, there is no problem with smaller engagements, where indeed Real War small- to mid-scale battles were mainly, even in the vast majority of cases, single-day.

The concern is with larger engagements, where total forces are, say, 100K and up. Some of us are seeing that large-scale battles have gone virtually all single-day, with multi-day battles rare to non-existent. Playing the latest beta patch, if you see otherwise, by all means speak up.

For larger engagements, and for game puprposes, I suggest that battle durations average about two days, with the mode two days, some battles single-day, and some three days or more.

Whatever the exact mix in-game, large-scale battles all (or almost all) being single-day does not jibe with history.

I agree none makes no sense. But I don't think we should see many.

Looking at the list, as you pointed out, many of these were not really what I would call multi-day battles. If you ignore the mauevering days, I think only 3-4 would qualify. I'd very interested to see all those battles with causalties by date.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[berto]

I agree none makes no sense. But I don't think we should see many.

Looking at the list, as you pointed out, many of these were not really what I would call multi-day battles. If you ignore the mauevering days, I think only 3-4 would qualify. I'd very interested to see all those battles with causalties by date.

Leaving out the debatable Stones River and Fort Donelson (and the clearly one-day Antietam; note: there were other significant, large-scale multi-day engagements that didn't make the top-ten casualties list):

• Gettysburg
• Chickamauga
• Chancellorsville
• Spottsylvania
• Wilderness
• Second Manassass
• Shiloh

In this list, which would you disqualify and regard as single-day battles?

[Pocus]

That makes one (or 1 1/2) multi-day battles per year so?

[berto]

That makes one (or 1 1/2) multi-day battles per year so?

No, that is not a complete list. That is just the indisputably (IMO) multi-day battles among the top ten bloodiest engagements of the ACW. There are of course other uncited multi-day battles--for example: Seven Days, Pea Ridge, Corinth, Chattanooga, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Nashville, to name some of the more significant ones. There are other less significant multi-day battles besides. All told, all scale, multi-day engagements number in the dozens.

[Nikel]

In this wikipedia article there is a long list of battles with dates, just in case somebody wants to count how many multi day battles there were

Of course no idea if this info is accurate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_American_Civil_War


[ATTACH]4744[/ATTACH]




Some statistics

http://www.americancivilwar.com/cwstats.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

[Zebedee]

EXAMPLE: 7.1 What is seven point one?

Some units (militias only I think) created by event do not have real names. 7.1 sounds like it is one of those.

[AndrewKurtz]

Leaving out the debatable Stones River and Fort Donelson (and the clearly one-day Antietam; note: there were other significant, large-scale multi-day engagements that didn't make the top-ten casualties list):

• Gettysburg
• Chickamauga
• Chancellorsville
• Spottsylvania
• Wilderness
• Second Manassass
• Shiloh

In this list, which would you disqualify and regard as single-day battles?

Probably none, but my thinking was it would depend on the causualties per day. I haven't played the most recent patch, so I'm not sure where casualties are now, but in the past, the casualties for a single day where so high that I would not qualify many (i.e. I always looked at it as an abstraction. If total casualties where about right, whether a single day or multiple days in the game didn't matter).

The point of questioning it is that I don't want to see more occur than historically happened. I don't think seiges should not be included in what we consider multi-day battles as they are handled wth another mechanism. So if we use the above list, and throw in another 3 for grins, that would mean about 10 total in a game, plus/minus.

How many occur with the most recent patch in a full game?

[Pocus]

What is the yellow battle on the map? Probably something epic

[Rafiki]

Nah, "just" an Indian massacre....

[Le Ricain]

What is the yellow battle on the map? Probably something epic

The Battle of Bear River fought in January 1863 between the US Army under the command of Col Patrick Connor and the Shoshoni Indians under Chief Bear Hunter. The US won the battle.

The 'massacre' would be the Battle of Sand Creek which is the blue battle South East of the yellow Bear River Battle.

[cwhomer]

That makes one (or 1 1/2) multi-day battles per year so?

Average is a tricky thing. Most of the battles multi-day battles mentioned so far in this thread date from 1863 on, and the majority are in 1864- which reflects the changing nature of warfare. It would be interesting, but currently impossible(?), to simulate that change.

I've always rationalized "multiple day" game battles as several engagments of a single campaign by thinking of some days as the skirmishes and small engagments that went on between moving armies. It would be neat to see a system where this was fleshed out by having several smaller engagments take place that a) determine terrain advantage and b) have the potential to escalate into full scale battles. Something like the next generation of "marching to the guns."

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

Well, by design, they are all actually supposed to have real names. This is most likely a typo in the unit "custom names" entry of some of the militia units. I'll see if I can root it out.

edit> Preliminary search for "7.1" came up with nothing. This is not going to be easy... LOL. The search would be helped if someone could post a saved game which includes one of these misnamed units.

With 1.11g (in my West 1862 AAR game) after I retook New Orleans as Confederates, a CSA militia called "4.1" appeared in the city. I'll provide the save if needed.