AGEOD Forums

Dear players,

The 1.07h patch has been officially approved.

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/AACW_Patch.zip

Another alternate version exists, which does not includes map retouching by modders:

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/patch_AACW_v1.07hSE.zip

Here is the read me:

This patch contains all changes since the start.
You can continue a saved game created before the patch. Most entry will apply, but not all.
----------

1.07h
changed: Element detail shows the exact element category (6lb Pounder for light artillery). Same for the tooltip in the detail panel.
added: Elements newly produced now get an historical name.
changed: West Boxes transit cost adjusted. Some rail linking between regions changed. Cosmetic changes to some regions. Courtesy of Gray_Lensman

1.07g
fixed: The redeploy order had a bug. Services units like engineers, medics and signals can now redeploy.
fixed: a combat bug introduced in 1.07f
improved: backups are now 'rotating', ie Backup1 is now always the previous turn, Backup2, 2 turns before, etc. Handier to send saves, etc.
added: If you a % chance equal to Morale-100% to lose 1 pt of morale each turn (Morale naturally goes down toward 100. The reverse is handled by the National Resilience rule as before).
changed: Synchronize order is off by default.
fixed: Large Harbors were unaffected by the Blockade % for supply only.

So which one contains new RR's and stuff? First or second one? which one is modded?

The first one. The second one is for those who don't want the work of modders incorporated into the game pretty much.

Guru80 wrote:The first one. The second one is for those who don't want the work of modders incorporated into the game pretty much.

Thanks

2 units teleported from Columbus KY to Clarksville TN when turn executed.

April 61 Union campaign. Split off 2 units from Sumner's division, inf and horse arty, to garrison Columbus, having just taken that city. Moved Sumner back to Cairo and had another division shift forward past Columbus to take Humbolt. The moves worked fine but the units performing garrison duty disappeared. I redid the turn. Same thing. First time the 2 units were outside the city, second time inside. Finding the deserters was luck not skill.

I had split off a skirmisher and horse arty in Clarksville the same turn so that a division that had just taken Clarkesville could shift up to Rome that had just been overrun by a 2 cav csa stack. I checked Clarkesville to ensure I still had the proper garrison left behind there and found it had company. So, 1 inf, 1 arty split off from divisions same turn, different cities. Units got amalgamated in the TN city.

At work now so can't email the save game(latest turn as I assume you can easily switch back to the previous turn and reexecute the turn).

I would need the current turn and the turn before please.

I'll send them now using the contact us link

Bit slow figuring out how to send an attachment. Done.

Ok, I got it in NCP too (Jerome doing the pole Dancer around Leipzing ), so I managed to find the problem. Thanks for reporting it!

Pocus wrote:Ok, I got it in NCP too (Jerome doing the pole Dancer around Leipzing ), so I managed to find the problem. Thanks for reporting it!

Pocus i think i got similar, maybe same problem with 1.07h. I relocated Lee to St. Louis but the Enemy Captured the CSA town just N of Rolla (i think Springfield). The arty being built there spawned (and is still being recruited) in the region of St. Louis now (not in town but in the town's region).

If you see some dance after you click on end turn and before you see 'day 1...' then this is fixed. If you see some weird dance after day 1, then this is another problem.

Thank you Pocus for 1.07h, particularly the feature that added historical regimental descriptions. As far as I can tell it seems to work for the South but Northern units seem to start with Colorado and other western states.

Again, thanks for this feature.

Joe

Pocus wrote:If you see some dance after you click on end turn and before you see 'day 1...' then this is fixed. If you see some weird dance after day 1, then this is another problem.

Not available publicly yet, only available in future patches, right?

I don't know if it's a bug or a side effect....

The situation :

McDowell Northern Army is attacking Beauregard's army at Manassas. In the same turn, a new infantry unit is created at Manassas... I checked the log and the US army targeted only this new unit, just created and as soon destroyed without any intervention of the Beauregard's force which is in the same region...





It's the first time I point out such a illogical result. Whey an unit in formation is the first to be fighted and why the complete army doesn't intervene?

Clovis, since we don't see the actual battlefield or region which can be just vast there are a couple with possible reasons why the just formed unit is destroyed upon completion. For instance, they are volunteers that were raised in an area toward the Union location and when they attacked they were in between them and the main force. Since they were just completed that turn their cohesion was only about 50% to begin with and gave way more easily. Since they were not yet part of the main force and most likely not commanded maybe they were off by themselves somewhere toward the enemy location (maybe unknowingly). Knowing the general disorganization during the civil war of the armies I can come up with a dozen reasons why they may have been in harms way.

I don't see anything particularly bad about that.

But it is quite odd that apparently only this newly formed brigade (I assume all destroyed elements belong to one brigade) took all the hits and was wiped out. Also, given the number of elements supposedly involved in combat on the CSA side (commanded by Beauregard with a defensive rating twice as high as McDowells attack rating) Union casualties are disproportionately small. When a region is attacked, all units in it are supposed to participate in its defense, aren't they?

Was Beauregard in passive posture and/or managed an early retreat, leaving the fixed newly built brigade behind?

Puzzled, Henry

Henry D. wrote:
Was Beauregard in passive posture and/or managed an early retreat, leaving the fixed newly built brigade behind?

I can't answer your main question, but one thing interesting about the AGEOD combat engine is that it *does* seem to be making a kind of narrative of events under the hood. We get hints of these in the icons below the battle report, and we know that the combat is conducted in rounds with different elements doing distinct things.

Wouldn't it be great to have the option to read this narrative in brief textual form after each battle? You know, with reports on which units were committed when, and whom they engaged, what losses they took, and etc. etc.? I know it would sound a bit repetitive at times, but it would help to bring this already complex combat engine to life for the player.

Henry D. wrote:But it is quite odd that apparently only this newly formed brigade (I assume all destroyed elements belong to one brigade) took all the hits and was wiped out. Also, given the number of elements supposedly involved in combat on the CSA side (commanded by Beauregard with a defensive rating twice as high as McDowells attack rating) Union casualties are disproportionately small. When a region is attacked, all units in it are supposed to participate in its defense, aren't they?

Was Beauregard in passive posture and/or managed an early retreat, leaving the fixed newly built brigade behind?

Puzzled, Henry

The brigade was yet in formation. Beauregard was in defensive posture and didn't left the region.

Henry: No, not all forces commit against an enemy.

When a battle start, forces in offensive posture seek an enemy, with a preference to the big ones but not always.
Also, to be commited into battle, you have either to be targetted, or succeed in a comittment roll (which is akin to the rule used in the 'delayed engagment option', but much higher, as a battle is already engaged.

So one conclusion would be this one:

a) McDowell target the lone unit.
b) Beauregard fail the commit roll
c) Lone unit destroyed. As the CSA side has no more units fighting, battle end and it is a CSA defeat.
d) McDowell try to engage a new battle, but fail (delayed commitment rule)

Wow, I still learn something new about this game every day.

Thanks for clarification, Pocus.

Regards, Henry

Pocus,

I understand that not all forces commit against an enemy. However, I see two issues that make this particular battle hard to follow.

First, I think we can agree that a commander cannot target a force he cannot detect. Could Irwin have instantly detected a new unit being raised behind a front of 83 defensive positions? Historically, that would seem to be impossible. (You may have read The Secret War for the Union, which is a terrific study of the intelligence resources of the Army of the Potomac).

Secondly, could he reach this newly raised force to engage it? On a two-dimensional map, this too seems impossible. I don't believe there is any historical example of a new unit being formed in front of established defensive positions. New units are necessarily formed at depots and organized behind the lines.

It appears that the engine abstracts the battlefield a little too much to recognize that this new force could neither be detected, nor engaged.

I urge you to consider treating units that an enemy commander would not have access to as un-targetable.

With Deepest Respect,

-D

DaemoneIsos wrote:Pocus,

I understand that not all forces commit against an enemy. However, I see two issues that make this particular battle hard to follow.

First, I think we can agree that a commander cannot target a force he cannot detect. Could Irwin have instantly detected a new unit being raised behind a front of 83 defensive positions? Historically, that would seem to be impossible. (You may have read The Secret War for the Union, which is a terrific study of the intelligence resources of the Army of the Potomac).

Secondly, could he reach this newly raised force to engage it? On a two-dimensional map, this too seems impossible. I don't believe there is any historical example of a new unit being formed in front of established defensive positions. New units are necessarily formed at depots and organized behind the lines.

It appears that the engine abstracts the battlefield a little too much to recognize that this new force could neither be detected, nor engaged.

I urge you to consider treating units that an enemy commander would not have access to as un-targetable.

With Deepest Respect,

-D

But this description assumes that the new unit was being raised "behind" the main force in the region. A region is pretty large in AACW, so perhaps the new unit had the unfortunate luck of standing along the enemy's line of march.

At least, that's the story I construct from what happened.

Paul Roberts wrote:But this description assumes that the new unit was being raised "behind" the main force in the region. A region is pretty large in AACW, so perhaps the new unit had the unfortunate luck of standing along the enemy's line of march.

At least, that's the story I construct from what happened.

I have to agree with Paul, here, unless it happens more frequently.

Paul Roberts wrote:

Wouldn't it be great to have the option to read this narrative in brief textual form after each battle? You know, with reports on which units were committed when, and whom they engaged, what losses they took, and etc. etc.? I know it would sound a bit repetitive at times, but it would help to bring this already complex combat engine to life for the player.

Pocus wrote:

Pocus wrote:
...
a) McDowell target the lone unit.
b) Beauregard fail the commit roll
c) Lone unit destroyed. As the CSA side has no more units fighting, battle end and it is a CSA defeat.
d) McDowell try to engage a new battle, but fail (delayed commitment rule)

WINNER! Pocus, you nailed exactly what kind of expanded results log many people are looking for. The current combat log is just too bare.

Please log more combat info.

Detail log and replay module are the two major modules which will be developped in spring, if our schedule is met.

As for the lone unit being attacked, if in passive (as all units being raised), she should have been screened by the defending corps. So unless there is a bug, it would means that the player put it himself in defending posture.

Pocus wrote:Detail log and replay module are the two major modules which will be developped in spring, if our schedule is met.

Fabulous! Much !!!

As for the lone unit being attacked, if in passive (as all units being raised), she should have been screened by the defending corps. So unless there is a bug, it would means that the player put it himself in defending posture.

"Passive" mode probably deserves its own thread, but I suspect its greatly underused/undervalued by most players.

Clovis wrote: ...a new infantry unit is created at Manassas... just created and as soon destroyed without any intervention of the Beauregard force...

Gentlemen,

The note above indicates that the unit was brand new; thus it should only have been in passive status. This seems to justify a second look.

As for a narration that explains the battle results, I continue to struggle with the suggestion that a substantial new unit would be formed anywhere other than a depot; I don't believe that happened historically.

Were the town abandoned, I could understand the wholesale destruction of a new unit in organization at that depot. But I simply don't see any large force passing back and forth through Beauregard's positions. Failure to engage cannot honestly be interpreted to mean "strolled through the defensive positions."

Best Regards,

-D

I'm noticing quite a change in the combat resolution with 1.07h. The biggest difference seems to be that I am seeing fewer retreats, and more turns with more than one battle in a region, and much more 'stickiness' where units remain in a region after a battle.

DaemoneIsos wrote:Gentlemen,

The note above indicates that the unit was brand new; thus it should only have been in passive status. This seems to justify a second look.

I just did a quick survey of 2 turns in my current campaign (1.07h). All the new units I'd checked were defaulted to defensive, not passive.

Houston, errr... Pocus, I thing we have a problem!

willgamer wrote:Fabulous! Much !!!




"Passive" mode probably deserves its own thread, but I suspect its greatly underused/undervalued by most players.

Impossible as this unit was yet being in creation ....