Well, such is the nature of beta patches. Have you encountered other problems than those already reported?tagwyn wrote:This beta version is needed but, it is a buggy rascall!!
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Well... i know and already stated on my post that the glitches have no effect on gameplay (expect maybe the full info on enemy garrisosn wich spoils part of the Fog of war system), so... your idea of reverting back to 0 horses and 0guns for all units seems to "break" much more than it fixes
leure:
I prefer to have half a dozen strange guns numbers around than losing the OK numbers of hundreds of units...
leure:
My report was aimed to point out some glitches that could be fixed for the "non beta" patch, not to throw out of the window the coolest feature of the new patch
As you said, except for this pure chrome glitches i have not noticed any other bug on my limited testing.
Regards
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
pasternakski wrote:Once, I really liked this game.
Then, it was modified in ways I did not like.
Later, newcomers took it over.
Now, things I don't understand are being done to it that make it different from the game I bought.
I don't like it anymore.
Well, to each his own... i (and a lot of people more) like it more and more with each new patch
As you can play with the 1.01 or 1.03 or whatever patch you liked and we can play with the much improved (IMHO) 1.09 patch... everybody should be happy!
Isn't it great??? 
Regards!
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
pasternakski wrote:Once, I really liked this game.
Then, it was modified in ways I did not like.
Later, newcomers took it over.
Now, things I don't understand are being done to it that make it different from the game I bought.
I don't like it anymore.
For you, if it wasn't broke, why try to fix it?
Can't you simply keep playing the vesion you liked? You don't have to upgrade...
But those of us who saw flaws and oppotunties for improvement can continue to enjoy the enhancements.
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
Curious?
Which things?
Other than RR fixes and new scenarios, everything else from "newcomers" are MODs which are completely optional. Unless I'm missing something. Is there something else here?
Which things?
pasternakski wrote:Then, it was modified in ways I did not like.
Which things?
pasternakski wrote:Later, newcomers took it over.
Other than RR fixes and new scenarios, everything else from "newcomers" are MODs which are completely optional. Unless I'm missing something. Is there something else here?
pasternakski wrote:Now, things I don't understand are being done to it that make it different from the game I bought.
Which things?
Not this discussion again please, this is the thread about a beta patch, so please keep on focus... I'll mass move the messages unrelated to it very soon otherwise.
About the guns & horses: yes there are some discrepancies, this is why this is a beta patch. Nothing serious, as Arsan says, this guns & horses stuff is only cosmetic.
About the guns & horses: yes there are some discrepancies, this is why this is a beta patch. Nothing serious, as Arsan says, this guns & horses stuff is only cosmetic.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
[quote="pasternakski"][/QUOTE]
I must say that my decision for purchasing AACW, BOA and NPC was because of the great support and people who are producing excellent mods for them. If you are one of those who prefer (broken) games without support then you might be in the wrong community.
You also posted this "masterpiece" here :
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6329
If you like unpatched games then play them like that, but don't post the same things over and over again.
To each his own.. I guess
I must say that my decision for purchasing AACW, BOA and NPC was because of the great support and people who are producing excellent mods for them. If you are one of those who prefer (broken) games without support then you might be in the wrong community.
You also posted this "masterpiece" here :
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6329
If you like unpatched games then play them like that, but don't post the same things over and over again.
To each his own.. I guess
Pocus wrote:Not this discussion again please, this is the thread about a beta patch, so please keep on focus... I'll mass move the messages unrelated to it very soon otherwise.
About the guns & horses: yes there are some discrepancies, this is why this is a beta patch. Nothing serious, as Arsan says, this guns & horses stuff is only cosmetic.
I hope that all this talk of guns and horses does not lose the inability to redeploy HQ's problem in 1.09a as listed above.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Gray_Lensman wrote:These are separate issues.
I agree. I just wanted to make sure that the redeploy bug did not get lost amongst all those horses and guns running around in this thread
.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
About number of men.
I suggest we use different approach.
Infantry - number of men without a horse carrying weapon and not serving a gun
Cavalry - much better then number of horses IMHO. I have never seen a battle report where someone was concerned about number of horses . Number of men riding those horses is important and we should count those as cavalry.
Artillery pieces with supporting staff - so for a battery of 8 guns it would be 8arty pieces with supporting staff. If let say arty is pulled by horses we should not be concerned about number of horses. Number of pieces should be only important info.
Supply - perhaps write down number of wagons better then men and horses.
Just some thoughts about this issue. Hope this will help to those working on it. I enjoy this feature.
P.S. OOB perhaps in future?
I suggest we use different approach.
Infantry - number of men without a horse carrying weapon and not serving a gun
Cavalry - much better then number of horses IMHO. I have never seen a battle report where someone was concerned about number of horses
. Number of men riding those horses is important and we should count those as cavalry.
Artillery pieces with supporting staff - so for a battery of 8 guns it would be 8arty pieces with supporting staff. If let say arty is pulled by horses we should not be concerned about number of horses. Number of pieces should be only important info.
Supply - perhaps write down number of wagons better then men and horses.
Just some thoughts about this issue. Hope this will help to those working on it. I enjoy this feature.
P.S. OOB perhaps in future?
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Good one.
Still, historians did count as I suggest so althought I adore Forrest I would still like to see this change if possible.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests