Public Beta Patch 1.06 RC3 (upd May 13th)

[Pocus]

Dear players,

A new public beta test for the 1.06 patch, which will have less content that 1.05 but is mostly aimed at finalizing and polishing the major speed optimization of 1.05. Do not install it if you are not at ease with non finalized patches.

Link:

http://we.tl/Y6WC92LEuA

Readme:

LIST OF CHANGES


A fix in the hosting time speed up that had a bug. This bug hampered the AI significantly.
A failed regional decision is always removed from play.
You always get a 5% MC if you have a non-passive force in a region.
When winning a battle, you usually get a large % of the enemy MC.
Changed back how forbidden regions are displayed for RGD and units production.
Raids decisions now only remove 1 depot level as expected.

[Emx77]

You always get a 5% MC if you have a non-passive force in a region.

It doesn't work.



1861 Bull Run Scenario. Northeastern Virginia Army and Army of the Potomac are pinned in Fauquier, VA. Before clicking on "End Turn" button they have defensive posture, but CSA has 100% military control. During turn execution phase, both Union armies automatically change posture to offensive and battle unfolds. After that, at the beginning of player planning phase, they are again in defensive posture but CSA still has 100% military control. During new execution phase, same things happens again - switching to offensive, battle, defensive posture at the end, but no 5% MC gain.

Saves attached.

[Captain_Orso]

On it already

Management Summery, so far

The After-Battle 5% MC solution isn't working; still 0% MC after losing a battle, but remaining in the region.

In fact after winning a battle, with the defender remaining in the region, the attacker had 0% MC

In one battle the defender retreated out of the region and the attacker had about 75% MC afterwards.

---

A couple of completely different issues. Milroy's Corps is in an adjacent region with a Fort Battery unit and a Supply unit set to defend at all cost. Although the tool-tip says they would take 50 days(!!) to move into the battle region,



every time I ran the test battle, they MTSG'ed.



While trying to find a way to keep Milroy from MTSG'in --I forgot I could put him in PP-- , I tried putting his stack on Sentry, something I never use. IIRC in AACW a stack on Sentry got an icon somewhere. Now I noticed that in this case Milroy's envelope disappeared. When taken off Sentry again, his envelope reappeared. WAD?

---

First battle example, Hooker won.



MC in the region.





Second battle example, Hooker won.



MC in the region.





Third battle example, Hooker lost.



MC in the region.



---

Saves for the last 2 battles attached.

[Emx77]

While trying to find a way to keep Milroy from MTSG'in --I forgot I could put him in PP-- , I tried putting his stack on Sentry, something I never use. IIRC in AACW a stack on Sentry got an icon somewhere. Now I noticed that in this case Milroy's envelope disappeared. When taken off Sentry again, his envelope reappeared. WAD?

I think it is WAD. Sentry status does nothing else but to hide unit or force from appearing when you use the keystroke (E/R) to cycle through unmoved land Forces.

[ifailmore]

Does having no land captured ( like the pics above) make the AI lose men and supply as well as cohesion since they dont have any lands but is in a enemy province?

(just roleplaying maybe those army just mmarching around hence no land captured)

[Captain_Orso]

I think it is WAD. Sentry status does nothing else but to hide unit or force from appearing when you use the keystroke (E/R) to cycle through unmoved land Forces.

So, I got off my lazy butt, fired up AACW and checked. In AACW it does exactly the same thing; the envelope is turned off, only its position is different than in CW2.

So, to answer my own question, WAD

Does having no land captured ( like the pics above) make the AI lose men and supply as well as cohesion since they dont have any lands but is in a enemy province?

(just roleplaying maybe those army just mmarching around hence no land captured)

First off the game engine doesn't work any different for the AI that for a human player. Game settings can give the AI some 'tweaks' to her parameters, such as a higher detection value and giving leaders higher ratings that a human player would have for the same leaders.

Cohesion loss during movement is calculated mostly by the terrain and weather, which also influence the time in days it takes to enter an region. The MC a unit has in the region will influence somewhat its speed in moving into a region, which causes it to take more days to enter a region, and through that in the over-all, will cause the move to cause move cohesion loss, but only indirectly through the lack of MC.

Taking hits while moving is determined by the games Attrition setting plus the the moving unit's current cohesion level and the same variables which cause cohesion loss. So marching a unit with full cohesion through clear terrain in good weather will cause little to no attrition-hits, while marching a unit which is starting with low cohesion through a swamp during bad weather may cause some severe attrition hits to a unit.

Some attrition hits my be traded for GS (General Supply) points, which works best if the unit is stacked and moving with a supply unit. But supply is not lost directly through movement, nor 'men', nor horses, nor equipment, other than through the mechanisms I've already noted.

[Captain_Orso]

Testing the PartisansRaid RGD. Things that I recognized --I say recognized, because some things are not so easy to discover:

Management Summery

PartisansRaid RGD are removed from the pool if the RGD itself fails through the "BaseSuccess = 50" statement in the RGD.

If the ""BaseSuccess = 50" statement is successful, but the event fails, the RGD is returned to the pool .

Reducing the depot by 1 level is working.

--

If the RGD fails because of the "BaseSuccess = 50" statement in the RGD itself --not the event "Effect_ScriptName = RGDScriptPartisansRaid" which is executed if the RGD is successful--, the RGD is still removed from the RGD-pool . This was a bit difficult to asses, because I could find no reference to the RGD in any of the logs of the game. The only indication that the RGD itself had failed is that the total in the pool after playing the RGD remained at 11 and that the "..\My Games\CivilWarII v1.06 RC2-PB 1 Test\CW2\Scripts\ResSctReport\CSA_Partisans Raid.txt" file had not changed from the previous turn, noted by the time-stamp.

If the playing of the RGD was successful, noted by the "..\My Games\CivilWarII v1.06 RC2-PB 1 Test\CW2\Scripts\ResSctReport\CSA_Partisans Raid.txt" file's time-stamp having been updated --I had played the cards in the same region, so nothing in the target region had changed--, but the event-script failed through the "EvalSubUnitCount = DICE_NOT" statements in the event, the RGD WAS returned to the pool; so that part is still not working.

On another upside note, the single level reduction of depots is working

---

IIRC, at least in AACW, if a partisan entered a region with an ungarrisoned city it could not capture, because loyalty was too low, it would destroy any supplies, and depot, it found and take on as many supplies as it could carry. I moved into an ungarrisoned region with a level 1 city and level 1 depot and wound up destroying both, but not getting any supplies at all. WAD to not getting any supplies?

[bommerrang]

So my two PBEM games are on hold until Pocus puts out a fix to the fix? I mean, attacker still gets stuck in a territory and has no way to retreat?

[dinsdale]

Is anyone else noticing the CSA AI going nuts in 1.06? I'm playing with the AI setting in the middle and I can't keep up with their troops in 1861. They have raided with multiple brigade sized forces as far as Pittsburg and their main armies are currently sieging in Delaware and Philadelphia while leaving the whole of Virginia undefended.

Kentucky and Tennessee are also almost empty of Secessionists, I've been able to take control of the major northern TN forts, and move down into Bowling Green in the east. They are sending everything they have into Delaware

It could be that I'm having an extraordinarily bad game in the East and allowed them to break out, but they seem incredibly aggressive on offense there.

[plasticpanzers]

question,
I have downloaded and unzipped the 1.06 into the CW2 folder but the startup still says 1.05. Is this correct? The unzipping seems
a bit fast for a 32MB file even when i do it with a prompt for overwrite it only requires the one "yes".

[Franciscus]

Patch is an executable, you should unzip it (anywhere you like) but must double click it and proceed with the install.

Regards

[ifailmore]

Is anyone else noticing the CSA AI going nuts in 1.06? I'm playing with the AI setting in the middle and I can't keep up with their troops in 1861. They have raided with multiple brigade sized forces as far as Pittsburg and their main armies are currently sieging in Delaware and Philadelphia while leaving the whole of Virginia undefended.

Kentucky and Tennessee are also almost empty of Secessionists, I've been able to take control of the major northern TN forts, and move down into Bowling Green in the east. They are sending everything they have into Delaware

It could be that I'm having an extraordinarily bad game in the East and allowed them to break out, but they seem incredibly aggressive on offense there.

what setting have you use i would love to have an ai like that im not seeing it on mine using this pacth

[Captain_Orso]

If Athena is deep raiding aggressively it's a sign that "AI detection bonus" is above "low" and possibly that "Aggressiveness" is above "normal".

With a detection bonus, she can see further through the FoW than you can. If she can see that Pittsburgh is only lightly garrisoned and is set to "high" aggressiveness, she will often do just what you have described.

Of course, you could also leave the settings as they are and defend much stronger in depth to counteract her far-sighted aggressiveness too .

[Scottus]

Meh. I just want this fixed. Right now (1.05-06) it's broke.

I will have to fire up Birth of Rome to get my gaming fix until then.

[dinsdale]

what setting have you use i would love to have an ai like that im not seeing it on mine using this pacth

AI at Lieutenant, simple supply off, historical attrition moved 1 place to the right, everything else as standard. It doesn't seem too radical.

I had hoped to defend in the east and attack in the west, so I built 2 v 1 in the west. The Confederates moved forward in early September and kicked my behind until January of 1862 where I restored some semblance of order, but they hold chunks of WV, Alexandria and still send the occasional 100pwr raid through PA. I don't have the strength to send an army to New Orleans, so the rest of 1862 is going to be a real struggle.

I was able to get much further than before in the west, and I still haven't come across any large sized Confed armies, but I have been far too McClennan in my advance and did not push as hard or as far as I should have.

*edit, AI level was lieutenant not captain

[willgamer]

Meh. I just want this fixed. Right now (1.05-06) it's broke.

I will have to fire up Birth of Rome to get my gaming fix until then.

My current game is a train wreck. Twice, as the Union, my corps have attacked against a slightly stronger Conf, lost more men, but were declared the winner, and left in the region with (now much) superior force and zero MC. Later forced attacks all but wiped them out.

[Pocus]

fix coming soon!

[Pocus]

Here is a new executable that you can use to replace the old one (keep the old one in case of). I have added more code tidbits to survey & assign minimal control, plus now when you kill an element, you get +1% MC. This needs testing though, so no new public beta comprehensive patch.

http://we.tl/pvN3s7w6c3

[Captain_Orso]

Using the QF CW2.exe.

- Hooker's Corps enters a region and does battle with Taylor's Force and loses, but stays in the region and maintains 5% MC .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP, nothing happens, no battle, he does not go to OP, but he also gains no MC although he is nearly as strong as Taylor's Force .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC and he is changed to OP and attacks and loses again, but he still maintains 5% MC .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC but give him orders to move back to the region from where he came --100%MC-- which shows 12 day to reach the region. During turn execution he turns to OP, his move is canceled, but no battle if fought, and at the end of the turn he is back where he started, in DP with 5% MC. No Union message says anything about engaging the enemy, but on the CS side it says that Taylor engaged the enemy in the region .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC and again give him orders to move back to the region from where he came. It says this time he will take 2 days to reach the region. Again, during the turn execution I see that he changes to OP, but no battle takes place. Again, no Union message about engaging the enemy and this time none on the CS side either.

[AndrewKurtz]

Started promising, but sounds like the same song and dance.

The change to have forces stay in the same region sure has created a challenge.

[bommerrang]

Thanks Captain for testing it so quickly.
Keep at it Pocus and thank you for all your hard work.
There are many players waiting for a fix because this is such a major issue. Maybe later this week.

[Pocus]

Hi,

First, thanks to Captain for the guinea pigs testing

A new link now:

http://we.tl/bBET7FDKWR

On to your points. Case 1 is ok. Case 2 is ok too. You can only gain land control if you are in offensive and are gaining ground versus the enemy (killing more than you lose, crude but good enough imho), having no enemy, having an enemy but in passive. If in defensive, you can't gain terrain versus the other side, as everybody stares at each other.

Case 3 and beyond are all deriving from a tiny error I left in the code. In previous build, you would revert to OP if you had a control equals or less than 5%. The error is in the equal. You should revert only to OP if under 5%. I believe that with this fix, all things should be good, crossing fingers!

Using the QF CW2.exe.

- Hooker's Corps enters a region and does battle with Taylor's Force and loses, but stays in the region and maintains 5% MC .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP, nothing happens, no battle, he does not go to OP, but he also gains no MC although he is nearly as strong as Taylor's Force .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC and he is changed to OP and attacks and loses again, but he still maintains 5% MC .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC but give him orders to move back to the region from where he came --100%MC-- which shows 12 day to reach the region. During turn execution he turns to OP, his move is canceled, but no battle if fought, and at the end of the turn he is back where he started, in DP with 5% MC. No Union message says anything about engaging the enemy, but on the CS side it says that Taylor engaged the enemy in the region .

- Next turn, I leave Hooker's Corps in DP with 5% MC and again give him orders to move back to the region from where he came. It says this time he will take 2 days to reach the region. Again, during the turn execution I see that he changes to OP, but no battle takes place. Again, no Union message about engaging the enemy and this time none on the CS side either.

[AndrewKurtz]

Fingers crossed!

I ran reran things 10 times times where the MC bug had caused continuous battles and in each case the Union had 5% and was able to retreat to Alexandria without flipping to OP. Yeah!!!

[Captain_Orso]

Hi,

First, thanks to Captain for the guinea pigs testing

À votre service, Monsieur écureuil

A new link now:

http://we.tl/bBET7FDKWR

On to your points. Case 1 is ok. Case 2 is ok too. You can only gain land control if you are in offensive and are gaining ground versus the enemy (killing more than you lose, crude but good enough imho), having no enemy, having an enemy but in passive. If in defensive, you can't gain terrain versus the other side, as everybody stares at each other.

Case 3 and beyond are all deriving from a tiny error I left in the code. In previous build, you would revert to OP if you had a control equals or less than 5%. The error is in the equal. You should revert only to OP if under 5%. I believe that with this fix, all things should be good, crossing fingers!

So many thoughts...

Killing more, or scoring more hits, is actually a poor way to determine victory or area control. By that standard, the South won at Shiloh by a good margin.

I believe this will lead to extreme seesawing and not allow for anything close to parity. One major roll MC will play is in getting supplies. With only 5% MC unless you 'win', a larger force will have a hard time keeping itself in supply.

I feel there should be more differentiated results possible, including actual retreat as we previously knew in some cases, especially under the consideration that one side can take more losses and still win a battle.

Possibly the simplest formula for MC would factor each side's size modified by their cohesion with a bonus for the winning side.

I'll check the new binary this evening.

Fingers crossed!

One other question, although if the above are fixed this might be very minor...

When attacking but using either probe or conservative, I'd be curious to get thoughts on whether the two forces should land in the same region? Just happened in a PBEM game I am playing. I sent a force in to Manassas but the idea was a probe. Now the forces are in the same region. My intention had been to do a few rounds to probe the defenses, but not end up on the region. It left me wondering whether attacks with these probe (and maybe conservative) ROEs set should always retreat back to the region from whence they came if they retreat from the battle.

Again, minor, but wanted to get the question out there.

I am at a lose as to what that would be good for. Each time you have to move back into the region, arrive with cohesion loss, fight a battle you know you are going to lose, take more losses than the enemy and then return to start to do it over again the next turn. Are you trying to get rid of your penal-colony troops?

[dinsdale]

I played 1.06 through the end of 1862, couple of issues:

- I could not form corps as the Union at any point. Divisions worked on schedule, but corps were never activated.
- Union Siege artillery is missing images. It showed up in the reinforcement tool, but was not selectable
- State militias - the ones that arrive for free in 1861, in NJ, CT were not movable. They did not have a red bar, but unit was reported as not being able to reach the destination whenever I tried to move one of them

[AndrewKurtz]

I am at a lose as to what that would be good for. Each time you have to move back into the region, arrive with cohesion loss, fight a battle you know you are going to lose, take more losses than the enemy and then return to start to do it over again the next turn. Are you trying to get rid of your penal-colony troops?

One thought would be to pin down a force to avoid moving or arriving elsewhere quickly?

But my bigger question...if it is useless, why is it even an option? What is the intention when it was designed? It is there for some purpose.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm not questioning the ROE, I'm questioning the moving into and out of the region. Go in and stay put, gain MC, reinforce and attack from a position of superior power, or prevent the enemy from pushing past your force.

And honestly, I never use Probe or Conservative Attack. I'll either attack you full power and head on, where your weak , or somewhere else

[Captain_Orso]

Hi,

First, thanks to Captain for the guinea pigs testing

A new link now:

http://we.tl/bBET7FDKWR

On to your points. Case 1 is ok. Case 2 is ok too. You can only gain land control if you are in offensive and are gaining ground versus the enemy (killing more than you lose, crude but good enough imho), having no enemy, having an enemy but in passive. If in defensive, you can't gain terrain versus the other side, as everybody stares at each other.

Case 3 and beyond are all deriving from a tiny error I left in the code. In previous build, you would revert to OP if you had a control equals or less than 5%. The error is in the equal. You should revert only to OP if under 5%. I believe that with this fix, all things should be good, crossing fingers!

The 5% Solution is working, not that I'm really happy with it. With only 5% MC even standing next to a depot you will get very little supply.

The results is, either you go in very strong and win, or you can back out, but you cannot stay put.

Good or bad? We will have to rethink out tactics and strategies and see what time tells.

[plasticpanzers]

I have had to remove Firefox because it appears to draw more virus attacks but when I attempted several times today to run
the newest minipatch from Pocus via IE and unzip it then click on the ACW flag to exe the file all I get are repeating requests
to confirm my game serial number. I have attempted to do this in several locations but get the same result. Had to delete
the file due to this bugginess. I may have to wait for an IE compatible real patch.

[khbynum]

What Pocus has provided is not a patch, but a replacement for the CW2.exe file. Uncompress the downloaded file on your desktop with WinZip, 7-Zip or whatever utility you prefer. You get a file called CW2.exe. Don't click on it. Go to your AGEod CW2 directory (in my case C:/Games/Civil War 2). In that folder you will find a file called CW2.exe. Remove that file and save it someplace else just to be safe. Move the new unzipped file you downloaded to replace it. Firefox has nothing to do with it.

From what you've posted it sounds like you're getting the right file downloaded and unzipped, so just use it to replace the one you already have in your game folder. If that screws up your game (it won't), just move the saved file back to replace the one you downloaded. If you've installed the game somewhere other than the default location and don't remember where, use Window's search function to find CW2.exe. If I am insulting your computer literacy, I apologize. I use Firefox and the above procedure works for me, as does the game.

As for Firefox allowing more virus attacks, I can't help you. I use Microsoft Essentials as my anti-virus software (free with Windows, or can be downloaded from their website) and have never had a problem with viruses. Firefox is so much better than Internet Explorer that I would never even consider going back. And no, I'm not a Mozilla employee.