As much as I have been working on my scenarios, playing PBEM games and my AI game (yes, this game has taken over my free time ;-) ) I have to turn the music off anymore. Just not enough variety to keep listening to it. I will turn it on occassionally but if I left it on I would get burned out on it quick.
-
Paul Roberts
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:26 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Gray_Lensman wrote:I am chomping at the bit myself to get at the new scenario (,scn) files in order to run thru them for the RR MODs prior to re-release. I could be wrong but I suspect the new scenario files have not made it into the v1.07g and v1.07h beta updates. The date stamp for the 1861 April & July Campaign .scn files currently is 9/24/2007, which just doesn't sound right for "newly" updated scenario files.
Is this a problem for players? (I don't understand modding.)
-
Brochgale
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
- Location: Scotland
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
Caltone wrote:What a game! I just started up an Apr 61 campaign as the South and proceeded to learn that all my old starting moves aren't working against the AI anymore. I'm getting pressed on all fronts. The AI is making sound moves and currently has me on my heels. I love it, thanks team!
I can confirm this - getting butt kicked as CSA from Missouri to Virginia in a new game I started - it is a blood bath - loving it! It is stretching me and makes me think more about moves and even recruitment
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
. I play with the music on, it would be nice if we could have a couple of three more tunes.-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Several points I wish to make here:
1. The very first post in this "beta" thread, made clear and provided a patch of the current game "without" modder work. Now this in itself is pretty remarkable that a small company like AGEod would go to the effort of producing two separate patches to a product in a niche market. This says a lot about the company itself and what they are trying to do for their customers.
2. The second patch was clearly marked as containing MODs for those of us who wanted some of this work incorporated into the game. In the case of fixing the linkages between regions, most of which were RR linkage errors, and correcting the RR Lines themselves by removing the ahistorical RR lines and in a few cases installing new ones, I myself do not consider these fixes as MODs, even though they are currently being worked as though they are until they get incorporated into the game. This provides me with the benefit of feedback on any bugs/flaws prior to submitting the work to AGEod. As I stated previously, there are 10,000 to 12,000 inter-regional links in this game, way more than I ever thought there were. Also, I have worked almost constantly (800+ hours and counting) to get these RR lines correct, without the enjoyment of actual playing through the game. Considering the amount of time involved with doing this, I can see where AGEod could not afford to do this since they are a small business not a hobby business. They had to move on to NCP, to generate more income.
3. In the post above, I was responding to Paul Roberts statement "(I don't understand modding.)" and tried to give him an answer describing what modding is and how it works.
4. My experience with Modding which has grown over the years, since I've been a "hobby" programmer ever since the days of the TRS-80 computer put out by Radio Shack in the late 70s, has enabled me to do the work in Point 2 above. I would venture to say that most programmer/developers for small companies like AGEod start off as hobby programmers also. The only reason I do not program for a living is my current employment pays very well, and I do not wish to give it up to go into programming full-time until after I retire in a few years and have retirement income, then I can pursue game programming or whatever, without need of actual return income.
5. AGEod obviously has to approve the MODs before incorporating them into their game, so what does it matter if they do end up incorporating MODs if they meet their expectations of what they want their game to do for their customers? We could all clamour for these types of changes including non-modders, and they "could" dedicate a programmer to incorporate these same changes and pay him for his "official" services, which being a small company, they cannot afford to do. Or, they can accept and approve such "free" work that improves their game and satisfies most customers.
6. I agreed to provide my services for this game for free, because I enjoy the subject of history, especially the Civil War, and this game along with Forge of Freedom has provided me many hours of enjoyment working with the subject.
Regards
Gray_Lensman
1. The very first post in this "beta" thread, made clear and provided a patch of the current game "without" modder work. Now this in itself is pretty remarkable that a small company like AGEod would go to the effort of producing two separate patches to a product in a niche market. This says a lot about the company itself and what they are trying to do for their customers.
2. The second patch was clearly marked as containing MODs for those of us who wanted some of this work incorporated into the game. In the case of fixing the linkages between regions, most of which were RR linkage errors, and correcting the RR Lines themselves by removing the ahistorical RR lines and in a few cases installing new ones, I myself do not consider these fixes as MODs, even though they are currently being worked as though they are until they get incorporated into the game. This provides me with the benefit of feedback on any bugs/flaws prior to submitting the work to AGEod. As I stated previously, there are 10,000 to 12,000 inter-regional links in this game, way more than I ever thought there were. Also, I have worked almost constantly (800+ hours and counting) to get these RR lines correct, without the enjoyment of actual playing through the game. Considering the amount of time involved with doing this, I can see where AGEod could not afford to do this since they are a small business not a hobby business. They had to move on to NCP, to generate more income.
3. In the post above, I was responding to Paul Roberts statement "(I don't understand modding.)" and tried to give him an answer describing what modding is and how it works.
4. My experience with Modding which has grown over the years, since I've been a "hobby" programmer ever since the days of the TRS-80 computer put out by Radio Shack in the late 70s, has enabled me to do the work in Point 2 above. I would venture to say that most programmer/developers for small companies like AGEod start off as hobby programmers also. The only reason I do not program for a living is my current employment pays very well, and I do not wish to give it up to go into programming full-time until after I retire in a few years and have retirement income, then I can pursue game programming or whatever, without need of actual return income.
5. AGEod obviously has to approve the MODs before incorporating them into their game, so what does it matter if they do end up incorporating MODs if they meet their expectations of what they want their game to do for their customers? We could all clamour for these types of changes including non-modders, and they "could" dedicate a programmer to incorporate these same changes and pay him for his "official" services, which being a small company, they cannot afford to do. Or, they can accept and approve such "free" work that improves their game and satisfies most customers.
6. I agreed to provide my services for this game for free, because I enjoy the subject of history, especially the Civil War, and this game along with Forge of Freedom has provided me many hours of enjoyment working with the subject.
Regards
Gray_Lensman
Gray, your work is MUCH appreciated....
...and since we (mostly) still enjoy freedom of choice:
Seems like freedom of choice, with more options than almost any other company I've seen. I choose a bit of 2, a bit of 3. But that's MY choice...
The big difference is that AGEOD adopts mods into patches when they 'fit' and enhance the chosen direction of the company. It is always clear what a patch does or doesn't do.
Make a choice and move on.
(SUMO)
...and since we (mostly) still enjoy freedom of choice:
- Buy, don't patch.
- Buy, patch.
- Buy, patch, mod.
Seems like freedom of choice, with more options than almost any other company I've seen. I choose a bit of 2, a bit of 3. But that's MY choice...
The big difference is that AGEOD adopts mods into patches when they 'fit' and enhance the chosen direction of the company. It is always clear what a patch does or doesn't do.
Make a choice and move on.
(SUMO)
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
Pocus wrote:The 1.07h standard edition is with modder work, namely work from 'Officially Approved by AGEOD for his proficiency, attention to detail and historical accuracy 'Michael McDougal' aka 'Gray_Lensman'. Except for a salary, he can't be more official.. The changes proposed were reviewed by the team and are validated. We will bear officially any errors he could have done, if any (which I doubt) as if done by a team member. I hope this disclaimer leaves no room for interpretation...
For me , enough said.
All messages posted which are not dealing with the patch itself are deleted and will be from now on.
This sub-forum is the 'Help to Improve AACW forum', section 'Public beta patch'. That and only that.
This sub-forum is the 'Help to Improve AACW forum', section 'Public beta patch'. That and only that.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
I will issue a patch if there is a dire bug, or when you are ready with the re-exporting of scenarios with transportlevel in it. No rushes then (and I have more than my share of things to do on NCP anyway).
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
richfed
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
- Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
- Contact: Website
I am very happy with the progress this game has made in developing a more challenging AI --- this latest patch seems very stable and the gameplay is excellent.
A few minor issues I am experiencing - though I am not sure that they have anything to do with this patch specifically:
1 - Music. Sometimes, the display says "now playing" such and such song, but, in fact, no music is heard. Also, and this has been the case since the new sound mixer was introduced several months ago, the intro. song plays too loudly in relation to the other tunes and sounds when it plays during the game. The volume level is noticeably louder for this tune [and only this tune] than when it plays during start-up.
2 - When clicking on specific units making up a stack in the unit panel [?] - down at the bottom of the screen - they sometimes "jump" into an adjacent region. Sometimes the whole stack - sometimes just the unit. At first, I thought that this was only a visual thing; that the units were not actually leaving their spot. But, I noticed, once or twice, that units inside a town actually did leave, at least according to the green bullets in the town's base.
3 - This, I know, just started with this patch -- there is a longer than usual delay in the messages appearing in the mail box immediately following turn resolution.
Can anyone confirm any of this??
A few minor issues I am experiencing - though I am not sure that they have anything to do with this patch specifically:
1 - Music. Sometimes, the display says "now playing" such and such song, but, in fact, no music is heard. Also, and this has been the case since the new sound mixer was introduced several months ago, the intro. song plays too loudly in relation to the other tunes and sounds when it plays during the game. The volume level is noticeably louder for this tune [and only this tune] than when it plays during start-up.
2 - When clicking on specific units making up a stack in the unit panel [?] - down at the bottom of the screen - they sometimes "jump" into an adjacent region. Sometimes the whole stack - sometimes just the unit. At first, I thought that this was only a visual thing; that the units were not actually leaving their spot. But, I noticed, once or twice, that units inside a town actually did leave, at least according to the green bullets in the town's base.
