AGEOD Forums

Union Player

Blockade Boxes, General Situation:

My general strategy is to have 5 blockade squadrons in each blockade box as quickly as possible, usually by the end of '61. Later, '62-'63, I put a sixth blockade squadron in each of the boxes, basically so that when I start having to send squadrons back to port for repairs and regaining cohesion, I still have 5 squadrons on-duty.

I usually combine the New England Squadron and the New York Squadron to fill one of the Atlantic Blockade slots, which makes for one somewhat larger squadron, which uses a bit more than average supply.

To keep the blockade fleets in-supply at sea, I usually build 6 transport fleets of 4 elements (2 transport units) per blockade box; 3 for the Atlantic and 3 for the Gulf.

Each of these 'supply fleets' carry 240 points each of general supply and ammo.

One of these supply fleets per blockade box are cycled between the blockade box and, New York City for the Atlantic Blockade Box, and for the Gulf Blockade Box, Fort Pickens (at the beginning), Fort Philip, or Fort Jackson (after they have been taken), when one drops to 0 general supply. The supply is almost always taken from only one supply fleet at a time, until it is empty of the supply needed.

A blockade squadron uses 8 points of general supply per turn in the best of weather (summer months), which increases during the winter months due to bad weather. So during the best of weather (actually occurs seldom) each blockade box is using 8x5=40 or 8x6=48 general supply points per turn.

My understanding is that hit-points are taken from general supply available, be it from transports on hand (the supply fleets) or directly from the blockade squadrons barring the presence of supply fleets, on the basis of 1 supply point per hit.

If I recall correctly, even during stormy turns, only general supply is being exchanged for hits, but not ammo points.

Current Situation:
What I am seeing a lot of now is I am finding supply fleets extremely quickly decimated of not only general supply, but also ammo, even though there are no raiders in the blockade boxes (sometimes the CSA sends raiders into the Atlantic blockade Box to attack the blockade fleet). I've found supply fleets with 0 general supply and almost 0 ammo. Remember, they have 240 of each when fully supplied, even on turns when there have been no raiders reported in the blockade box.

Could it be that bad weather is now taking hits on the ammo of the supply fleets in addition to hits on general supply?

I've seen really bad stretches of bad weather occasionally, but the last two winters of my last game seam to go beyond anything I've ever seen before. I've had to borrow transports from other duties to put them into the blockade boxes --especially the Atlantic-- to keep the blockade fleets supplied because all of the supply fleets are in port for repairs and resupplying. I've even had to increase the number of supply fleets in the Atlantic to 4, just to keep up with supply usage even if I am receiving no messages of taking hits from bad weather.

Could this just be a coincidence, or has supply usage gone up and/or am I taking hits not being reported in the message log?

Pocus wrote:There will be delay before the next beta patch, but continue to gather discrepancies in this thread, this is not lost.

So overall, the AI is too timid or aggressive enough? It seems that depending of the game, people experience different things

I can't say that I'm seeing Athena being more or less aggressive than usual, but I'm not seeing any open-battles with large losses. With open-battles I mean as opposed to one side being besieged.

Pat Cleburne's battle above is a good example. It looks like the losses are huge at first glance. But the armies are 63,791 CSA vs 194,131 USA(!!). That's almost 258,000 combatants on the field!

The loses are 5,873 CSA vs 20,187 USA, which gives 26,060 left on the field after the battle. That too sound like huge battle losses. But divide all the counts by 10 and you come down to 6,379 CSA vs 19,413 USA of combatants and 587 CSA losses vs 2,019 USA losses.

That's mediocre as far as heavy battle losses go and that a lot of what I'm seeing. I'm not seeing any major exceptions to this. It seams like Athena if being very careful about how she's attacking or defending.

Maybe she's not finding her Cold Harbor, or Gettysburg. I'm certainly not trying to give her the former and am almost only attacking with 2-1 odds or better.

But even if I'm attacking with the likes of 4-1 odds, she takes minimal losses and slips away.

