AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 6 - November 23, 2011

[GraniteStater]

I've started several games as the CSA in the '61 Campaign w/Kentucky with the RC6 patch -- just fooling around testing stuff.

In every game, I get the following message in the Mail Box after every turn in which I have vessels in the Atlantic Shipping Box:

Transport ships in shipping lanes transported [color="Red"]0[/color] supply points oversea, their maximum capacity being [color="red"]XXX[/color] points.

No matter what the max capacity figure is [currenty 380], and no matter what configuration of ships I put in there, the points transported is always zero. I don't remember seeing this message in earlier patches. Is there any reason for it?

lodilefty was accurate, but to take an educated guess, it's a glitch and nothing to worry about.

The code probably calculates the Sea Trans for both sides - CSA calc will always be 0. The code result is being displayed for the CSA side (and wasn't before). Merely an error, I would think.

[Philippe]

As far as the Army of Northeastern Virginia is concerned, I would have thought that in the April scenario its elements would need about five turns to come up to full strength. In other words, they wouldn't be ready to march on Manassas until late July (which puts them more or less on the historical timetable).

I think I've gotten that result in the April w/Kentucky scenario: the supply units were understrength, but everything else seemed filled out.

[lodilefty]

As far as the Army of Northeastern Virginia is concerned, I would have thought that in the April scenario its elements would need about five turns to come up to full strength. In other words, they wouldn't be ready to march on Manassas until late July (which puts them more or less on the historical timetable).

I think I've gotten that result in the April w/Kentucky scenario: the supply units were understrength, but everything else seemed filled out.

Recover rate is higher in bigger cities and with depot.

The CSA force in the Valley (Johnston) is not in a city,so it gains strength slower.

Recovery is faster if there are replacements for the element family.
So Elite are critical for Stonewall, etc. (check unit detail for rpl family types)

Of note is that many artillery start game weak, so these won't "fill out" unless you buy a bunch of replacements. (the old rule of thumb was 1 rpl per 10 on the map. no idea if it still applies, but you need the rpl to get ready, and there is a % chance that one gets consumed "just" when strengthening a unit. For sure, one gets consumed to replace a missing element)

IIRC, the "design intent" is to emphasize purchase of replacements early on, THEN buy units with "spare change"

[Pocus]

Let me make a precision of importance, the recruitment rules have not been changed in the code! What Lodilefty wrote is an explanation, of rules which are existing and have not changed since perhaps 3 years, at least.

[Avre 165]

cheers Rich. ive done all you said.
lets hope im there finally!!!
it just bugged me having just the 30 max divisions. i wanted/want to bluff them and appear stronger by fielding as many divs as i can afford. (even if its a div in name only)
Am also going all out on building forts (i have 8 forts built in VA alone. gonna see what this does to the union boys...

[Captain_Orso]

Hi Pokus, the comments about the discrepancies between the April and July campaigns was under the assumption that you should actually be able to reach the July campaign starting setup in the April campaign. But the scenario author of the July campaign has tidied the units up and made them full strength for the starting gun. My results in trying to get to the same status in the April campaign are a little more chaotic

But since the Monitor has an issue with getting up to strength on time I was wondering if other units might have similar issues.

----

Two other issues, one small and one even smaller.

Small) When putting a naval leader into a stack of boats/ships, the name of the stack changes to 'Fleet' and not for example 'Porter's Fleet'.

Even Smaller) If you stack two or more units together the stack automatically gets a generated name like '5.Union Detachment' put in the stack-tab in the force display. Each unit you remove from that stack gets a newly generated name like '9.Union Detachment' even if it's a lone unit. If you remove the second from the last unit from such a stack, the last unit removed from the stack retains the generated name and the remaining unit reverts back to its actual name, like '1st NY Veteran Cav.'.

Any lone unit should have it's actual name.

[lodilefty]

But since the Monitor has an issue with getting up to strength on time I was wondering if other units might have similar issues.

<snip>

I'm looking at a change with CSS Virginia and USS Monitor.

Historically,they were "laid down" in 1861, but didn't get to sea until late Feb 1862, in time for their only battle...

There is a relatively new way to calculate "unfix date", so I'm looking at these two ships arriving as they do now, but fixed until Late Feb '62 (Monitor) and Early March '62 (Virginia). This will give ample time to get up to strength, and comply a bit better with history.
("Under the hood" for modders: in the elder days, a created unit could only be give a number of turns to be fixed, making arrval problematic as it also depends on CSA control of Norfolk. Now, we can input an "unfix date" and solve the problem)

As part of this, I'm also testing to delay "force pool" ability to build further Monitors or CSA Ironclads until March '62 (USN really didn't think much of the design, CSA wasn't so sure either, and lacked resources). The "free" CSA Ironclads in the west are "laid down" by event as they do now (July 61), and unfix ina few months, but maybe should also be delayed to mmore historically accurate October 61.....

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I'm looking at a change with CSS Virginia and USS Monitor.

Historically,they were "laid down" in 1861, but didn't get to sea until late Feb 1862, in time for their only battle...

There is a relatively new way to calculate "unfix date", so I'm looking at these two ships arriving as they do now, but fixed until Late Feb '62 (Monitor) and Early March '62 (Virginia). This will give ample time to get up to strength, and comply a bit better with history.
("Under the hood" for modders: in the elder days, a created unit could only be give a number of turns to be fixed, making arrval problematic as it also depends on CSA control of Norfolk. Now, we can input an "unfix date" and solve the problem)

As part of this, I'm also testing to delay "force pool" ability to build further Monitors or CSA Ironclads until March '62 (USN really didn't think much of the design, CSA wasn't so sure either, and lacked resources). The "free" CSA Ironclads in the west are "laid down" by event as they do now (July 61), and unfix ina few months, but maybe should also be delayed to mmore historically accurate October 61.....

I think this would be great. It would make the battles on the Mississippi more realistic. Now, they're pretty much ironclad fests from the beginning.

[squarian]

I think this would be great. It would make the battles on the Mississippi more realistic. Now, they're pretty much ironclad fests from the beginning.

Yes! Is there any point to gunboats at the moment? And the race to build what was, after all, a highly experimental technology from the start has always seemed odd to me.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Yes! Is there any point to gunboats at the moment? And the race to build what was, after all, a highly experimental technology from the start has always seemed odd to me.

It would be cool if gunboats had a chance to upgrade to cottonclads, or at least improve their stats. Gunboats are only useful for blocking river crossings right now. A fleet of 10 gunboats equals 1 ironclad at the moment.

[oberst_klink]

I've been looking through various posts about scenario design & modding options. I just wonder which file contains the scenario descriptions? Getting into AACW and would like to create a longer tutorial, based on the Trans-Mississipi 61-62 one, which I think is as spiffing one!

Klink, Oberst

[Captain_Orso]

Lodi's going to kill me, but I've found something else

In 1.15 in the unit detail if you hover over the experience stars you get a report about the experience points gained and the number of points needed for the next level. This doesn't work anymore.

[lodilefty]

I've been looking through various posts about scenario design & modding options. I just wonder which file contains the scenario descriptions? Getting into AACW and would like to create a longer tutorial, based on the Trans-Mississipi 61-62 one, which I think is as spiffing one!

Klink, Oberst

All the text is in LocalStrings.csv from the DB of similar name.

The events for tutorials etc. (or any Scenario) are all part of the Setup files....

See also:
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Articles_and_Tutorials_on_Modding

[lodilefty]

Closed. RC7 now posted.

Thank you for your feedback and patience.