AACW {public beta} patch 1.16 Release Candidate 10a - January 13, 2012

[lodilefty]

Here are the bugs tourney players and I am noticing:

1. US General Porter appeared in Levy FL out of the far blue yonder. No one knows how or why he got there.
2. The river between Wilmington and Smithville is blocked by ship's guns. The South can't use that rail line. However, the fleet looks to the CSA like it's out in the bay (unless there's some ghost ships he can't see).
3. The Trent affair event. The alternate event where the USA doesn't release the ambasadors fired, but it's showing the event name instead of a proper string. It also showed the default trent affair event right above the alternate one.
4. Access to the build/ministers panel has been tricky. By now, players have figured out that you can't have a unit displayed in the bottom window in order to open it.

Unless you REALLY need a set of files, I'm not going to post them as I have enough work to do managing the tourney games for now.

1. He should join McClellan, or largest group if Mac is dead.
2. Ok, I guess I need to start the map review...
3. Things look ok in db for RC10, but if the two players are not both using same patch, this could occur, particularly to CSA player....
4. yup. on the list.

I'd like the saves for #1.
If both players are really on RC10, I'll need save for #3 also

[lodilefty]

Can confirm the strange (and very intense) battle sounds as well. Someone has invented the gatling howitzer.

Yup. On the list

'61 w/Kentucky
CSA declared cotton embargo and USA declared total blockade on the same turn. Only the blockade is shown as happening in the turn results.

I cant remember if that's normal?

Both messages appear ok for both sides in my test of 61 April w/Kentucky...

[lodilefty]

Here are the bugs tourney players and I am noticing:

2. The river between Wilmington and Smithville is blocked by ship's guns. The South can't use that rail line. However, the fleet looks to the CSA like it's out in the bay (unless there's some ghost ships he can't see).

There are actually two water segments between these land regions:

1139Middle Cape Fear River
1397Reaves Point

AFAIK, ships in either should block the Rail link...

In ExMap, I see the icon locations for 1397 are "off shore", while those for 1139 are "up the river". So, in which region are the ships?

[Normalguy]

Yup. On the list



Both messages appear ok for both sides in my test of 61 April w/Kentucky...

Yup - I cant recreate it either. Like I said, there seems to be a problem in the Liveware lol

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

There are actually two water segments between these land regions:

1139Middle Cape Fear River
1397Reaves Point

AFAIK, ships in either should block the Rail link...

In ExMap, I see the icon locations for 1397 are "off shore", while those for 1139 are "up the river". So, in which region are the ships?

The ships were in Reaves Point which is on the coast. Why would it block movement over the river?

[Philippe]

I'm running out of space at Imageshack so I've combined a few screenshots of spots on the map that seem to have control flag placement issues. In some cases the flag is partially covered by something else in the region, in some cases the flag is missing altogether (completely covered up by something in the region ?) and in some cases it seems to have drifted off to another region altogether.

These are:

1. Stafford VA

2. Henrico VA

3. Culpeper VA

4. Shenendoah VA

5. Currituck NC and the two areas immediately to its north (one of which is Norfold VA)

A quick glance at Delaware, by the way, reveals very few control flags, but that's not such a big deal because it isn't usually on the front lines. In other parts of the map a missing control flag isn't the end of the world, because there are other ways of figuring out who controls what regions. But flags and symbols colliding with each other is a bit unsightly.

[Stauffenberg]

Sorry in advance if I missed it having just reread the 1.16 thread, but could someone post the specific CSA naval changes made in rc9, re the scaling back of ironclad builds allowed, year by year?

[EDIT: nm I found most of the detail finally. I'll leave my remark about shipyard engineers below standing.]

I was not part of any discussion on this in the past, but if the desire is to curb rampant ironclad building by the South, why not limit their being built to one per shipyard engineer (as an obvious observation)?

Thanks.

[lodilefty]

The ships were in Reaves Point which is on the coast. Why would it block movement over the river?

Bothr regions touch it. Look at shape: it extends between the two regions part way...

I'm not sure how to restrict rail blockage to just one water region. [or if you even can in this case]

[lodilefty]

An obscure bug was found in the tournament, where Fitz Porter appears in an isolated region in Florida.


To be technical:

1. The event searches for McClellan, and if found, creates a new Land Group for Porter in that region. If not found, Porter joins largets CP Land Group.
2. The game engine default is to move any Land group at sea without a transport to nearest land region [this is WAD from long ago, to protect against loss of a large force if one transport is sunk, or if a fleet gets stuck in ice and such..], so Porter washed ashore...
3. Fix: Porter will join Mac's group as part of the group!

Fix attached: [it will not "undo" the landed Porter, but you can back-up and rerun if desired.]
Extract into \ACW\Events
1 file overwritten

[Stauffenberg]

Re access to the Ledger blocked by the screen flicker with the new army leader icons on the right, it's been covered well enough here. I just wanted to add that for screen issues like this, hitting Escape and then Resume Game on the Main Game Menu screen will solve it. I use this method a lot as I found that working on other programs and coming over to ACW, the mouse pointer will move around the screen but is unable to click-activate anything until I employ the above.

The new general tiles on the right I quite like, but would prefer not to see British generals that are not yet part of foreign intervention (when playing the CSA of course). It's a small issue. I can't recall if a French general appears later in the war or not, but only British commands are shown for the CSA in 1861.

[Franciscus]

The new general tiles on the right I quite like, but would prefer not to see British generals that are not yet part of foreign intervention (when playing the CSA of course). It's a small issue. I can't recall if a French general appears later in the war or not, but only British commands are shown for the CSA in 1861.

+1.
I would much prefer to get rid of the British armies...and what's worse, even if I colapse them, next turn there they are again, in all their uncolappsed glory - and it is a bit strange to see the face of CH Doyle, stationed in Canada, while someone called Lee is collapsed...



Good job with the faces, though !

[lodilefty]

Not likely to do anything about the British Armies.

Just hurry up and create 2 more of your own...

[wijse]

Awesome work. Thank you! Any chance we can get the top right corner clock into AACW from the later AGE games?


I also believe the confederate general whiting should have a defensive or siege bonus since he was an outstanding engineer in the USA army before the civil war. Just look at his record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._C._Whiting

I found a better picture of B. McCulloch in uniform, just needs some cropping and coloring.

[Franciscus]

Not likely to do anything about the British Armies.

Just hurry up and create 2 more of your own...

OK...
But I have a question: what is the rationale for the relative, top-to-bottom placement of the armies ? Time of creation ? It's not aphabetically, it's not (I think) in order of strength....

[lodilefty]

OK...
But I have a question: what is the rationale for the relative, top-to-bottom placement of the armies ? Time of creation ? It's not aphabetically, it's not (I think) in order of strength....

Faction then Seniority ?? {I shouldn't guess, should I? }

[Stauffenberg]

I found a better picture of B. McCulloch in uniform, just needs some cropping and coloring.

Great pic!

[Franciscus]

Faction then Seniority ?? {I shouldn't guess, should I? }

Well, I was checking and I still do not understand. It's not Faction, because I have the British intermingled with the CSA generals, and it is not seniority because from top to bottom (see previous pic) I have:
- Beauregard (seniority 1)
- Joe Johnston (1)
- Doyle (2)
- Wyhdham (1) and finally
- Lee (2)

...

I am beginning to think that, as it is, this feature should better be kept away from 1.16 final. Veteran players do not need it, and new players are sure to be confused having British generals in their army side bar (when GB has not entered the war and might never do...)

Regards

[Longshanks]

I am beginning to think that, as it is, this feature should better be kept away from 1.16 final. Veteran players do not need it, and new players are sure to be confused having British generals in their army side bar (when GB has not entered the war and might never do...)

Regards

I have to agree. It's just extra chrome. Chrome is bad for the environment.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I have to agree. It's just extra chrome. Chrome is bad for the environment.

I like the feature... Just not with the Brit armies there. It's not a big deal either way though.

[charlesonmission]

Industrialization Changes?

Hi there, I didn’t see any rules on changes in industrialization for 1.16 v10.

However, I’ve done industrialization in a partially conquered state. The next turn, the industrialization was taken away. Before it would stay there indefinitely. Is this the new WAD?

Secondly, I’ve received no industrialization builds although I’ve only tried a few times. Has anyone gotten industrialization to build?

Thanks,

Charles

[lodilefty]

I have to agree. It's just extra chrome. Chrome is bad for the environment.

Easy to change:

In ACW\Settings\
GameRules.opt

// Army Finder
inoArmyOutlinerDefined = 1 // boolean: AO is allowed by design in this game
inoArmyOutlinerStatus = 1 // Initial state of the AO (0: hidden, 1: folded, 2: expanded)

Set first value = 0

[Franciscus]

Easy to change:

In ACW\Settings\
GameRules.opt



Set first value = 0

How about setting the default to 0 ?

[Normalguy]

How about setting the default to 0 ?

That works too, the army organiser is not visible at all.

If you set the default to 1 (Folded) there does not seem to be any effect and the armies are shown expanded just as if it is set to 2 (Expanded).

Just to add my twopennyworth on the feature - if there were a vote then I'd vote against having it. I dont find it useful and it can clutter the screen. Not that it matters cos I know how to turn it off now

[Captain_Orso]

Another option would be to be able to turn it on and off with a key combination like <Ctrl><F5>, which I believe isn't set to anything at the moment.

[Captain_Orso]

Although this is being discussed in other threads I'd like to bring the subject up here too so that it doesn't get overlooked.

[SIZE="4"]The Mysterious Bombardment Button™[/size]

First off, and not something new, but still and yet a big problem, the 'Bombard Passing Ships' button gets turned off unintentionally. I was going to say way too often, but even once is too many times. My observations show that if leader of a stack with the 'Bombard Passing Ships' button pressed changes from Active to Inactive or visa-verse the button becomes unpressed. Also many times if units join or leave said stack the button will become unpressed.

I don't think I need to expound the affects of this happening at the wrong time.


[SIZE="4"]The Magical Field Artillery Bombardment Force Field™[/size]
[INDENT]Thanks to Ataris for catching this one [/INDENT]

[INDENT]This refers only to a fleets bombarding through their Bombardment button being pressed vs a stack at or above the minimum entrenchment level with their Bombard Passing Ships button pressed. Bombarding ships through the DAR is not affected.[/INDENT]
If your stack with the 'Bombard Passing Ships' button pressed has one or more field artillery batteries outside of a division in the stack only the field artillery battery/ies outside of a division will be targeted by bombarding ships and will only take hit up to 50% of their hit points. After that no hits can be scored vs this stack.

If all field artillery in the stack is integrated into a division(s), the The Magical Field Artillery Bombardment Force Field™ does not work, and all units in the stack will be targeted. If the stack started out with a field artillery battery in a division and this battery has taken 50% or more hits, if you remove it from the division, but leave it in the stack, the The Magical Field Artillery Bombardment Force Field™ will be activated.

So, that's all I've been able to drag together. I'mb go-bing bag to bed now to resht by gold

[Jim-NC]

I believe that the changes for active/inactive is WAD. Your general must be active to bombard. So a lot of times I will put my shore guns in a stack without a leader (no inactivity then).

Don't know about the joining/leaving stacks part.

[rattler01]

Kinda of a noob question here. But how do I know the 1.16rc10a is installed correctly? When I load the game it still says 1.15 in the corner, however in the top left it shows a "ACW" mod path. Is that right? Is there some in-game way of me telling? I also dont see any new Army outliner, of couse I'm not a veteran of RoP. Also can someone post a pick of the outliner so I know what I should be looking for.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Kinda of a noob question here. But how do I know the 1.16rc10a is installed correctly? When I load the game it still says 1.15 in the corner, however in the top left it shows a "ACW" mod path. Is that right? Is there some in-game way of me telling? I also dont see any new Army outliner, of couse I'm not a veteran of RoP. Also can someone post a pick of the outliner so I know what I should be looking for.

You don't have it installed right. It should say 1.16rc10a in the bottom when it's starting. Make sure you don't have multiple installs and are starting the wrong one.

[Stauffenberg]

Also do the small fixes in this thread, posts 23 and 39.

[Captain_Orso]

I believe that the changes for active/inactive is WAD. Your general must be active to bombard.8<

[Eery voice from beyond the grave] [font="Century Gothic"]If the leader is inactive, turn off the button[/font]