Maybe it's because it's the final stages of the war and she's generally trying to be conservative with her troops.

I'm still seeing her use just about every opportunity that my mistakes leave open for her. Just no nasty battle results for either side.

This is in reply to my own previous post on battle results . I didn't want to let my statements rest on memory alone, because it tends to get distorted .

I really wanted to know exactly how varied the outcomes were on battles with about 10,000 men per side or more. So I went though the the last two years of my last game run on 1.16b3 & 4 (I updated in the middle, but don't know exactly when) and hard copied every single battle --130 in all-- and did a simple statistic on them. There were many circumstances where the message log stated:

45/103 "So-N-So's corp committed against Confederate States of America in Region, State, at day 12"
46/103 "Confederate States of America succeeded in retreating before battle in Region, State, at day 12"

I ignored these, because it was just to fiddly to find them all and collect any reasonable information out of them.

I think the column headers are pretty self-explanatory.

[font="Courier New"]--------------_USA_-------------- _____ --------------_CSA_--------------
men ___ horses canons cmd.rate. _____ men ___ horses canons cmd.rate.
______________________ posture _______________________________ posture
battle01
26526 _ 6150 __ 60 ____ 6-4-4 _________ 11308 _ 1029 __ 31 ____ 3-1-1
1199 __ 461 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 3905 __ 553 ___ 0 _____ .)
4.5% __ 7.5% __ 0% ____________________ 34.5% _ 53.2% _ 0%

battle02
46708 _ 13806 _ 132 ___ 6-3-5 _________ 33843 _ 6540 __ 52 ____ 4-1-0
3290 __ 768 ___ 0 _____ >, ____________ 7473 __ 1783 __ 0 _____ .)
7.0% __ 5.6% __ 0% ____________________ 22.1% _ 27.3% _ 0%

battle03
43498 _ 13056 _ 132 ___ 6-3-5 _________ 24872 _ 4545 __ 47 ____ 4-1-0
0 _____ 0 _____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 61 ____ 0 _____ 0 _____ ()
0% ____ 0% ____ 0% ____________________ 0.2% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle04
50450 _ 19132 _ 141 ___ 6-4-5 _________ 15767 _ 2139 __ 28 ____ 3-2-2
1891 __ 984 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1998 __ 61 ____ 0 _____ ()
3.7% __ 5.1% __ 0% ____________________ 12.7% _ 2.8% __ 0%

battle05
17954 _ 4880 __ 60 ____ 5-4-4 _________ 14327 _ 2109 __ 28 ____ 3-2-2
1107 __ 338 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 553 ___ 0 _____ 0 _____ .)
6.2% __ 6.9% __ 0% ____________________ 3.9% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle06
16586 _ 4684 __ 58 ____ 5-4-4 _________ 27356 _ 5071 __ 49 ____ 4-1-0
1968 __ 461 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1568 __ 123 ___ 0 _____ .)
11.9% _ 9.8% __ 0% ____________________ 5.7% __ 2.4% __ 0%

battle07
31357 _ 11715 _ 105 ___ 6-3-5 _________ 22928 _ 4310 __ 44 ____ 4-1-0
3044 __ 768 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1445 __ 61 ____ 0 _____ .)
9.7% __ 6.6% __ 0% ____________________ 6.3% __ 1.4% __ 0%

battle08
56900 _ 13440 _ 224 ___ 5-6-6 _________ 25445 _ 3774 __ 23 ____ 7-5-7
584 ___ 184 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 553 ___ 0 _____ 0 _____ .)
1.0% __ 1,4% __ 0% ____________________ 2.2% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle09
81361 _ 24692 _ 355 ___ 5-6-6 _________ 24870 _ 3721 __ 22 ____ 7-5-7
1042 __ 369 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1722 __ 123 ___ 0 _____ >.
1.3% __ 1.5% __ 0% ____________________ 6.9% __ 3.3% __ 0%

battle10
25441 _ 8632 __ 104 ___ 6-4-5 _________ 13182 _ 2132 __ 34 ____ 4-1-0
584 ___ 0 _____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1537 __ 92 ____ 0 _____ .)
2.3% __ 0% ____ 0% ____________________ 11.7% _ 4.3% __ 0%

battle11
2943 __ 2940 __ 0 _____ 4-3-3 _________ 30282 _ 2966 __ 56 ____ 3-1-1
799 ___ 799 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 215 ___ 0 _____ 0 _____ .)
28.1% _ 27.2% _ 0% ____________________ 0.7% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle12
80023 _ 24322 _ 353 ___ 5-6-6 _________ 22208 _ 3377 __ 24 ____ 7-5-7
369 ___ 276 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 861 ___ 123 ___ 0 _____ >.
0.5% __ 1.1% __ 0% ____________________ 3,9% __ 3.6% __ 0%

battle13
8924 __ 2979 __ 48 ____ 3-1-1 _________ 16552 _ 1296 __ 32 ____ 4-3-3
861 ___ 246 ___ 0 _____ .) ____________ 1076 __ 0 _____ 0 _____ >>.
9.6% __ 8,3% __ 0% ____________________ 6.5% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle14
26892 _ 4004 __ 107 ___ 5-4-4 _________ 18849 _ 3051 __ 28 ____ 7-5-7
3659 __ 246 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 2526 __ 492 ___ 0 _____ .)
13.6% _ 6.1% __ 0 _____________________ 6,1 ___ 14.1 __ 0%

battle15
23322 _ 3764 __ 107 ___ 5-4-4 _________ 15399 _ 2571 __ 28 ____ 7-5-7
3228 __ 92 ____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 3321 __ 492 ___ 0 _____ .)
13.8% _ 2.4% __ 0% ____________________ 21.6% _ 19.1% _ 0

battle16
21089 _ 7612 __ 24 ____ 6-4-4 _________ 16083 _ 1467 __ 27 ____ 4-3-3
2152 __ 707 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1030 __ 61 ____ 0 _____ .)
10,2% _ 9.3% __ 0% ____________________ 6.4% __ 4.2% __ 0%

battle17
17333 _ 5720 __ 60 ____ 3-2-3 _________ 24720 _ 2385 __ 47 ____ 3-2-2
2460 __ 615 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 2352 __ 123 ___ 0 _____ >.
14.2& _ 10.8% _ 0% ____________________ 9.5% __ 5.2% __ 0%

battle18
37029 _ 11224 _ 153 ___ 6-6-5 _________ 15290 _ 1428 __ 32 ____ 4-3-3
584 ___ 153 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1107 __ 0 _____ 0 _____ .)
1.6% __ 1.4% __ 0% ____________________ 7.2% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle19
36459 _ 11074 _ 153 ___ 6-5-5 _________ 18000 _ 1874 __ 46 ____ 4-3-3
707 ___ 430 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 984 ___ 184 ___ 0 _____ .)
1.9% __ 3.9% __ 0% ____________________ 5.5% __ 9.8% __ 0%

battle20
38353 _ 10349 _ 82 ____ 6-4-4 _________ 9858 __ 1119 __ 23 ____ 4-3-3
1091 __ 215 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1921 __ 123 ___ 0 _____ .)
2.8% __ 2.1% __ 0% ____________________ 19.5% _ 11.0% _ 0%

battle21
35769 _ 10654 _ 153 ___ 6-6-5 _________ 6934 __ 512 ___ 22 ____ 4-2-4
92 ____ 0 _____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 462 ___ 0 _____ 0 _____ >.
0.3% __ 0% ____ 0% ____________________ 6.7% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle22
37912 _ 10232 _ 84 ____ 6-4-4 _________ 10512 _ 1227 __ 19 ____ 4-3-3
369 ___ 92 ____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1906 __ 61 ____ 0 _____ >.
10.0% _ 0.9% __ 0% ____________________ 18.1% _ 5.0% __ 0%

battle23
37783 _ 10259 _ 83 ____ 6-4-4 _________ 9588 __ 1164 __ 18 ____ 4-3-3
830 ___ 276 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1845 __ 246 ___ 0 _____ .)
2.2% __ 2.7% __ 0% ____________________ 19.2% _ 21.1% _ 0%

battle24
57454 _ 16182 _ 244 ___ 3-2-3 _________ 26642 _ 2979 __ 55 ____ 3-1-1
0 _____ 0 _____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1078 __ 0 _____ 0 _____ .)
0% ____ 0% ____ 0% ____________________ 4.0% __ 0% ____ 0%

battle25
19435 _ 6342 __ 59 ____ 6-6-5 _________ 10849 _ 707 ___ 38 ____ 4-2-4
1076 __ 246 ___ 0 _____ >. ____________ 1691 __ 0 _____ 0 _____ .)
5.5% __ 3.9% __ 0% ____________________ 15.6% _ 0% ____ 0%

battle26
60021 _ 16668 _ 236 ___ 6-6-5 _________ 6373 __ 695 ___ 34 ____ 4-2-4
584 ___ 30 ____ 0 _____ >. ____________ 2060 __ 0 _____ 0 _____ ()
1.0% __ 0.2% __ 0% ____________________ 32.3% _ 0% ____ 0%

battle27
9078 __ 3075 __ 35 ____ 4-3-3 _________ 10414 _ 1848 __ 16 ____ 4-3-3
1429 __ 246 ___ 0 _____ >>. ___________ 1306 __ 215 ___ 0 _____ .)
15.7% _ 8.0% __ 0% ____________________ 12.5% _ 11.6% _ 0%[/font]

Right off the bat we can see that there are a number of battles with more than 10% losses on one or both sides: battles: 01, 02, 04, 06, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27. That's 16 from 27 or a whopping 59%. So embarrassing to prove myself so wrong .

One thing that did catch my eye though were a couple of battles with a large number of troops on each side with both forces in attack posture with seemingly low casualty resultes; namely battles: 09, 12, and 21, though there are also a couple of battles with both forces in attack posture where the results are a bit more bloody; battles: 17 and 22. Kind of makes me wonder what kind of ineptitude is occurring in battles 09, 12, and 21

All in all I think the battle results in general are pretty balanced and realistic. Barring a force having totally miserable cohesion the commander has a good chance are retreating from battle without taking massive losses, other than to pride.

The fact that canons are never lost during battle, barring having one side totally wiped out, has always been present, though I can't remember ever having heard what the logic behind that is.

deleted

Okay, I'm fine with that

Cohesion conditions effect how bloody a battle can be. Also, some of those "big" battles with small casualties could be a seperate militia regiment fighting a seperate cavalry regiment or something. The game adds up all the units in the region for it's manpower calculations even if it's two smaller units fighting. Just something to think about.

It's hard to do statistical analysis on this game when there's so many variables. I've been wanting to test some of the leader abilities but I don't know how I can isolate battles without other variables influencing it.

I think the best way to do it would be to build a sand-box. This is, a scenario in which you can control everything that exists and is present and then play both side as if it were a PBEM game.

I've been meaning to figure out how to do this, but never seem to get around to it. There's a lot of info about creating scenarios in the modders forum, but I haven't been able to quite figure it all out yet

Really great information, but if I may say, I don't know why you haven't fought a battle with really huge loss in manpower. I had one between a corps of two divisions (total: 17,432 men, 3,456 horses, 84 cannons) against a confederate independent command of 3 divisions and two extra generals (total: 21,045 men, 5,896 horses, 56 cannons) withe me attacking and them defending.

Total losses were:
Me: 5,986 men, 632 horses, 3 cannons
CSA: 8,764 men, 1,362 horses, 16 cannons

All the generals were generic except for Thomas C. Hindman in the CSA. Difficulty normal. Bloodiest battle I've had for now in the campaign I'm currently playing.

I really don't know for sure, but I suspect that my game has gotten more conservative.

I build up my forces, plan my campaign so that I have superiority over the battlefield, and execute. I move forward with armies and corps supporting each other so that they can March To The Sound Of Guns. The enemy (I suspect they note how much larger my forces are) plays more of a delaying action. If he stops falling back, he gets smacked, but he usually retreats from the battlefield, which limits casualties on both sides. If he tries to hole up in some city, he gets besieged and wiped out. Very rarely does any force or part of a force escape a siege. Only when the enemy has started to scatter do I start to send independent corps on missions where they are not directly supported by other corps or armies.

I've only just started playing with historical attrition, which is totally new for me. Starting in about the summer of '62 I used to be able to field a brand spanking new division per turn and sometimes 2. Now, I have many turns in which all of my conscripted man-power goes into replacements. But then again, because I'm taking far fewer losses, the size of my forces still continually grows.

Honestly, my biggest problems in my last campaign have been

• trying to get the right generals promoted, so that I create good army commanders (4 or higher strategic value)
• keeping my fleets suppied in the blockade boxes and cycling them through ports in the summer months to recover damage and cohesion (lots of micro-management)*

*as I reported in the first port of this thread, I seem to be hitting very high supply and ammo usage in the Atlantic. It doesn't slow me down really, but it's a PITA keeping things running.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:Cohesion conditions effect how bloody a battle can be. Also, some of those "big" battles with small casualties could be a seperate militia regiment fighting a seperate cavalry regiment or something. The game adds up all the units in the region for it's manpower calculations even if it's two smaller units fighting. Just something to think about.

I 'scrolled' back to battle09 (again - living in the past :neener to the turn when the battle occurred and the turn before (the movement orders) and played both sides to see exactly what is happening.

The Movement Orders

The CSA has Joseph E. Johnson's Army (2x 4 and 3 element Bde. lead by generals and a 4 single regiment Bde.), and Forney's corp (a Div. and again 2x 3 and 4 element Bde lead each by a general, plus a few Bde and batteries w/o direct leadership in the corp). Both their postures are defensive [blue]{second from right} and both ROE are Defend: no change to the normal rules [orange*]{second from left}. Neither have 'avoid combat' clicked, but both have 'Synchronize move order' and J.E. Johnson has the 'skirmisher (Level 1)' ability: "If the commander, allows and easier retreat during the first 2 hours of battle". Forney has a 'brownie'

Both are plotted to move to the Morehead City region, both arriving in 8 days.

There are no other CSA units on the field nor arriving on the field.

The US in the region is Meade's Army of the James w/ 3 divisions plus a bde of 5 Cav. lead by Sheridan plus a few support units, Hurlbut's corp with 2 Div., the 'Railway Bde' plus a few support units, and 3x supply train leaving per train and 3x supply train arriving by train. Combat units arriving in the location at day 4 is Sedgewick's corp with 2 Inf. Div., 1 demi-Cav. Div., plus 3 cav. reg. each lead by a cav. general. All combat units are in 'Offensive Posture' with Defend: normal. Meade and Hurlbut have no moves plotted.

The battle occurs on day 1, so Sedgewick's corp has not yet arrived. Onslow is Marsh/Fair.

The battle


I'm certainly not going to claim to know the internal calculations for this move, what chances of who catching whom, but what may be happening is that Meade or Hurlbut engage Forney and the other gets MTSG. Johnson also gets MTSG, especially because they are in synchronized movement, but because Johnson has 'skermisher level 1' the whole CSA force retreats almost immediately .

If so, it's a very tricky way to get Johnson's 'skirmisher' ability spread over the entire CSA force apy: and leave Meade's army sitting with the bag .

* light red? I don't know, I'm color blind

Well, after fighting a battle at Gettysburg playing the Gettysburg scenario today, I found it quite strange that my AoNV didn't retreat after the first battle on day 7 like they always did on previous patches. Now, that sole battle on day 7 had 11,015 casualties: 5196 men, 2,029 horses my side and 5,519 men, 246 horses on the Union.

Mind that these are both armies at full strength, except for the Union Cavalry Corps, so it means it was my whole army against their whole army:

CSA Army: 83,183 men, 17,784 horses, 326 canons
USA Army: 112,227 men, 23,029 horses, 486 canons

At these moment I really thought losses were small. After all, on previous patches it wasn't strange to see more than 30,000 casualties on one day. Oh, how wrong I was. The battle of gettysburg lasted until day 15, when the confederate army finally retreated.

Total losses on my side were:
3 generals dead (Ewell, Rodes and Alexander).
28,440 men dead.
6,731 horses dead.

Total Union losses were:
1 general dead (Hancock).
2 generals injured (Crawford and Rufus King)
43,369 men.
10,500 men taken as prisoners of war,
4,803 horses.
51 canons.

Funny thing is I won all the battles except the first one (day 7, draw) and the last one (day 15, which I lost). However, all the battles from day 8 until day 14 were won by me, netting me a total of 30 NM points. Another thing was that I only lost 1 element, while the Union lost a grand total of 46 elements.

Points is, more than 70,000 men were left on the battlefield, which is more than 33% of both armies combined.

To tell the truth, I have never seen a battle as devastating as this one. The closest one was an assault on New Orleans that took 26 days to finish, but even then it wasn't as bloody. Although most of my battles now between even armies take 2 days to finish

I believe that instead of there being huge number of casualties in just one day, if you find two armies that have similar strength and are HUGE, we'll have battles that last more than one day. After all, Shiloh lasted 2 days, Gettysburg lasted 3 days, and the Seven Days battle lasted 7 days.

Maybe this new system of less men lost per day will allow for battles that will last more days.

Next time I fin another battle like this, I'll be sure to post it.

Question: How do I put screenshots in my replies, I want to put the 7 battles of Gettysburg so that you can see them

kingtaso01 wrote:Well, after fighting a battle at Gettysburg playing the Gettysburg scenario today, I found it quite strange that my AoNV didn't retreat after the first battle on day 7 like they always did on previous patches. Now, that sole battle on day 7 had 11,015 casualties: 5196 men, 2,029 horses my side and 5,519 men, 246 horses on the Union.

Mind that these are both armies at full strength, except for the Union Cavalry Corps, so it means it was my whole army against their whole army:

CSA Army: 83,183 men, 17,784 horses, 326 canons
USA Army: 112,227 men, 23,029 horses, 486 canons

At these moment I really thought losses were small. After all, on previous patches it wasn't strange to see more than 30,000 casualties on one day. Oh, how wrong I was. The battle of gettysburg lasted until day 15, when the confederate army finally retreated.

Total losses on my side were:
3 generals dead (Ewell, Rodes and Alexander).
28,440 men dead.
6,731 horses dead.

Total Union losses were:
1 general dead (Hancock).
2 generals injured (Crawford and Rufus King)
43,369 men.
10,500 men taken as prisoners of war,
4,803 horses.
51 canons.

Funny thing is I won all the battles except the first one (day 7, draw) and the last one (day 15, which I lost). However, all the battles from day 8 until day 14 were won by me, netting me a total of 30 NM points. Another thing was that I only lost 1 element, while the Union lost a grand total of 46 elements.

Points is, more than 70,000 men were left on the battlefield, which is more than 33% of both armies combined.

To tell the truth, I have never seen a battle as devastating as this one. The closest one was an assault on New Orleans that took 26 days to finish, but even then it wasn't as bloody. Although most of my battles now between even armies take 2 days to finish

I believe that instead of there being huge number of casualties in just one day, if you find two armies that have similar strength and are HUGE, we'll have battles that last more than one day. After all, Shiloh lasted 2 days, Gettysburg lasted 3 days, and the Seven Days battle lasted 7 days.

Maybe this new system of less men lost per day will allow for battles that will last more days.

Next time I fin another battle like this, I'll be sure to post it.

Question: How do I put screenshots in my replies, I want to put the 7 battles of Gettysburg so that you can see them

Your Gettysburg battle is certainly one where both armies are trying to defeat the other. In many of my battles, one side is trying to escape. The will surely make a big difference in casualties and the length of the battle.

---

To put screen shots into post, first you should probably crop them down to a reasonable size.

I've been using Paint Shop Pro X for years, though I don't find it really very state-of-the-art when compared to Photoshop, but that costs a bucket of $$.

I've heard that you can crop with MS Paint, but other than making a selection, coping it, and pasting it as a new picture, I don't know how you would doit.

If you're a bit adventurous and don't mind learning something new, you could download GIMP. It's open-source and free and has a lot of good features. To crop with GIMP is easy.

Once you've gotten your screenies into the shape and size you want them, you will need to upload them to a free hosting site. I generally use Photobucket. A free account does have a limit of about 2.5 GB of pics and/or videos, but I'm not even close to that. There is also a bandwidth limit, but unless you start posting to forums where you are getting dozens of hits per day, every day for weeks on end, you probably with never have a problem with that either.

Upload your screenies. Once done, each has a set of 4 codes for sharing. The last one is IMG. Copy that code and paste it into your forum post and voile-la there you have it.

Don't forget to hit 'Preview Post' first to see if the formatting is all ok, before hitting 'Submit Reply'.

EDIT: I forgot a major step in posting screen shots. Creating the screen shot itself

1. Have MS Paint, GIMP or your graphics editing program of choice running.
2. During the game hit <Alt><Print> (puts a window dump into you clip-board) and then using <Alt><Tab> switch to your running graphics editing program.
3. In MS Paint open: menu -> edit -> paste
in GIMP open: menu -> edit -> paste as -> New image or simple hit <Shift><Ctrl><V>
4. Now you have your screen shot loaded in you graphics program, edit and/or save it to a location of your choice.

I actually have a much simpler method of doing this almost automatically, but you need IrfanView and CygWin. IrfanView is a great free graphics display program that can allow you to view about 100 different graphics formats. CygWin is Unix environment for windows. The method actually only uses bash for running a script (like a bat file in dos), but this sets the date and time into a variable for IrfanView to use in the file name to save your hard-copies from your clip-board.

If anybody wants to know how to do this, it's fairly simple, and I'd be glad to share.

To get the file into the forum, see the link below:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=145251&highlight=upload#post145251

But there is a limit to how many pics etc you can upload altogether - not just per post -, or am I thinking of a different forum?

Edit1: On top of that you cannot display illustrations in your thread very easily.

After you've followed Gray's steps in the link you included, you still have to get the link-location of the file you just uploaded and then click on the 'Insert Image' button and put that URL in the field. Now you have the illustration and the download-link at the bottom in your post.



You can now go back to the 'Manage Attachments' window and click 'Remove' to remove the download-link from your post, and the illustration still appears; but I don't know for how long. It could be that it is only cached and once the forum s/w notices that the uploaded file was removed in 'Manage Attachments', it may delete the file too, in which case your illustration will disappear.

I did this with a full-size version of my avatar below. We'll see if it stays put for how long.

Edit2: So, 20 hours later we can see as I suspected, the original attached and later removed file, though still referenced in the forum, has been deleted:
[IMG\]http://www.ageod-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12085&stc=1&d=1280224243[/IMG] *BTW the "\" backslash inserted before the first "]" is just so that the IMG code appears as text. Otherwise it would be parsed as code, set to be replaced by the referenced image and not shown.

Here's my avatar, reattached as a new upload:


The crux of it is, you can use the forum's attachments function to insert illustrations into posts, but you have to leave the download link at the bottom of your post to keep the file in place. I can find no reference to how many attachments a user may upload or a total of space required to store them. Only a limit per file as seen in the 'Manage Attachments' window.