Another thing that's weird... I'm playing the AI in the April 1861 campaign, but when I select the option "Full Blockade" in the Politics screen, it has no effect on the Foreign Intervention calculation even though the message appears with a value it was supposed to have. It says "-11 to Foreign Intervention" or something like that, but the actual number in the "Objectives" screen doesn't change. It wasn't always like this, but for the past few weeks it has.
BTW, what's VgN?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Only in the April 1861 scenario does Heintzelman show up independently. It is there that he shows up in Fairfax, VA, with a tab named "Stuart".
By the way, I think I tried alt-click when ctrl-click didn't work. No dice. Actually, renaming stacks is pretty low on my list of actions, but it is strange that the game will demand that I rename a stack every time I click on its tab and then be unable to do it otherwise.
And you didn't answer my question about the bug with Foreign Intervention. I think it worked fine before the v1.12 patch. However, if the effect adds to the FI level, that works fine.
By the way, I think I tried alt-click when ctrl-click didn't work. No dice. Actually, renaming stacks is pretty low on my list of actions, but it is strange that the game will demand that I rename a stack every time I click on its tab and then be unable to do it otherwise.
And you didn't answer my question about the bug with Foreign Intervention. I think it worked fine before the v1.12 patch. However, if the effect adds to the FI level, that works fine.
-
Eugene Carr
- Colonel
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:58 pm
- Location: Dundee, Scotland
Its still "Stuart Heintzelman" in the USA Leaders DB on row 275.
Strangely it doesnt seem to be consistant about showing this, in my last game the initial tab was "Stuart Heintzelman" but I started a new game with different settings and this time it was "S. Heintzelman".
On edit mode you see that the game renames units to be consistant, maybe it isnt consistant how it does this
Strangely it doesnt seem to be consistant about showing this, in my last game the initial tab was "Stuart Heintzelman" but I started a new game with different settings and this time it was "S. Heintzelman".
On edit mode you see that the game renames units to be consistant, maybe it isnt consistant how it does this
Tiny Changes!
Not worth the time it would take to implement them. 
apy:
apy:In the Gettysburg 1863 scenario, Carl Schurz starts out as a 2-star general, while in the April 1861 campaign he is a non-promotable 1-star general even though in real life he did get to major general (wikipedia). Also in that scenario, John Reynolds starts out as a 2-star general even though he was offered the army, something that would require (in the game) being a 3-star general.
I thought of something... why are 4-star generals like Winfield Scott and the promoted US Grant and WT Sherman still counted as "rank 3"? Consider the following (admittedly, silly and untested) example:
Grant is promoted to 3 stars, where he has seniority 8. He is given a corps command under Nathaniel Banks (for example), and both are involved in a major battle that boosts Banks to Seniority 1 and Grant to a level where he can be promoted (in this example, the player is trying to avoid the "angry general" costs) Grant is promoted and becomes 4 stars. However, if Grant is assigned to the Army HQ, because he is still technically rank 3, Banks would become angry if the player tried to assign Grant the army.
Another nit-picky thing... In WiA and NCP, each general has a specific rank: "Colonel Seth Green" "Marshal Michel Ney" and so forth. In AACW, everyone is just generically "General" on his info screen.
I thought of something... why are 4-star generals like Winfield Scott and the promoted US Grant and WT Sherman still counted as "rank 3"? Consider the following (admittedly, silly and untested) example:
Grant is promoted to 3 stars, where he has seniority 8. He is given a corps command under Nathaniel Banks (for example), and both are involved in a major battle that boosts Banks to Seniority 1 and Grant to a level where he can be promoted (in this example, the player is trying to avoid the "angry general" costs) Grant is promoted and becomes 4 stars. However, if Grant is assigned to the Army HQ, because he is still technically rank 3, Banks would become angry if the player tried to assign Grant the army.
Another nit-picky thing... In WiA and NCP, each general has a specific rank: "Colonel Seth Green" "Marshal Michel Ney" and so forth. In AACW, everyone is just generically "General" on his info screen.
By the way, for name and biography purposes, Wikipedia has a list of every ACW general, although some do not have bios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Mangudai wrote:Toledo IL is a mistake. The town at that railroad junction is "Tolono" IL. Urbana IL is and was a much larger town about 10 miles north of Tolono. Urbana had a train station and water and coal depots for locomotives. During college I walked or rode my bike through the abandoned wasteland where those facilties used to be almost every day. Remnants of an old wooden water tower still stand by the tracks. Today that land is in Champaign IL, but at the time of the Civil War "Champaign" was known as "West Urbana". Urbana-Champaign has lots of old brick buildings that predate the civil war, including more than a few industrial/warehouse buildings near the tracks.
The east-west railway bypassed Urbana because the area west of Urbana was too marshy before drainage techniques were implemented. The area around Tolono is higher and drier so that is where the railroad went, however Tolono is an insignificant little village.
"Urbana" is the best name for that settlement in the game. "Tolono" is all right. "Toledo" is simply wrong.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3101&page=4
I discovered there is a Toledo, IL in Cumberland county, not far from Terre Haute. However, there are no railroad tracks in Toledo.
Tolono really is a flyspeck of a village. Urbana is(was) the commercial and industrial center of the region.
http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=4720
Possible original Depot. The population of Tolono was only 277 when Lincoln's Train stopped in 1861. Tolono, Illinois started and grew as a railroad town into the city it is today.
A couple more things...
In the 1863 campaign, R. Milroy is a 1-star general. In the April 1861 game he is a 2-star general, and there is no way to demote generals.
Earlier in this thread someone basically said it was silly to suppose a corps could go far away from its army by ship and still function properly as a corps. However, in the 1863 and 1864 campaigns, the Union has 2 corps on the Atlantic coast: one in southeastern Georgia and one in Florida. Both belong (even more curiously) to the Army of the South West in Arkansas (1864) or southwestern Missouri (1863).
In battle calculations, do soldiers taken prisoner also count as battle losses on the Objectives screen? Also, I have seen instances were more companies were taken prisoner than fought in the battlefield. Unfortunately, I didn't think to take screenshots.
I know that artillery takes longer than the other unit types to train because the game has to reflect assembling the giant cannons and the well-educated soldiers, but didn't each side have armories where the giant cannons were stored and army colleges with hundreds of well-educated soldiers (nearly) ready for action? Boy, that's awkwardly worded, but I don't know how to phrase it better.
In the 1863 campaign, R. Milroy is a 1-star general. In the April 1861 game he is a 2-star general, and there is no way to demote generals.
Earlier in this thread someone basically said it was silly to suppose a corps could go far away from its army by ship and still function properly as a corps. However, in the 1863 and 1864 campaigns, the Union has 2 corps on the Atlantic coast: one in southeastern Georgia and one in Florida. Both belong (even more curiously) to the Army of the South West in Arkansas (1864) or southwestern Missouri (1863).
In battle calculations, do soldiers taken prisoner also count as battle losses on the Objectives screen? Also, I have seen instances were more companies were taken prisoner than fought in the battlefield. Unfortunately, I didn't think to take screenshots.
I know that artillery takes longer than the other unit types to train because the game has to reflect assembling the giant cannons and the well-educated soldiers, but didn't each side have armories where the giant cannons were stored and army colleges with hundreds of well-educated soldiers (nearly) ready for action? Boy, that's awkwardly worded, but I don't know how to phrase it better.
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests