Official Revolution Under Siege patch 1.02a

[jack54]

Hi all,

As far as the possible experience bug I started a new may1919 southern white Scenario and on turn 3 launched a suicide attack to see what happens

many cavalry gained 3 stars... going from 1 to 4... on par with my earlier post of max exp after 3 battles... all turns attached...

[ATTACH]14607[/ATTACH]

thanks for the hard work...and a fun game

[SEPRUS]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the save! Here is a new EXE that you can use instead of the previous one of the game, while you wait for a full patch.

It fixes the experience gain problem, plus introduce a new anti-abuse rule, on railways destructions. To destroy a railway now, you must roll a percentage dice under your combat strength, with +25 bonus if you have the pillager attribute in one of the unit of your stack, or a +50 if you have the Full Pillager attribute (this one is very rare).

Pocus intends to use this rule in others games it seems.

[OneArmedMexican]

Hi guys,

plus introduce a new anti-abuse rule, on railways destructions. To destroy a railway now, you must roll a percentage dice under your combat strength, with +25 bonus if you have the pillager attribute in one of the unit of your stack, or a +50 if you have the Full Pillager attribute (this one is very rare).

Pocus intends to use this rule in others games it seems.

Thank you!

I like the idea. It may not be historical after all it doesn't take a lot of men to tear up some railroad tracks. But it seems a good way to balance things in game.

[bloodybisounours]

And it's quiet easy to repair them with thousands hands...

It's more difficult to destroy all the infrastructures.

So I think it's a good rule.

To destroy a railway now, you must roll a percentage dice under your combat strength

So with a 150 strengh division, it's automatic ?

If there are several cavalery units in a corps, is the roll made for each unit ?

[andatiep]

Thank you!

I like the idea. It may not be historical after all it doesn't take a lot of men to tear up some railroad tracks. But it seems a good way to balance things in game.

Remember that each region represents hundreds of kilometers of railroads ! So i find it very realistic that this operation depend on the number of mens and their cohesion (which are both merged in the strength value of a force).

Very nice AGE improvement many of us were waiting for in AACW, félicitations !!!

[OneArmedMexican]

I think we all agree that it is an excellent idea in gameplay terms.

But seriously, historically it really didn't take a lot of men. Nobody tore up miles of track. Rather people would blow up/burn down key points like bridges. It was the age of dynamite after all. Even in the ACW small cavalry troups were able to do significant damage to the railroad network. They tore up a few tracks and made the rails unusable by bending them over fires.

[TheDoctorKing]

Remember , though, that those small damages were also easily repaired. The Union in the ACW was notorious for being able to get trains rolling over rail lines that had been damaged by Confederate raiders in a matter of days or even hours. There's a story that the Confederate opponents of Sherman in Georgia had spent a lot of time wrecking rail facilities during their retreat, and as they were leaving the valley they heard the train whistles of Sherman's supply trains moving in behind them. One leader remarked that they should have found time to destroy a tunnel, and another responded that that wouldn't help as Sherman was known to carry spare tunnels in his engineering train

Truly substantial destruction would take time.

[SEPRUS]

We admit that the rule has found its way mostly because this is still a game, and as such, the fact that at day 1 the rail destruction will be effective, as long as you have any unit with the order, is a problem gameplay wise. But it is possible to find logical explanations, no doubt!

[Krot]

I regard very positively the idea to restrict in some way rail destruction.

It would be great though to add engineers to the list of units that have better chances to do the job (they are good in repairing so they should be able to destroy).

I would also ask if it's possible game wise to introduce for armored trains the feature "destroy an run" – so that the train will be able to destroy rail network in the region it is located on the start of the turn and then go by rail to the adjacent region freely.
After reading a pair of books on Civil War armored trains I've got the impression that they were systematically employed to destroy rail infrastructure during retreat and even used special tools for such job (called "ploughs"). I am afraid it may cause problems for AI though.

[jack54]

Hi SEPRUS,

I swapped the rus exe files (102a original for FEB ) and noticed I had no enemy AI. Game turn goes staight to loading master file and then I watch my units move with no AI responce except for defensive battles.

when I swapped back to the 102a exe AI is back.

Sorry I deleted saves when I swapped back to the 102a exe but it shouldn't be hard to replicate.

Thanks!

[daemonofdecay]

Truly substantial destruction would take time.

Perhaps by having different levels of destruction? It could be as simple as light (what partisans and raiders might accomplish in a short period of time) versus heavy (what regulars or partisans with plenty of time on their hands could do). The former might just be a small speed decrease for all units while the latter could be what we all know and love; the kind of destruction that doesn't allow armored trains to enter but at a snails pace, etc. etc.

[TheDoctorKing]

Hi SEPRUS,

I swapped the rus exe files (102a original for FEB ) and noticed I had no enemy AI. Game turn goes staight to loading master file and then I watch my units move with no AI responce except for defensive battles.

when I swapped back to the 102a exe AI is back.

Sorry I deleted saves when I swapped back to the 102a exe but it shouldn't be hard to replicate.

Thanks!

I also had the impression with the new exe that the AI wasn't doing much of anything. I played four turns of a CG as the Siberian Whites and noticed that the Reds were just sitting around waiting to be attacked.

During the turn execution process, the "preparing AI files" message appears but disappears much more quickly than usual.

[lycortas]

Also, since i added that new .exe, my screen scrolls super fast, and your command percentage penalty indicator in the lower right screen blinks extremely fast and i feel like i am going to develop epilepsy.

Mike

[TheDoctorKing]

Maybe they've made the AI process more quickly? That has been a concern in some contexts.

[Yarpen]

Hmm, after the recent patch my map scrolling became also super fast - to the point of making it diffcult to play. I also started several scenarios with FoW turned off to check AI - it does nothing (I mean nothing, no movement at all).

[ERISS]

, after the recent patch my map scrolling became also super fast - to the point of making it diffcult to play.

Same, scrolling has become uneasy. I thought I had too much goodly tweaked my graphic driver.

[SEPRUS]

Hello,

Here is the fix on the AI that went dormant. Sorry about this, there was a mix in some conditions in the code.

Plus scrolling should return to the norm.

[jack54]

Hello,

Here is the fix on the AI that went dormant. Sorry about this, there was a mix in some conditions in the code.

Plus scrolling should return to the norm.

Thanks for the quick fix... and the hard work....

Just tried a few turns ; seems much better

[lycortas]

Hi,

I am using the latest .exe and am having a new problem. I am running the turn and it will resolve a battle and then while i am looking at the battle results the game will continue running the turn often resolving more battles. Sometimes the screen will black out for a minute or so if i still have a battle window open when another battle resolves.

So, the big problem is that the battles all get confused. Near the beginning of the GC Chapaev, and Blucher got into a fight with a couple Komuch brigades.
Chapaev died in my log and in my game, but this was one of the battles i did not see resolve due to the above error. So, i click on the red link in the log where Chapaev died to call up the battle results. Seems i had 2880 Red guards and they all died in the battle, they had no leaders.... but Chapaev died at the end of the battle. No units that should have been there were listed in the fight.
Again, this is Blucher's and Chapaev's divisions from the beginning of the game.

This is my modded version but if i put the 1.02a .exe file in i do not receive these errors, battles run fine.

thanks,
Michael

[OneArmedMexican]

Not really a bug. But two suggestions for improvements:


1) One thing that always seems strange is how little the White players knows about his allied faction in the Grand Campaign. One would think that Southern and Siberian Whites would have knowledge of each others operations. Here is one little thing to improve this: Remove the Germans from the faction list in the Obejctives ledger and add the other White faction instead. The Germans are irrelevant to this campaign, the other White faction isn't.

[ATTACH]14656[/ATTACH]


2) Siberian White has Southern White armoured trains. These should be changed to the existing Siberian White light armoured train unit (uni_WH3_Amt1). Otherwise there are some ugly command penalties.
I have come across Southern White trains as Siberian twice:

- scenario setup for the GC (see pic)

[ATTACH]14655[/ATTACH]

- evt_nam_Renforts_CMN_TurkmenUprising

[INDENT]SelectFaction = $WH3
SelectRegion = $Achkhabad

SelectFaction = $WH3
SelectRegion = $Achkhabad
CreateGroup
Posture = $Defensive
SetKind = $Land
Entranch = 0
InCS = 1
FixType = 0
SetName = Achkhabad Uprising
Apply
SetHealth = 90
SetCohesion = 100
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_WH3_Krutin1
SetName = G. Krutin
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_WH3_Rgt5
SUFlavorName = Insurgents
SetName = Achkhabad Insurgents
Apply
SetHealth = 100
SetCohesion = 100
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_WHI_Amt1
SUFlavorName = 1st Achkhabad Train
SetName = 1st Achkhabad Armored Train
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_WHI_Amt1
SUFlavorName = 2nd Achkhabad Train
SetName = 2nd Achkhabad Armored Train
Apply[/INDENT]

Thanks for your work!

[andatiep]

This is my modded version but if i put the 1.02a .exe file in i do not receive these errors, battles run fine.

SEPRUS probably don't have time to help you about modded games.
Especially without logs of all your changes. If any, i can have a look, but i'm not skilled on the battle feature.

2) Siberian White has Southern White armoured trains. These should be changed to the existing Siberian White light armoured train unit (uni_WH3_Amt1). Otherwise there are some ugly command penalties.

i did wonder too where could this CP problem come from ! Maybe we reach the source !

[Seb]

Thanks again OneArmedMexican, these will be fixed

[TheDoctorKing]

There are actually quite a few Southern White units in the Siberian White buildable units mix:

The mountain infantry regiments
The supply wagons in both the Komuch and Siberian White factions
Gunboats in the Siberian White faction
The various "volunteer" or "rebel" units that appear in the early going around Yaroslavl, Viatka, Kotlas, etc.

You can get some sense of how many there are by opening the Siberian White replacement screen and looking at the number of units listed under the Southern White tab.

It seemed a little wierd to me but I figured it was WAD, to show the chaotic nature of the White organization.

[TheDoctorKing]

I put the Siberian White leader V. Molchanov, who has the "recruiting officer" tag, into Saratov, a level-5 city. I put him inside the structure, and he is the only officer in his stack (though there is a White army outside that has a higher-ranking general). Saratov doesn't seem to be giving me any more recruits. Is the "recruiting officer" working? Does he have to be the top-ranking officer in the region in order for it to work? (It doesn't seem to work like that in AACW; there so long as the officer is inside the structure he produces 5-7 extra conscripts each turn).

[OneArmedMexican]

There are actually quite a few Southern White units in the Siberian White buildable units mix:

The mountain infantry regiments
The supply wagons in both the Komuch and Siberian White factions
Gunboats in the Siberian White faction
The various "volunteer" or "rebel" units that appear in the early going around Yaroslavl, Viatka, Kotlas, etc.

You can get some sense of how many there are by opening the Siberian White replacement screen and looking at the number of units listed under the Southern White tab.

It seemed a little wierd to me but I figured it was WAD, to show the chaotic nature of the White organization.

You might be mistaken here. There seems to be a difference between the trains I mentioned in my post and let's say the Siberian Mountian Infantry Regiments.

The trains I pointed out are actually Southern White units. Whereas the Mountain infantry is a WH3 unit that consists of one single element that uses a WHI model. The unit is tagged as WH3, the element as WHI. In game this is shown by the different unit coulours yellowish vs greenish. It seems to me that the command penalties depend on the unit affiliation. It doesn't matter if that unit contains elements which are WHI.
In other words, it might be strange and is certainly visible in the replacement penal that the Siberian uses some WHI elements but in all cases except those trains it doesn't translate into command penalties. My guess is it was done to limit the number of model files the game uses.

[andatiep]

I put the Siberian White leader V. Molchanov, who has the "recruiting officer" tag, into Saratov, a level-5 city. I put him inside the structure, and he is the only officer in his stack (though there is a White army outside that has a higher-ranking general). Saratov doesn't seem to be giving me any more recruits. Is the "recruiting officer" working? Does he have to be the top-ranking officer in the region in order for it to work? (It doesn't seem to work like that in AACW; there so long as the officer is inside the structure he produces 5-7 extra conscripts each turn).

I checked the Abi & models files, but i found nothing wrong or strange. Maybe, did you resolve a turn to see if the extra conscript appear and disappear when you move the officer in and out of the town ?

[TheDoctorKing]

I checked the Abi & models files, but i found nothing wrong or strange. Maybe, did you resolve a turn to see if the extra conscript appear and disappear when you move the officer in and out of the town ?

No, actually, the Reds came along and kicked me out the next turn.

But I did move him in and out of the town and the display did not appear to change. Maybe it is only that the display doesn't update until after a turn has been processed?

I notice in AACW that as soon as you move a recruiting officer into a city the reported recruit production of the city increases, but perhaps this one doesn't work that way. Anyway, this remains to be seen.

[lycortas]

So i have continued to hunt down the error in my games turn processing.

I added the 1.02a .exe file in and the turn processed fine.

Using the newest .exe i had my game options set at 'moderate delay' or whatever it is called on battle resolutions. (I like the tension of watching the battles) Under the new .exe, with this setting a battle would start running, with the battle screen running and the game would continue turn processing sometimes starting other battles while my first battle was still running.
As soon as i lowered the battle delay to instant or masked or whatever i stopped the errors.

Even though this should be obvious to anyone with a brain, I am starting to test with a unmodded setup and am already receiving errors when i use use battle delay. Screen will sometimes turn black during turn resolution etc.

This is not me it is this .exe.

Mike

[Hohenlohe]

So i have continued to hunt down the error in my games turn processing.

I added the 1.02a .exe file in and the turn processed fine.

Using the newest .exe i had my game options set at 'moderate delay' or whatever it is called on battle resolutions. (I like the tension of watching the battles) Under the new .exe, with this setting a battle would start running, with the battle screen running and the game would continue turn processing sometimes starting other battles while my first battle was still running.
As soon as i lowered the battle delay to instant or masked or whatever i stopped the errors.

Even though this should be obvious to anyone with a brain, I am starting to test with a unmodded setup and am already receiving errors when i use use battle delay. Screen will sometimes turn black during turn resolution etc.

This is not me it is this .exe.

Mike

Dear Mike, if you patch an existing savegame then you would have to expect getting some problems as I think. But if you start a new game all should be fine as I experienced...

greetings

Hohenlohe aka Michael

[lycortas]

I had the opposite; i started a game with the newest .exe and had problems.
Then, i swapped in the 1.02a .exe file and had no problems.

Michael