3 - This, I know, just started with this patch -- there is a longer than usual delay in the messages appearing in the mail box immediately following turn resolution.
Can anyone confirm any of this??
[color="DarkRed"][SIZE="2"][font="Book Antiqua"]"We've caught them napping!"[/font][/size][/color]
2 - When clicking on specific units making up a stack in the unit panel [?] - down at the bottom of the screen - they sometimes "jump" into an adjacent region. Sometimes the whole stack - sometimes just the unit.
I confirm this
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
-
RELee
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 7:28 pm
- Location: In America playing French games.
I've seen it more than once now. It's very disconcerting if you don't happen to realize it when it happens. Suddenly, you find Jackson down in North Carolina and you don't have a clue how he got there.
Of course, he isn't really down there, because his "tab" is still up in Virginia where he really is. I suppose it's just his icon is visible in the new location, but his unit hasn't really moved.
Weird, though. Really weird.
Of course, he isn't really down there, because his "tab" is still up in Virginia where he really is. I suppose it's just his icon is visible in the new location, but his unit hasn't really moved.
Weird, though. Really weird.
I think this is what happened during my last AAR game as the CSA here:http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5045. I had sent a couple Cavalry raids into the upper eastern shore to Dover. Later I decided to go for it and moved a Cavalry unit by boat along the outer (Atlantic) edge of the eastern shore to land and raid New Jersey. Devious, no?
Unfortunately, one turn my unit was aboard the boat in the Cape John area of the Atlantic Ocean, the next turn he was onshore on the Chesapeake Bay side of the eastern shore in Salisbury, MD.
leure:
It doesn't seem to happen all that often, thank goodness, but it's a real bummer when it occurs.
I dubbed it "transmogrification" at the time... haven't got a clue as to what is really going on.
Hope this helps.
pw
Unfortunately, one turn my unit was aboard the boat in the Cape John area of the Atlantic Ocean, the next turn he was onshore on the Chesapeake Bay side of the eastern shore in Salisbury, MD.
leure:
It doesn't seem to happen all that often, thank goodness, but it's a real bummer when it occurs.
I dubbed it "transmogrification" at the time... haven't got a clue as to what is really going on.
Hope this helps.
pw
"Yonder stands Jackson like a stone wall; let us go to his assistance." - CSA BrigGen Barnard Bee at First Manassas
Hi!
I have noticed another bug/glitch:
Units inside structures are not shown on the minimap. It doesn´t matter if they are locked or not (so its not related to the Ctrl+F1 shorcut, i think).
When you select an unit inside a structure and make it visible on map, it appears on minimap also. But as soon as you deselect it, dissapears on both.
Can anyone confirm it??
Cheers!
I have noticed another bug/glitch:
Units inside structures are not shown on the minimap. It doesn´t matter if they are locked or not (so its not related to the Ctrl+F1 shorcut, i think).
When you select an unit inside a structure and make it visible on map, it appears on minimap also. But as soon as you deselect it, dissapears on both.
Can anyone confirm it??
Cheers!
Hi again!
Another strange thing i have noticed playing with 1.07h.
Don't know if its a bug or just a game rule i don´t understand.
The problem is that on the battle reports, i get the icon of "sub-units not commanded" even when i have leaders.
I post a screen where you can see the tooltip.
I have six elements and a one star leader but the tooltip says that six (all) sub-units were not commanded.
Shouldn´t at least some of the elements be commanded??
Is this a bug or i´m not getting the meaning of this this tooltip?
Cheers!
Another strange thing i have noticed playing with 1.07h.
Don't know if its a bug or just a game rule i don´t understand.
The problem is that on the battle reports, i get the icon of "sub-units not commanded" even when i have leaders.
I post a screen where you can see the tooltip.
I have six elements and a one star leader but the tooltip says that six (all) sub-units were not commanded.
Shouldn´t at least some of the elements be commanded??
Is this a bug or i´m not getting the meaning of this this tooltip?
Cheers!
- Attachments
-
arsan wrote:Hi!
I have noticed another bug/glitch:
Units inside structures are not shown on the minimap. It doesn´t matter if they are locked or not (so its not related to the Ctrl+F1 shorcut, i think).
When you select an unit inside a structure and make it visible on map, it appears on minimap also. But as soon as you deselect it, dissapears on both.
Can anyone confirm it??
Cheers!
Indeed, I spotted that friday.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
arsan wrote:Hi again!
Another strange thing i have noticed playing with 1.07h.
Don't know if its a bug or just a game rule i don´t understand.
The problem is that on the battle reports, i get the icon of "sub-units not commanded" even when i have leaders.
I post a screen where you can see the tooltip.
I have six elements and a one star leader but the tooltip says that six (all) sub-units were not commanded.
Shouldn´t at least some of the elements be commanded??
