AACW Public beta patch 1.10 released

[runyan99]

- changed: Minor crossing links can now be interdicted by fleets (some navigable rivers have minor crossing)

I'm not sure what this refers to.

Pocus, can we add the 4 naval elements to block a river crossing rule? This is a potential game breaker.

[Pocus]

yes this is planned.

The problem with minor crossing is that they were not interedicted by river blockade, for example the Roanoke river work like that.

[Pocus]

I can't export files. Maybe Gray can help with that.

The latest AACW DB is provided with the latest CSV Splitter utility?

[Franciscus]

The 4th entry is a major improvement over the previous code (Divisions can now replace whole lost elements). You are welcome to double-check if it works well.
Done by Primasprit, on behalf of AGE-Studio.

That is an amazing and wonderful addition. A million thanks

[arsan]

Indeed!!
Thanks a lot, Primasprit and Pocus!
I did not hope for any improvement on this But i'm very happy with the surprise!

[runyan99]

The latest AACW DB is provided with the latest CSV Splitter utility?

Oh yes. I just cannot use it correctly. Tried again today, and the scripts I spit out didn't match the format of the files in ACW/Gamedata/Weathers.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

The 7c version I received is in the latest XLS database, but was not used by me, so we are still on the old july 2007 values. I prefer anyway to have Gray_Lensman validate the data, so that I have a culprit in case of

[runyan99]

7c? When was the last time the DB files posted in the Mod section were updated? I found and edited WeatherZones5 there....

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

I'm again losing my mind, this is what happen when you are on several things at once with not enough working neurons!

You are right, the weather pattern files I have are either version 5 or Runyan version 6. Version 5 is from may 2007 but the exported files in the game are from july 2007. I'm unable to tell you who tweaked them at this time.
Either you validate version 6 Michael, or we are back to version 5 I guess. I would prefer that this discussion continue on the beta forum, if you are not convinced by some % for mud etc.

[Turbo823]

Hi,

I haven't encountered any problems with the beta 2 patch. Runs smoothly. I am noticing an improvement with the AI namely in more effective attacks. The AI is winning more of these engagements. It has also done more bypassing of strong points. Athena actually avoided Fredicksburg, heading south, then turned north and attacked Petersburg and hit Richmond from the south.

Athena does need to do more naval invasions of coastal cities as the Union.

[bigus]

I'd like to get more feedback on the changes to Movement and Attrition/Cohesion.

Many changes were done and much testing went into the changes.
But we need more feedback on this.

In a nutshell without going into specifics......
A/C has been reduced.
movement rates reduced which speeds up movement.

bigus

[GShock]

Athena does need to do more naval invasions of coastal cities as the Union.

This most likely has to do with athena building more replacements and using the HQs better. I confirm it's much more efficient now. I played the game the whole day yesterday and, again, the AI has improved.
It's been a constant factor with each subsequent patch and i've been testing again with *default* settings first (no handicaps).

[Gray_Lensman]

< deleted >

[Pocus]

==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.09 f > 1.10
March 15th, 2008 > April 25th, 2008
==============================================================================

This patch contains all changes since the start.
Warning: All railroads improvements will not be impacted in current games though, although no additional side effects will appears.

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/patch_AACW_v1.10-beta3.zip


[1.10]

rc3
- changed: Generals being discharged from army command, or bypassed by another general when an army is formed will now lose 1 to 4 seniority ranks.
- changed: To prevent troops from crossing rivers, you must now have at least 4 ships elements in offensive posture (was 1 in any posture)
- changed: Weather zones have slightly less mud.

[GShock]

- changed: Generals being discharged from army command, or bypassed by another general when an army is formed will now lose 1 to 4 seniority ranks.

Pocus i was thinking something...that helps the AI. Inactive generals can be prevented from stacking-unstacking into/out of independent forces?

That would solve an exploit against the AI where players unattach the inactive general and assault settlements with the independent force thus voiding the activation concepts.

[berto]

Quick report:

Using the 1.10-beta3, also

--Passive Posture
--Forced Marches
--Evade Combat Order
--Gray's forced Fair Weather files
--All generals always Activated
--Historical Attrition

and testing

--the Gettysburg 1863 scenario (using Bigus' test scenario)
--the Kentucky 1862 scenario (again using Bigus' test scenario)
--the Trans Mississippi 1861 scenario

I am pleased to report that the various corps, commands, and headquarters are all able to achieve historical rates of march. Yay!

Moreover, even with the Forced Marches (but in Fair Weather), and notably Lyon's 25% Command Penalty, all commands and forces arrive at their historical destinations in good shape for battle, with cohesion loss in the 10-20% range, and very little if any attrition. Yippee!

