AACW Public beta patch 1.10 released

[Pocus]

That's great people ... but are you sure you are not overly optimistic?
I know I tweaked and improved how the AI move and redeploy leaders, but I'm as surprised as you that it works so well! So if you see stupid things, I can always use a saved game or two, more work on May is planned for the AI.

[Inside686]

Divisions can now replace whole lost elements

Can you please explain this Pocus, I'm afraid I don't understand it well.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Inside686]

Ah yeah it's true, we had to split the divs in order to replace lost regiments in brigades before.

[Pocus]

This means that destroyed individual elements that were contained in brigades that are currently inside of a Division will now be rebuilt inside the division instead of having to remove the brigade from the division to replace the element that's been destroyed in combat.

At least that's my understanding of it.

Quite good of an understanding.

[lodilefty]

This means that destroyed individual elements that were contained in brigades that are currently inside of a Division will now be rebuilt inside the division instead of having to remove the brigade from the division to replace the element that's been destroyed in combat.

At least that's my understanding of it.

I assume that there will still be a limit due to the 18 element rule....

This is one of the best 'surprise' fixes yet....

[Primasprit]

I assume that there will still be a limit due to the 18 element rule....

Good point...

[Pocus]

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/patch_AACW_v1.10-beta4.zip

rc4
- changed: Cities and harbors produce 25% less Supply than before.
- fixed: a rare bug where a ZIP gamefile would not be recognized correctly.
- fixed: Some data where not in for Weather Zones.
- More railroad fixes from Gray_Lensman (Ohio RR and canal fixes).

[GShock]

Am so curious to see this reduction of Supplies applied. Yes, the Element replacement in div is a sensitive improvement but, according to me, the rebalance of all supplies is an even better one. Ten times better.

[Pocus]

I would like to go further, but one modifications (of this kind) at a time. The next step would be to increase the supply consumption of line units, only for the North, to represent better that vast amount of supply was needed for the Northern operations whereas the South could live of roots

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[pepe4158]

I would like to go further, but one modifications (of this kind) at a time. The next step would be to increase the supply consumption of line units, only for the North, to represent better that vast amount of supply was needed for the Northern operations whereas the South could live of roots

Ohhh good grief tho Pocus...that would tottaly throw off historically what could be done in the game versus historically what WAS actually done.

1. Shermans march to the sea...in the game is difficult to do if not impossible, but it DID happen
2 southern Cav raids deep in the north....NEVER happenend but getting raiders to Canada-northern border is easy in the game....WAY-outta-wack IMO

Say how about the forging factor?...as a suggestion???? The south was bitter for years after the war due to northern forging parties devestating the land.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

I don't know how much supply is provided by pillaging a region, but if the amount was large enough, it would allow for mobile campaigns like Sherman's march. You'd just have to keep moving.

Maybe this is the next step in improving how supply works.

[AndrewKurtz]

Sherman's march to the sea may be more easily accomplished with these beta patches, because movement rates have been increased somewhat, and cohesion/attrition adjusted closer to historical effects.

Really good point.

That will be fun to test. Can a 60k man army, led by Sherman in two corps, move from ATL to Savannah in three turns during the without being totally wiped out upon arrival in November/December.

[pepe4158]

Say all does Athena repair RR lines in this latest version...Im seeing a lot of non-repaired track?

[Brochgale]

Sneaky Athena? I note that this time Kentucky invaded does not fire.Feds lay seige to Lexington and larger union force heads straight for Clarksville whist Lyon Heads straight for Humboldt. I gambled and now have a division laying seige to Bowling Green but CSA line of retreat is effectively blocked and Athena just needs to see Nashville unguarded and take it - Nashville lost before July 1861 - eeeek!!!
It is early June and CSA is under heavy pressure already.I will have to rethink my entire strategy in west.
She isn,t letting me mangle her in East either.A total strategy rethink as CSA is now needed - on hard settings at least?

[hootieleece]

Kentucky is effectively neutral until september of '61, you should be seeing atleast alot of support there now.

[berto]

Some more possible supply tweaks, especially to enable Sherman-like fast marches through Georgia and the Carolinas:

--Augment the effect of the Forager special ability.
--Introduce this augmentation later in the war only, so that Sherman (and the other Foragers) can only benefit from this from some time in 1864 onward.
--Make this augmentation a chance event, not guaranteed. (What if Sherman never got his bright idea? Or what if the at-first skeptical Grant had vetoed it as being too risky? Interesting to note that Grant's forces, too, lived off the land when they cut their ties to their supply sources during the Vicksburg Campaign.)

[pepe4158]

yeah but again I ask is Athena even repairing her tracks in your guys games...mine she isnt I think?

[Brochgale]

yeah but again I ask is Athena even repairing her tracks in your guys games...mine she isnt I think?

She has been repairing tracks but there does not seem to be any logic to what she is doing. I cut 6 sections of line in early 61 but she repairs only 3 so far and takes her time about it as well. December 61 lines north of Baltimore still not repaired.
I assume that she is moving reinforcements into Maryland by sea where I am no position to stop her.

[pepe4158]

yeah thats the one that made me wonder...she left the baltimore RR cut

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GShock]

To tweak the supply system is the essence of making the campaign historical.

- Armies with a certain number of elements should automatically ravage the country after their initial supplies are gone. Obviously once pillaged that region doesn't produce supply anymore so either bring them on with the wagons or begin to see desertion.

- I strongly believe the supply forwarding phase should only forward supplies, according to the rail points available, towards depots and forts. Cities should produce but only depots and forts should receive.

- The Mc needed to let the supplies pass should be raised to 51%. Same goes for the movement by rail usage. This obviously means if the loyalty in a region is low, the opposing side will need garrisons to stop the MC from dropping.

- Finally a good set of tweaked values would force the player to use the loyalty options and the fact the supply values are tweaked means that both sides' economies must grow along with their numbers in the army. No industrialization = too few supplies to sustain the campaigns.

Obviously, Pocus is right, whatever the path taken, one thing at time...lost of tests and then let's see what happens. The 4th beta is a very good release candidate already imo.

[Pocus]

Don't forget that you'll soon hit the hard wall of AI inefficiency... Some rules, even if historical, can't simply be added just because the AI is far from being Deep Blue. So you're back to develop your features for an historical mod only.

[GShock]

I don't find this AI very deficient Pocus, i actually don't find it deficient at all. The only deficiency is the lack of amphibious assaults done by the Union, that is, an AI that has some historical insight.

I am absolutely sure you will make it become Deep Blue. It's only a matter of time

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[berto]

I am absolutely sure you will make it become Deep Blue [Pocus]. It's only a matter of time

Speaking of AI and time, there is a game option to give the AI more time, but if feasible, I urge you to add an option to give the AI much more time, minutes more even, if that's what it takes to enhance its effectiveness.

Permit me to quote myself from a different forum, for Matrix Games' War in the Pacific (a game, incidentally, that at best would take months and months to finish, so keep that in mind when I suggest the AI taking hours and even days to do its thinking). The comments following directly pertain to WITP, and may not, all or in part, reflect AACW realities. But the general point still applies:

Heck, I'd be willing to wait overnight or even days for the AI to do its thinking.

If AI effectiveness is proportional to the time we allow it, give it more time!

How about something like this?

Give the computer more time?

[ ] No, use the default time [60 seconds? 5 minutes?]
[ ] Yes, give it 10 minutes.
[ ] Yes, give it one hour.
[ ] Yes, give it <fill in the blank> hours.
[ ] Give it unlimited time until I [the player] press the Stop button.
[ ] [any other option suggestions?]

Make this a pre-game selection, or even a turn-by-turn selection (see below).

For a game of this scope and complexity, If I the human player might take hours to plan and execute my turn, I'd think it only fair to give the AI equal time consideration.

If we're talking about a game that might take months and even years to complete, what's a few hundred extra hours among "friends" (you and your AI opponent), especialy if those extra hours you are (a) sleeping, (b) at work, (c) playing some other computer game, (d) whatever.

I could see playing in the following manner: I commit to playing one turn at a time, then giving the computer indefinite time--at least overnight, days if I get distracted and have to move on to other things (including playing other games)--to plan and "think" through its response. Distracting time off between moves would even be a virtue. It I knew that the longer I wait, the better the AI move might be, I'd not fret over my time away from the game. In fact, variable AI time between moves might have the added advantage: For complicated situations and important turning points in the war, give it full time consideration. At other times, when there is little for the AI to do, give it as little time as your experience and/or impatience to "get on with it" deem necessary.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why game designers try to make their games, and their AI, fit one mold. Break the mold! Give the players a choice! If enabling a competitive AI is a matter of giving it more time to think, let us the human players decide for ourselves the limits of our (im)patience. These games allow us, the human players, to set all sorts of optional rules going in. Why not give us as many AI options (particularly PO time to think), too?

Variable, human player directed AI time!

None of this may apply to the AACW Athena's "thought processes," but to the extent that giving Athena more time to "think" is effective, please offer me (the individual player) that option.