Is this a bug or i´m not getting the meaning of this this tooltip?
Cheers!
Depends if the leader was in the stack of the unit or not I would say.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Hi Pocus!
Yes, the leader was in the stack with the infantry and the artillery. They were outside the city entrenching since 3 turns ago.
The 2 militias were inside Harpers Ferry You are right there.
But at least 4 sub units should be commanded isn't it?
And it's not an isolated problem: I have seen this on all the battles of this campaign i had just begin with 1.07h
Cheers
Yes, the leader was in the stack with the infantry and the artillery. They were outside the city entrenching since 3 turns ago.
The 2 militias were inside Harpers Ferry
You are right there.
But at least 4 sub units should be commanded isn't it?
And it's not an isolated problem: I have seen this on all the battles of this campaign i had just begin with 1.07h
Cheers
arsan wrote:Hi again!
The problem is that on the battle reports, i get the icon of "sub-units not commanded" even when i have leaders.
I have six elements and a one star leader but the tooltip says that six (all) sub-units were not commanded.
Cheers!
I can definitely confirm this one Pocus. Matter of fact, I am pretty sure that it has been popping up in the battle results for a while now, not just the latest release. I would get results that said "sub units not commanded" when there were no other units besides the ones with my leader. Everything else looked fine and the leader was capable enough. I could never make sense of it and ended up forgetting about it honestly.
"Yonder stands Jackson like a stone wall; let us go to his assistance." - CSA BrigGen Barnard Bee at First Manassas
I wonder if this is not just the elements which suffers a combat penalty, even of 5%... so the tooltip would have to read 'sub units under commanded' instead. I think this is a cosmetic issue, but I will check anyway.
Despite some little glitches, this patch is now officially approved.
Despite some little glitches, this patch is now officially approved.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Hi!
Good news!
It seems Pocus was right and the only problem is a misleading tooltip text.
I checked a battle with a stack with no % command penalty and there was no "Sub-units not commanded".
So it seem that, as Pocus says, the tooltip refers to units with command penalty, not units without commander.
In a future patch changing the text to "sub units under commanded" or "units with command penalty" instead on "not commanded" could be a good idea!
But its a very minor problem...
Cheers!!
Good news!
It seems Pocus was right and the only problem is a misleading tooltip text.
I checked a battle with a stack with no % command penalty and there was no "Sub-units not commanded".
So it seem that, as Pocus says, the tooltip refers to units with command penalty, not units without commander.
In a future patch changing the text to "sub units under commanded" or "units with command penalty" instead on "not commanded" could be a good idea!
But its a very minor problem...
Cheers!!
I just finished my first game using 1.07h Standard Edition (with mods). Playing as the Union in 1861 April GC. Basically, it was a most enjoyable game. Hats off the modder and to Pocus for making some real improvements to this fine game.
The railroad links worked wonderfully. No more frustration by having your units running around the country just to get to the next province.
Tweaking the harbour exits is extremely well done. Since the change to elements from units and thereby increasing the blockade requirements, the Brown water game is not worth the effort. The resource requirements were just too costly. However, with 1.07h the rationalisation of the ports' exits makes the effort worthwhile. For example, previously you needed 30 elements to blockade Norfolk and Suffolk. Now, you can do it with 18. This, of course, assumes that the CSA have not emplaced artillery.
Also, it is a nice touch that some port exits are now protected by the forts which were originally built for this purpose.
One bug that I noticed. I never received Alan Pinkerton. The South did get Belle Boyd however.
The railroad links worked wonderfully. No more frustration by having your units running around the country just to get to the next province.
Tweaking the harbour exits is extremely well done. Since the change to elements from units and thereby increasing the blockade requirements, the Brown water game is not worth the effort. The resource requirements were just too costly. However, with 1.07h the rationalisation of the ports' exits makes the effort worthwhile. For example, previously you needed 30 elements to blockade Norfolk and Suffolk. Now, you can do it with 18. This, of course, assumes that the CSA have not emplaced artillery.
Also, it is a nice touch that some port exits are now protected by the forts which were originally built for this purpose.
One bug that I noticed. I never received Alan Pinkerton. The South did get Belle Boyd however.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
In my game, I have the following problems...
First, National Morale and Victory Points are not shown.
Second, element names seem to just take the first in the list, ignoring any state affiliation (i.e., my New York Brigades have California Regiments as they appear first on the list).
Here's a screenshot, this brigade doesn't even have any state names, but goes directly into random numbers for the regiments. (the two problems have been circled in yellow).
First, National Morale and Victory Points are not shown.
Second, element names seem to just take the first in the list, ignoring any state affiliation (i.e., my New York Brigades have California Regiments as they appear first on the list).
Here's a screenshot, this brigade doesn't even have any state names, but goes directly into random numbers for the regiments. (the two problems have been circled in yellow).
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests