Uh-oh! new exploit

[Jabberwock]

Incorporating a locked unit into a division (using Ctrl+c, you can't do it with the button) and then removing it again unlocks the unit. This is especially dangerous when combined with the redploy/undeploy exploit. One commander can form a division on turn one or two, and then bounce around the map freeing all the garrisons. And he doesn't even need to stay a division commander at the end of the turn if he doesn't want to.

"Poof! Hi, I'm Steve Hurlburt, your new commander. Be Free! I now resign as your commander. Got other things to do. See ya! Poof!"

I'm calling this one the fairy-godmother exploit.

[Jabberwock]

Now I'm wondering if free Kentucky garrisons can purposely run into trouble.

"Help! I'm being invaded!"
"Dude, you're in Tennessee. You're the one doing the invading."
"Am not, you attacked me!"

Or is the trigger tied to the region?

[Jabberwock]

It only changes the unit display for the first militia unit within a garrison stack, they aren't actually unlocked. If there is more than one militia unit in a garrison, one is still locked, the rest are free. It does unlock the other units in garrisons. It does unlock other fixed units. It doesn't apply to locked leaders or supply units, they can't go into a division.

[Jabberwock]

It affects fixed units. Not static units. Those militia have both designations.

[Hobbes]

Nice spot!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Anyone care for a PBEM using this? I'll take USA.

[Jabberwock]

Gray - I need the division cap set higher than 60/30 ... much higher.

[Gray_Lensman]

Gray - I need the division cap set higher than 60/30 ... much higher.

I can understand your wanting this, but I am concerned whether it will imbalance the game due to other factors, such as availability of leaders, etc. I really don't think it will, however, I prefer to be cautious in regard to the vanilla scenarios. So, I'm thinking of ratcheting it up a little at a time to see if these issues come into play.

You can always change this for yourself directly in the .scn files for your own purposes. I can show you exactly where to "text" modify the .scn file if you don't already know.

[Jabberwock]

I can understand your wanting this, but I am concerned whether it will imbalance the game due to other factors, such as availability of leaders, etc. I really don't think it will, however, I prefer to be cautious in regard to the vanilla scenarios. So, I'm thinking of ratcheting it up a little at a time to see if these issues come into play.

It was not a real request in this context. It was a "Just found a way to unbalance the game and I want to make it even worse" request. If I could incorporate all those garrisons into divisions, that would be ugly. I'll ask Runyan to add a few more generals, too. I should hush now, and go back to drawing pictures.

You can always change this for yourself directly in the .scn files for your own purposes. I can show you exactly where to "text" modify the .scn file if you don't already know.

Someday - when I get around to creating scenarios, I'll take you up on that.

[Pocus]

I'll take a look at that soon!

[Doomwalker]

Oh yes that is very interesting. Wished I had seen this one last night when I was still in my testing mode.

[Pocus]

I added some tests for the next patch.

[Jabberwock]

After playing with this a bit:

1. It is a much bigger advantage for the USA, about two divisions worth within the first few turns.

2. IMO CSA coastal artillery in the forts should be unlocked, although the garrisons and fort artillery should remain fixed. The amphibious game becomes much more interesting (and historically correct I believe) if the CSA can set up coastal batteries (with a little militia support) in different locations. Maybe something for a mod first to see how the community feels about it, before attempting to put it into vanilla AACW.