2011 Winter Holidays World AACW Championship

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I brought it up because it happened to me for the first time that I couldnt build more than 20 divisions or so (in another PBEM).

Just wanted to know how we gonna handle this known issue.

Well, if there is a glitch that limits one side below the 30/60 limits, I'd think we could change it as a stopgap, but otherwise we should stick to the regular rules.

[Longshanks]

I brought it up because it happened to me for the first time that I couldnt build more than 20 divisions or so (in another PBEM).

Just wanted to know how we gonna handle this known issue.

Yeh I see what you mean now. I'm the CSA in a PBEM and I am limited to 21 divisions. That is, I have 21 and can build no more.

There are two options: fix it or don't fix it. Here are the options, with the pluses and minuses.

On the fix it side:
Plus - The CSA player will get the 30 divisions that he ought to have.
Minus - In order to fix this, we're going to have to ask the CSA players to make game changes that may be unfamiliar to them, especially the new players. There's a chance they will mess their game up.

On the don't fix it side:
Plus - we do nothing except play on. Every CSA player is in the same boat, and since we're requiring folks to switch sides in the next round, it will even out.
Plus - The CSA player gets corps in E Mar 62. Corps command compensates for the lack of a division somewhat, which reduces the overall effect.
Minus - The CSA player doesn't get his full allotment of divisions and therefore may be at a disadvantage.

Ok, what else would you all add to this list before we decide?

[moni kerr]

I'd like to enter the tourney.

[lodilefty]

Yeh I see what you mean now. I'm the CSA in a PBEM and I am limited to 21 divisions. That is, I have 21 and can build no more.

There are two options: fix it or don't fix it. Here are the options, with the pluses and minuses.

On the fix it side:
Plus - The CSA player will get the 30 divisions that he ought to have.
Minus - In order to fix this, we're going to have to ask the CSA players to make game changes that may be unfamiliar to them, especially the new players. There's a chance they will mess their game up.

On the don't fix it side:
Plus - we do nothing except play on. Every CSA player is in the same boat, and since we're requiring folks to switch sides in the next round, it will even out.
Plus - The CSA player gets corps in E Mar 62. Corps command compensates for the lack of a division somewhat, which reduces the overall effect.
Minus - The CSA player doesn't get his full allotment of divisions and therefore may be at a disadvantage.

Ok, what else would you all add to this list before we decide?

The entire "raise the limit"debate was prompted by the CSA side division count including British, French Spanish divisions.

I counted 11 total possible Foreign Divisions, so to restore balance, you could raise CSA to 40 or 41.

I'll check tomorrow to see if the new beta patch under development is counting Foreign Divisions

[deguerra]

The problem is that I never quite understood how to change the limit in ongoing games. I understand how it works via the .sct files for new games, but I assume that doesn't work for games that have already started?

[lodilefty]

The problem is that I never quite understood how to change the limit in ongoing games. I understand how it works via the .sct files for new games, but I assume that doesn't work for games that have already started?

Depends on what turn.
Follow the instructions in the ReadMe, but in same events change the "FixedDate" keyword to "MinDate". Change will take place next turn.

Pocus & I are discussing the issue of GBR Divisions. Stay tuned.

[Longshanks]

I'd like to enter the tourney.

Great! I sent you a message. Send me an email (with your time zone) and we will start.

[lodilefty]

Depends on what turn.
Follow the instructions in the ReadMe, but in same events change the "FixedDate" keyword to "MinDate". Change will take place next turn.

Pocus & I are discussing the issue of GBR Divisions. Stay tuned.

We have a fixed game engine, but it must live in beta for a few days...

I believe you will be to upgrade during games in progress without errors.

[Longshanks]

We have a fixed game engine, but it must live in beta for a few days...

I believe you will be to upgrade during games in progress without errors.

I'm a bit unclear on this (and everything else, of course). So, will the new beta increase the limit of CSA divisions back to 30, plus 10 more for the foreign intervention divisions?

[lodilefty]

I'm a bit unclear on this (and everything else, of course). So, will the new beta increase the limit of CSA divisions back to 30, +10 for the foreign intervention divisions?

It will keep the limit at 30 (unless you mmod that), but will no longer count the GBR divisions as part of the 30.

Quote from the pre-release (note text in blue):

• • [color=#000000]''Close Window'' check box fixed in Element Detail window
  • Fixed events where a new CSA Blockade Runner could appear in Cuba, West Indes, or Jamaica
    
    • This fix will not release units created in a saved game started prior to 1.16 RC9
  • Fixed rare occurance of a 2nd Kentucky invasion by the AI event after Kentucky is invaded.
  • Fixed the inclusion of GBR Divisions in CSA total Division count
    
    • [color=blue]Note: GBR will NOT be able to form new divisions. If you “undo” the Division formation button on a GBR Division, you will not be able to recreate the division. You WILL be able to un-combine/re-combine the division. (“+” and “-” keys)[/color]

  
  

  [/color]

If no errors found by beta team, expect release as public beta Monday

[Longshanks]

sounds like it will solve our tourney issues nicely. Most games aren't even to the division formation stage yet anyway.

[charlesonmission]

Hi Longshanks,

Can you clarify/confirm that after the July 1863 turn, if no player one with NM, the player with the most VPs wins?

Thanks,

Charles

[Longshanks]

Three ways:

1. After the last July 63 turn is executed, the host will look at the Score of VPs at the beginning of the E Aug 63 turn. The player with the most VPs will win, and the scores will be recorded (since margin of win matters). I think this will be the most likely outcome.
2. If the game ends at any time on or before L July 63 due to a collapse of one side or the other, then the date of the victory is recorded (VPs won't matter in this case). This is considered a "higher level" victory than winning by VP margin.
3. If someone resigns in the middle of the game (and we can't finish it with a substitute player), then the VP margin is recorded, but the remaining player wins. This type of victory is, I hope understandably, the "lowest level" of victory.

Levels of victory only matter for matchups in the next round.

[Longshanks]

An issue regarding Corps has arisen that might affect our games.

See recent posts in http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=224421&posted=1#post224421

The bottom line is players must decide if they want to "play on" (my recommendation), or stop for a while to see what happens with RC8. RC8 might fix the problem, but if it doesn't we'll have to upgrade, then start all games over because the problem with Corps is significant.

Update: I checked in on a PBEM game I'm playing outside of the tourney. We're using RC7 and just reached the Mar 62 turn when you can form corps. I copied the game to another folder and played one turn against the AI just to see if the corps I created got the bonuses. They did. So, in my case at least, this isn't a problem.

[lodilefty]

An issue regarding Corps has arisen that might affect our games.

See recent posts in http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=224421&posted=1#post224421

The bottom line is players must decide if they want to "play on" (my recommendation), or stop for a while to see what happens with RC8. RC8 might fix the problem, but if it doesn't we'll have to upgrade, then start all games over because the problem with Corps is significant.

Update: I checked in on a PBEM game I'm playing outside of the tourney. We're using RC7 and just reached the Mar 62 turn when you can form corps. I copied the game to another folder and played one turn against the AI just to see if the corps I created got the bonuses. They did. So, in my case at least, this isn't a problem.

Corps form OK in RC7.
We have a question regarding the Corps gaining benefits when in range of thteir parent HQ...

[Longshanks]

We have a question regarding the Corps gaining benefits when in range of thteir parent HQ...

In my PBEM game, they are ... at least as of the turn after you can form them which is the first turn the bonuses would appear.

[lodilefty]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=224485&postcount=1

Fixes several issues, including the CSA Division count and Sudden Death by NM.

I took care to highlight the few fixes that will not help a saved game from RC7, but otherwise it seems very stable!

[Longshanks]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=224485&postcount=1

Fixes several issues, including the CSA Division count and Sudden Death by NM.

I took care to highlight the few fixes that will not help a saved game from RC7, but otherwise it seems very stable!

Thanks very much!

Players and Hosts: please read the email I sent you regarding timing of your upgrade to RC9.

HUZZAH!

[Longshanks]

I trust by now everyone has upgraded to RC9. In the three games I'm hosting, the only problem we had was that someone had to resend an ORD file to me. Otherwise, it's working fine.

Thanks, Lodilefty, from all of us in the tourney for making the changes, fixes, and upgrades ... and keeping the compatibility with the previous versions. You really are a champ!

Plus, someday I want to trounce/be trounced by you in an AACW game!

[lodilefty]

<snip>

Plus, someday I want to trounce/be trounced by you in an AACW game!

Not likely, as I never play PBEM

[Longshanks]

Those of you who read the posts know this already most likely, but as not everyone does, I'm going to list the current game rule oddities.

1) Entrenchments. Units entrench too fast. Apparently it's one level every 5 days and an engineer makes it even faster. So be prepared to see a stack move into a region and then be at Level 4 entrenchments the next turn. We are waiting for a game update to fix this.
2) Ship Repair. Ships are not repairing as fast as they should/used to. No fix in sight as far as I know.
3) Solo Generals as Spies. No worries on this one. We prohibit using solo generals as spies via the House Rules.

I welcome additions, corrections, or clarifications.

[lodilefty]

Those of you who read the posts know this already most likely, but as not everyone does, I'm going to list the current game rule oddities.

1) Entrenchments. Units entrench too fast. Apparently it's one level every 5 days and an engineer makes it even faster. So be prepared to see a stack move into a region and then be at Level 4 entrenchments the next turn. We are waiting for a game update to fix this.
2) Ship Repair. Ships are not repairing as fast as they should/used to. No fix in sight as far as I know.
3) Solo Generals as Spies. No worries on this one. We prohibit using solo generals as spies via the House Rules.

I welcome additions, corrections, or clarifications.

Do you want a hotfix for #1 ??

Re: #2. Some "hit and miss" testing seems to indicate that the engine is more sensitive to "how many ships in port repairing/building, and how big is the port". So (again, not rigorous tests) it appears that you can get quicker repair times in a Large Port with fewer ships needing repair....

[Longshanks]

Do you want a hotfix for #1 ??

Re: #2. Some "hit and miss" testing seems to indicate that the engine is more sensitive to "how many ships in port repairing/building, and how big is the port". So (again, not rigorous tests) it appears that you can get quicker repair times in a Large Port with fewer ships needing repair....

While I am not inclined to make requests that increase your workload, I do agree that the entrenchment issue is likely to adversely affect tournament play, so, yes, a hotfix would be most welcome.

Thanks!

[lodilefty]

By your command....

Please report favorable results and any anomalies while using it, as my testing has (obviously) not encompassed very many situations.

Attached (295 bytes ):
Extract into \ACW\GameData\Abilities
1 file overwritten

[Longshanks]

Thanks! that was quick!

Tournament players: Please incorporate this update into your game as instructed. I will repeat this request (command) on the other Tournament thread as well.

[Blind Sniper]

Thanks to you both

Longshanks, what do you think to send an email too? Maybe someone can miss this post.

[Longshanks]

Thanks to you both

Longshanks, what do you think to send an email too? Maybe someone can miss this post.

Yeh, good idea. Now that I'm home again, I'll send one out tonight.

[Citizen X]

We have never talked about ruling the new distant unload button in or out.

[Longshanks]

We have never talked about ruling the new distant unload button in or out.

If it's in RC9, then it's in. It is, so it's in.

[Citizen X]

If it's in RC9, then it's in. It is, so it's in.

Isn't that, you know, kinda rulechanging in a running tournament?