Of course, these are under ideal conditions, and don't reflect actual game play. But it's very nice to know that the latest beta patch settings, with perhaps a bit of luck thrown in, allow for campaigning pretty close to history. Hooray!

I can't comment yet on game play or game balance issues, or how this all impacts the AI, but so far it's all looking really good...

[bigus]

On the other hand I'm not so sure about the weather changes just yet.
This was from a Far West Scenario I played. You'll note that the date is early April..... Yet I still have Snow and quite a bit of Frozen Weather. Since I've never been to Missouri...is this right?

[ATTACH]2596[/ATTACH]

bigus

[runyan99]

All I did was adjust the mud, so if there is snow in the Ozarks in April, that's a seperate weather issue. I'm sure there is room for improvement in many areas.

[bigus]

All I did was adjust the mud, so if there is snow in the Ozarks in April, that's a seperate weather issue. I'm sure there is room for improvement in many areas.

Thanks Runyan. I don't think I've ever seen this before so I thought it was a change.

bigus

[berto]

Oh, dear!

I just started an Atlanta 1864 scenario game, and in late April, a half dozen regions around central Tennessee and southern Kentucky are experiencing snow conditions... In fact, looking north and northeastward, I can see that a good number of Appalachian regions are snowbound.

After exiting the game entirely and starting up an Atlanta 1864 scenario again, this time the central regions are all snow free, while much of the Ozarks have snow...

After a third exit-restart-launch Atlanta 1864 sequence, I think I can safely say that something is messed up. A snow pattern reminiscent of my first test prevails over Tennessee and Kentucky. And surveying the entire map (something I didn't do the first two tests), I can see

--Much of Pennsylvania and New York are snow covered.
--The Great Plains and Ozarks are snowbound.
--Snow extends down the entire course of the Mississippi, from just south of Columbus, KY all the way to West Baton Rouge, LA!

These results are all in late April.

WTF!!

[berto]

Exiting the game, and this time loading up the standard Shiloh battle scenario, in early April:

--most of Pennsylvania and New York are covered with snow
--much of the Upper Mississippi Valley is experiencing snow
--ditto for the Ozarks and Great Plains

It gets worse:

Advancing to late April:

--Pennsylvania and New York are still snow-covered
--All of Texas, except for a thin strip along the Gulf Coast, is covered with snow! In late April!

Advancing to early May:

Although most of the rest of the map is now snow-free,

--Several regions in the Ozarks have snow
--Seven regions in northeast Texas still have snow! In early May!

[runyan99]

You'd get the same behaviors in 1.09. A quick look at the DB shows percentage chances for snow in the Ozarks in April, and snow in the south plains (TX) in the hills in May.

I can take a look at the snow/frozen percentages for April and May.

[berto]

Earlier, you had written:

I'm sure there is room for improvement in many areas.

This certainly seems like one of those areas!

Snow all the way down the Mississippi Valley to as far south as West Baton Rouge, Louisiana in late April! Snow blanketing most of Texas in late April!

Putting this in perspective, here in the Chicago area--well to the north of Texas and Louisiana--the latest we might expect any measurable snow is the first or second week of April, and even that is unusual--more like late March is the finish of most snow seasons hereabouts.

BTW, this must be a fairly recent change, since I don't recall having seen snow at all in any of my earlier Atlanta 1864 games from two or three months back.

[berto]

One thing to keep in mind about snow: Although it might snow in a few places in April (I think next to impossible into May, south of the Mason-Dixon Line), it would surely melt in one or two days. I recall that on April Fools Day 1970 it snowed 10+ inches here in Chicago. It was all melted and gone two days later. That's the nature of early spring snows in these (northern) parts.

The point is we're talking about 15 day time periods here. Saying that a region is experiencing certain weather conditions suggests prevailing conditions over most of the 15 days. IF it were to snow in April (or even May), it would melt quickly leaving what would be better termed Mud conditions. So instead of Snow in April or May, in these places this far south (Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.), I would say substitute Mud in almost all cases.

[runyan99]

Berto, I'm originally from Illinois also, so I know what you are talking about.

[berto]

No, without doubt, weather in this latest patch (and perhaps also immediately preceding patches) is wacked.

I tried restarting another Atlanta 1864 game, and this time most of the regions around Chattanooga, to the northeast, the east, and the southwest (as far south as Talledega, Alabama) are snow-covered--in late April! I have never seen these wacky weather patterns in this scenario before. Something has definitely changed.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted