AGEOD Forums

David Farragut was upset in my game about someone being promoted over him. Halleck to command of an army!!!

Now that doesn't make any sense

Seems to be the same old bug, considering Farragut a land leader (which he is in some way, the engine does not distinguish perfectly enough admirals and generals at the model level - tools are here but we did not have time...we'll check that asap)

PhilThib wrote:Seems to be the same old bug, considering Farragut a land leader (which he is in some way, the engine does not distinguish perfectly enough admirals and generals at the model level - tools are here but we did not have time...we'll check that asap)

So it may be fixed in the leader mod floating around?

Do you have the save around please?

Pocus wrote:Do you have the save around please?

Sending

Phil: Thanks! Tag

Pocus wrote:Do you have the save around please?

support@ageod.com?

I just got a delayed delivery notice. Is there another e-mail I should use?

We have quite a few problems at our ageod.com webmail server right now. hope this will be fixed soon.

PhilThib wrote:We have quite a few problems at our ageod.com webmail server right now. hope this will be fixed soon.

I feel your pain Is there another e-mail address I should use to get you the file or just let my server keep retrying?

yes, phmalacher@gmail.com please.

PhilThib wrote:We have quite a few problems at our ageod.com webmail server right now. hope this will be fixed soon.

There is no problem according to our beloved FC

AndrewKurtz wrote:David Farragut was upset in my game about someone being promoted over him. Halleck to command of an army!!!

Now that doesn't make any sense

AndrewKurtz,
Considering the egos of many of the generals in the Civil War it is not unreasonable to model one general getting peeved when another general gets promoted over him. You should read the history a bit closer and you'll see where prima donna generals with far too high an opinion of themselves turned crybaby when some other contender got the promotion he was hoping for. Just think about how much difficulty Lincoln had picking generals to lead the large Eastern Army facing Lee in Virginia. Plenty of bruised egos to mollycoddle for poor old Lincoln.

It would also be good to model that promoting generals can decrease their leadership factors. A good division commander did not always translate into a good corps or army commander. It's the old Peter Principle of promoting someone above their level of competency as well as a new learning curve for a newly promoted general to get used to the new level of command he had to deal with.
Omnius

Omnius wrote:AndrewKurtz,
Considering the egos of many of the generals in the Civil War it is not unreasonable to model one general getting peeved when another general gets promoted over him. You should read the history a bit closer and you'll see where prima donna generals with far too high an opinion of themselves turned crybaby when some other contender got the promotion he was hoping for. Just think about how much difficulty Lincoln had picking generals to lead the large Eastern Army facing Lee in Virginia. Plenty of bruised egos to mollycoddle for poor old Lincoln.

That is all quite true and already quite well implemented in the game and I'm sure Andrew has "read the history a bit closer" to know that himself, but it was not at all his point.

His point is ,that Farragut is an admiral (Navy) and therefore shouldn't bother about promotion of Army leaders. That's somewhat like Joe from the the grocery store being disgruntled because Jack from the gas station next door was promoted "over his head"...

Regards, Henry

Omnius wrote:It would also be good to model that promoting generals can decrease their leadership factors. A good division commander did not always translate into a good corps or army commander. It's the old Peter Principle of promoting someone above their level of competency as well as a new learning curve for a newly promoted general to get used to the new level of command he had to deal with.

This is already done. Buy the game if you still haven't.

Henry D. wrote:That is all quite true and already quite well implemented in the game and I'm sure Andrew has "read the history a bit closer" to know that himself, but it was not at all his point.

Yes, Andrew has read the history just a bit

Henry D. wrote:That's somewhat like Joe from the the grocery store being disgruntled because Jack from the gas station next door was promoted "over his head"...

That damn Jack!!!

This is fixed thanks to Andrew save.

Pocus wrote:This is fixed thanks to Andrew save.

And so, when can we expect a new little patch...?

Henry D. wrote:
His point is ,that Farragut is an admiral (Navy) and therefore shouldn't bother about promotion of Army leaders. That's somewhat like Joe from the the grocery store being disgruntled because Jack from the gas station next door was promoted "over his head"...

Regards, Henry

Henry,
Yeah BoA had the same problem of not getting admirals set properly so they don't appear as generals. I sure hope both games get their generals and admirals straight so we don't have foolish things like "Degrasse's Fleet" showing as an groundpounder Army name.
Omnius

Well, a patch is underway but as this is not a small one, it will takes one more week to show up. If Napoleon don't pester me too much also (nor Peter the Great*)

* inside joke for PhilThib, and no it has nothing to do with an AGEOD new game.

Another patch?............SWEET....

Nial

WoooooooooooHooooooooooooo

Unbelievable, another patch....

These guys are Freakin' Awesome !!!!



Chamberlain

Henry D. wrote:That is all quite true and already quite well implemented in the game and I'm sure Andrew has "read the history a bit closer" to know that himself, but it was not at all his point.

His point is ,that Farragut is an admiral (Navy) and therefore shouldn't bother about promotion of Army leaders. That's somewhat like Joe from the the grocery store being disgruntled because Jack from the gas station next door was promoted "over his head"...

Regards, Henry

Hello,
I got the some bug on my newly started '62 campaign game using 1.07f!! Farragut was promoted to 4-star admiral on turn2. Fremont was organized into a new army on turn3 (the tooltip said that he was the most senior, etc. therefore no expected penalties), and on turn4, I get the message that I 'angered Farragut' costing me -2NM!

Also, noticed the rail links are much worse than 1.04, so am wondering if
1.07h is the right patch to fix this. In 1.07f, there are missing links in Iowa!

regards,
John

deleted

Hello Gary,
I have read the forums and am aware of the good-work your doing with the railway link fixes in the mods forum. I am just surprised that 1.07f is more full of errors(rail-links) than 1.04. I will apply the 1.07h fix this evening and run some tests. The Farragut bug in the '62 campaign was also a surpise since it was identified before 1.07f came out.

Thanks,
John

Gray,
Was on 1.04, until a week ago and went to 1.07f then to h next day.
What I have found is that the regions are not railroad designated (track, or wild only) in Iowa. This is for the '62 Scenario.
Also the region's west of Nashville.
Can someone load that and see what you see.
My Apr61 campaign (both PBEM) is showing those as rail capable.
So, is only the .scen file the problem?


John

Some detail on my last post.

In the '62 campaign using 1.07h and Humphreys TN, is shown as a region with only a track. And in Iowa, all the regions west of Des Moines, and west of Ardana Il. thru and including Dubuque.
I did a test by loading a new '62 campaign and promoting Farragut who became a 3-star Admiral in turn2. I then formed an army with Fremont at Grafton and did not get the 'Farragut upset.." -2NM message. So perhaps 1.07f was the problem with my first Farragut problem, but the missing rail is apparently for '62 scenario.
Anybody can confirm this?

John

deleted