Patch 1.10d - public beta test

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Thanks

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Ship interdiction seems to be WAD in this beta patch. It takes 4 or more gunboat elements to block an enemy crossing; fewer than that has no effect. The bug stopping friendly troops from crossing is fixed. Single warships are also interdicting enemy movement.

[arsan]

Ship interdiction seems to be WAD in this beta patch. It takes 4 or more gunboat elements to block an enemy crossing; fewer than that has no effect. The bug stopping friendly troops from crossing is fixed. Single warships are also interdicting enemy movement.

Thanks for all this checking around Mikee!
What do you mean with singe warship interdicting?? One ironclad does the same that 4 gunboats?? Its the same also with frigates, brigs etc??
I don't know if it is WAD or not

Oh and thanks also about the pontoneer ability bug on clear terrain. Lets hope it gets fixed too.
Regards!

[arsan]

Pocus, Gray,
Maybe the problem with the new CSA elite brigades event messages reported here
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=87903#post87903
could be looked at before going official.
As i posted there, the appropriate texts for this brigades existed on the local strings files but they are not shown on the message log during game.
Regards

[mikee64]

Yes arsan, it looks like single warships block crossing, I even tried that with 1 brig and it worked. Since most of the "4 element" discussion was centered most specifically around gunboats, I thought the heavier ships were not included in this change, and thus one would block like gunboats used to do. But I am just guessing...

In the meantime I got some bug notifications after playing up to Nov. 1861, after which I was kicked back to the main screen. Here are the full reports in order for someone who knows more about it than me:



These happened at various times during processing, not all at once. I'll back up the log files in case they are needed.

Ah, I see these same messages are in mainlog file, that will be easier to report next time instead of all those screenies!

[arsan]

Ouch! leure: That's a lot of errors!
About gunboats/warships maybe Pocus or some ACW history buff could tell us if its WAD, bug or a bug which should be WAD

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

April scenario, and this was the late Nov. turn, game started with 1.10d.

I did fresh install of the game with 1.10c, but applied 1.10d over that since this was a beta. (Not a good idea, I know.)

I've got the mainlog.txt file saved (in addition to the other log files from this turn), but in this case the information inside it is exactly the same as the dialog boxes I posted, with no additional info after the problem.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Error logging was already on - it's probably because I got kicked back to the main screen after the dialog boxes that there was no additional info.

I was playing the South.

[Franciscus]

@mikee64:

What are the specs of your PC ? You could allways try to lower your "Memory usage" (eg, to 25%) in the options/systems menu. Even if you have 2Gig+ RAM, those errors might be due to AACW memory usage problems.
At least it will not hurt...

[Primasprit]

April scenario, and this was the late Nov. turn, game started with 1.10d.

I did fresh install of the game with 1.10c, but applied 1.10d over that since this was a beta. (Not a good idea, I know.)

I've got the mainlog.txt file saved (in addition to the other log files from this turn), but in this case the information inside it is exactly the same as the dialog boxes I posted, with no additional info after the problem.

Hi mikee64!

Do you also still have the savegames? These would be very useful for us to reproduce the problem.

Cheers
Norbert

[GShock]

Now where else did i already see these maximum variable entrenchment levels?

....eh eh eh eh eh eh eh

[mikee64]

@mikee64:

What are the specs of your PC ? You could allways try to lower your "Memory usage" (eg, to 25%) in the options/systems menu. Even if you have 2Gig+ RAM, those errors might be due to AACW memory usage problems.
At least it will not hurt...

I have a Dell w/ 1 Gig RAM, I was running with game using 75% of memory. I've been playing over a year and have played well into 1863 on this setting and have never had any problems. I did try changing the setting per your advice, but still no luck; same error.

[mikee64]

Hi mikee64!

Do you also still have the savegames? These would be very useful for us to reproduce the problem.

Cheers
Norbert

Here is the turn it happens on plus one backup. I am able to reproduce this problem on my machine after exiting game, rebooting, and re-processing the turn.

[Pocus]

The turn processes fine for me, although I'm asked for a password for the USA turn.

[mikee64]

I must have had some sort of local corruption, as I started getting a CTD on the first splash screen. I uninstalled and reinstalled and the turn processes ok for me now too.

Sorry for the confusion.

[arsan]

Hi

I noticed a strange thing with the initial setup of the July 61 campaign. Not sure its from 1.10d patch or a previous one, since i don't use to play this scenario. For what i know it could even be WAD, but it look kind strange so...
The thing is that playing as the USA you don't get any blockade flotillas on the Atlantic box.
Its strange as in the april 61 scenario you get for free 5 on this huge 8 elements fleets and a transport on turn two by event. They appear on the Atlantic box locked for some turns.
But on July campaign the box is empty and the flotillas are nowhere on the map. I processed a couple of turns and they did not appear by event either.
Is this intended or a setup problem?
The difference is pretty big.We ara talking of 40+ ships missing
Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Arsan: Thanks for pointing out the Atlantic Blockade fleet bug.

I just fixed the problem with the Atlantic Blockade fleet not showing up in the 1861 July Scenario. It will be included in the next upload of the "Historical Accuracy MOD. You are correct. It was 50 elements, and the event placing these ships was expiring prior to the start of the July 1861 Scenario. I don't know when/if the bug was introduced/reintroduced as the file that had the error in it was dated 1/4/2008, but the source file that it originates from was dated 8/14/2007. At this point, it no longer matters, since the current corrected source and output file will have identical new date stamps.

Good news! Thanks Gray!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Remember, in this version, Pocus implemented the compromise %chance change, along with removal of the requirement to be in offensive mode. So, there should be low chance situations where 1 ship does actually interdict.

1 ship 25% chance of interdiction
2 ships 50% chance of interdiction
3 ships 75% chance of interdiction
4 ships 100% chance of interdiction

Some discussion after the fact suggested the max chance should be limited short of 100%, but that's not in the code yet. However, prior to this version it required several elements in offensive mode to interdict and when the condition was met, it was 100% also. So it's improved, somewhat, the micromanagement of moving naval ships to/from harbors, but it could be adjusted just a little more when Pocus has the time in the next patch.

Gray

I don't think this new system is included already on the patch.
Check your question about it and Pocus answer on this same thread (posts numbers 14 and 15)
From that posts i understand that the rule in effect on the patch is the "4 gunboats block 100% and 3 boats don't block at all" (on/off)
Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Sorry, didn't know!
When the patch goes official this info should be posted on the readme changes. It's pretty important IMHO.
By the way i like the change! And if sometime it gets changed to the 90% rule it will be still better.
Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

[deleted

[Pocus]

Sorry to disappoint you, but no the feature is not yet in.