AACW (public beta) Patch 1.16 rc3 (November 30, 2010)

[lodilefty]

Let's try again!!!

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/temp/patch_AACW_v1.16rc3.zip

Latest engine, plus

Since RC2:

*Fixed map “focus” jump for Orphans Brigade arrival event.
*Fixed Depot build using Transport ships
*there is a more detailed tooltip on the entrench level icon
*abilities tooltip have their appliance level added by code.

[Farseer]

Excuse my ignorance and probably irrelevant question... but what does rc2 and rc3 stand for in these file names?

[lodilefty]

Excuse my ignorance and probably irrelevant question... but what does rc2 and rc3 stand for in these file names?

Release Candidate 2

Release Candidate 3

aka "Public Beta"

[Rafiki]

In general, a (regular) beta version is something that you kinda suspect contains errors that need to be addressed, while a release candidate is something that you intend to release as an official version, provided no unexpected problems are brought to light

[Farseer]

That makes very good sense to me. Thank you for your explanations!

[lodilefty]

Tooltip bug, also seen in WIA and NCP:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=193672#post193672

[enf91]

Clean install, then this patch. I don't see headings. No "total blockade" or "6% war bonds" or even "game options".

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Playing RC3 (patched over a clean RC2 install), and things look pretty good.

Found a minor bug, though, but as I have not played for a few months, I really do not know if it's new; and it's very minor.

Sometimes the message that refers to a force joining other gets messed up.

As an example, my Army of the Potomac moved to Culpeper to join a detachment led by Huger, and the message states that "Army of the Potomac joined Army of the Potomac" (no corps or divisions are yet available, so Huger's detachment was independent before the merge movement). I noticed a few turns back the same kind of message, but did not record it

See attached pic and save (the turn I get the message and the previous backup are included)

Again, it's a really minor "bug", all other things look great !

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

Wow! I agree it would be great to get those kinds of things fixed. But also, let's acknowledge how awesome the support of this game has been when those are the kinds of issues we're talking about! That's great news

[Bernadotte]

Hi there,

sorry I don't have time to check by myself, but will there be a "Total-Power Line" implemented in the Stack-Tooltip as I whished for in this Post and in this and in that here ?
That would be great !

Thank you very much,
Bernadotte

[oldspec4]

Wow! I agree it would be great to get those kinds of things fixed. But also, let's acknowledge how awesome the support of this game has been when those are the kinds of issues we're talking about! That's great news

I have seen the same type of message bugs occasionally. But I totally agree re: the outstanding continuing support of this game.

[Franciscus]

Playing RC3 (patched over a clean RC2 install), and things look pretty good.

Found a minor bug, though, but as I have not played for a few months, I really do not know if it's new; and it's very minor.

Sometimes the message that refers to a force joining other gets messed up.

As an example, my Army of the Potomac moved to Culpeper to join a detachment led by Huger, and the message states that "Army of the Potomac joined Army of the Potomac" (no corps or divisions are yet available, so Huger's detachment was independent before the merge movement). I noticed a few turns back the same kind of message, but did not record it

See attached pic and save (the turn I get the message and the previous backup are included)

Again, it's a really minor "bug", all other things look great !

The only possible big relevance might be if this is something engine-related and may be happens also in other newer games ?

[Carrington]

Started three grand campaigns this evening, grew suspicious that Athena was asleep --no attack on Sumter, no occupation of Norfolk -- and finally noticed that 'Activate A/I' was not checked.


It's quite possible that I toggled Athena off inadvertently. Or, perhaps the 'activate A/I' option got toggled off in 1.16?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Carrington]

Though this is quite possible, it is not the case with this v1.16 rc3 update patch. A clean uninstall/reinstall followed up with a direct patch to this v1.16 rc3 results in the AI box being checked/selected by default. The Give AI more time box is unchecked by default however, but that's usually the case also.

Sorry, another red herring then. I must have unchecked it.

[richfed]

Let's try again!!!

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/temp/patch_AACW_v1.16rc3.zip

Latest engine, plus

Since RC2:

RC3 is looking pretty darn good!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Is it possible that Huger's detachment was originally part of the Army of the Potomac before being detached?

_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.

No, it's the original Huger's force, that as soon as it appeared (in Petersburg, IIRC), I sent to Culpeper. It might have passed through Richmond, but it was not ever merged with the Army of the Potomac until I ordered the Army to move.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Oldparatrooper]

RC3 looks good to me and can I just say thanks to all you guys working on this game. It was one of the best games I ever played before ya did all this work and now ya making it better. Just amazing.

[marecone]

I have decided to give this rc3 a try. I play as Union and I am in September 1861 now. Rebs playing really good and what pleases me most is that they don't go on deep suicide raids as before. Those raids did include medium force attacking for example Buffalo and then slowly melting away because of a lack of supplies.

Unlike in version 15 and all older versions, they have managed to defend Springfield, MO. In all previous versions I always got whole Missouri before 1861 ended and rebel AI was poor and almost non existant in the west. Now this is definitelly a change to better.

Will report later as I make some progress but so far didn't find any bugs.

[Pocus]

Confirmed... I finally had a chance to load up your saved game and went back a turn. It was originally Huger's Command and the Army of the Potomac moved to Culpeper.

Probably should be looked into by Pocus for sure. I agree that it may be a problem spanning ALL AGE based games.

Here's a screen pic in 1861 Early Aug with B Huger's Command as a stationary force in Culpeper, VA.:
[ATTACH]13863[/ATTACH]

Here's a screen pic in 1861 Early Aug with the Army of the Potomac assigned to move to Culpeper, VA.:
[ATTACH]13864[/ATTACH]

Finally, here's a screen pic in 1861 Late Aug with the Army of the Potomac arriving and joining the Army of the Potomac in Culpeper, VA.:
[ATTACH]13865[/ATTACH]

Sorry, what should I look at?

[Franciscus]

Psst, Pocus...

"Army of the Potomac joined Army of the Potomac"...

http://www.ageod-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13815&d=1291334751

(This kind of funny message appears frequently, with the arriving unit joining the "resulting" force - in this case, it should read, as it did in the past: "Army of the Potomac joined Huger's command". After the merge, it continues to be the Army of the Potomac, but there's something strange in the "logic" of the message generator)

Hope it's clear

Regards

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Confirmed... I finally had a chance to load up your saved game and went back a turn. It was originally Huger's Command and the Army of the Potomac moved to Culpeper.

Probably should be looked into by Pocus for sure. I agree that it may be a problem spanning ALL AGE based games.

Yes, it is probably an engine based problem. For sure it also exists in RUS

I tested it in the Finland scenario. I moved the Army of Finland to merge with Haapamaki division, and the message is:
"Army of Finland joined Army of Finland"

See pic

(PS: I will report it in the RUS sub-forum, also)

[Franciscus]

I found another glitch, on the tooltip that appears over ours or the enemy's forces. I was noticing that the Union Army had apparently huge "brigades", of 500+ strength, and lots of apparently lonely generals

Then noticed the same thing in my own forces.

The glitch is that divisons are represented in the tooltip by the Div commander's name followed in brackets by the name of one of the constituent brigades (and not the name of the division) - for example, in the pic, Longstreet's division is referred in the tooltip as "James Longstreet (Longstreet bde)", with a strength of 536
Commanded Brigades, on the other hand, are referred simply to by the name of the commander, repeated - for example, Bonham's brigade is referred as "M. Bonham (M. Bonham)", with no specific mention of the actual brigade...

See attached pic and save.

I do not recall apy: if/when this was introduced, but IIRC this was not the way forces were referred to in the tooltips... Either way, it's confusing and misleading.

And like the message's problem, it's not AACW exclusive - RUS has the same "peculiar" way of referring to forces in the tooltips.

Regards

[soloswolf]

I found another glitch, on the tooltip that appears over ours or the enemy's forces. I was noticing that the Union Army had apparently huge "brigades", of 500+ strength, and lots of apparently lonely generals

Then noticed the same thing in my own forces.

The glitch is that divisons are represented in the tooltip by the Div commander's name followed in brackets by the name of one of the constituent brigades (and not the name of the division) - for example, in the pic, Longstreet's division is referred in the tooltip as "James Longstreet (Longstreet bde)", with a strength of 536
Commanded Brigades, on the other hand, are referred simply to by the name of the commander, repeated - for example, Bonham's brigade is referred as "M. Bonham (M. Bonham)", with no specific mention of the actual brigade...

See attached pic and save.

I do not recall apy: if/when this was introduced, but IIRC this was not the way forces were referred to in the tooltips... Either way, it's confusing and misleading.

And like the message's problem, it's not AACW exclusive - RUS has the same "peculiar" way of referring to forces in the tooltips.

Regards

This has always been like this. The name in the brackets is always the name of the first regiment/brigade you select when adding units to the division. The same holds true if you just have a leader attached to a single brigade.

You'll notice a similar tool-tip when you look for intelligence on enemy stacks. If it's a division, even if you can't see the full strength you'll see the asterisk and the name of the brigade. If it's just a commanded brigade you'll see the brigade name and whatever strength you have detection enough to see.