Open Beta v1.07 (16th Jan 2024)

[Jagger2002]

Vic, I have a PBEM game going on. Can we install the new beta patch over the 1.06 beta patch without causing PBEM problems?

Also I noticed we are not getting screenshots from the PBEM game. I set that selection some time ago and have been getting them automatically for all my AI games. Should we be getting them in PBEM as well?

[Vic]

Patches are always backwards compatible.

And screenshots should (in theory) work in PBEM as well.

best wishes,
Vic

[Jagger2002]

Thanks Vic!

[Jagger2002]

And screenshots should (in theory) work in PBEM as well.

I don't think it is working with PBEM games unless I missed something during setup or they are being saved outside the screenshot folder. It would be nice if it did save because then you could actually take a look at the end turn situation between turns. Would be very helpful.

[eddieballgame]

Screen Shots have to be 'checked on' in the PREFS.

[Jagger2002]

Hey Vic, have you ever wondered how well this Ardennes combat and officer command card system would work for Napoleonic or American Civil War tactical battles at the regiment/battalion level?

Seriously, I think a slightly tweaked system would produce a far better simulation of those massive tactical battles than anything that has appeared previously and also more enjoyable. The ebb and flow of those Nap/ACW battles are very similar to what we see in your Ardennes system. And I suspect the card system could reasonably model the problems of Nap/ACW command and control which has always been a big problem with modeling that timeframe. Anyway, I thought I would see if I could plant a seed.

[okeefe]

2nd Panzer and Lehr being locked turn 1 is a good change hope that stays in the patch release.

[Rosseau]

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

Hey Vic, have you ever wondered how well this Ardennes combat and officer command card system would work for Napoleonic or American Civil War tactical battles at the regiment/battalion level?

Seriously, I think a slightly tweaked system would produce a far better simulation of those massive tactical battles than anything that has appeared previously and also more enjoyable. The ebb and flow of those Nap/ACW battles are very similar to what we see in your Ardennes system. And I suspect the card system could reasonably model the problems of Nap/ACW command and control which has always been a big problem with modeling that timeframe. Anyway, I thought I would see if I could plant a seed.

I heartily agree this idea might greatly move forward what we currently have regarding Nap/ACW battles. Right now, minus the cards, Grand Tactician The Civil War (1861-1865) on Steam is closest to that flavor (and highly recommended) for the battles. The campaigns in the game are highly complex to manage, at present, however.

Back on-topic, this might be something our modder Ernie might be interested in as well.

[Jagger2002]

I heartily agree this idea might greatly move forward what we currently have regarding Nap/ACW battles. Right now, minus the cards, Grand Tactician The Civil War (1861-1865) on Steam is closest to that flavor (and highly recommended) for the battles. The campaigns in the game are highly complex to manage, at present, however.

I have been keeping my eye on Grand Tacitician but haven't bought it. I am seeing comments expressing some reservations on the AI but it is tempting and I bet if successful there will be an expansion into Napoleonics. Very different game though from the Ardennes system.

IMO, the Ardennes system would have little difficulty creating a solid Napoleonic or ACW game in terms of tactical mechanisms. There was an ebb and flow of tactical Nap/ACW operations that is very similar to what we see in the WW2 Ardennes modeling. The only missing tactical mechanism would be modeling the importance of skirmishing during the era. But then the real challenge would be modeling command and control to reflect the difficulty in coordinating + controlling divisions and corps with semi-independent leaders in an era lacking modern communications. Command, control and leadership were often a wild card during that timeframe and the quality + characteristics of division/corps leadership was very important. IMO, the HPS system was on the right general track in terms of scale and visual appeal but had significant problems in tactical modeling and tried to its best to simply ignore such a vitally important component as command and control. It seems like HPS started the job but never finished it. So for me, simply no cigar there. Anyway enough for now in off subject distractions and back to the Ardennes.

PS: Ernie might be interested in a Nap/ACW mod of the Ardennes system???

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

I heartily agree this idea might greatly move forward what we currently have regarding Nap/ACW battles. Right now, minus the cards, Grand Tactician The Civil War (1861-1865) on Steam is closest to that flavor (and highly recommended) for the battles. The campaigns in the game are highly complex to manage, at present, however.

I have been keeping my eye on Grand Tacitician but haven't bought it. I am seeing comments expressing some reservations on the AI but it is tempting and I bet if successful there will be an expansion into Napoleonics. Very different game though from the Ardennes system.

IMO, the Ardennes system would have little difficulty creating a solid Napoleonic or ACW game in terms of tactical mechanisms. There was an ebb and flow of tactical Nap/ACW operations that is very similar to what we see in the WW2 Ardennes modeling. The only missing tactical mechanism would be modeling the importance of skirmishing during the era. But then the real challenge would be modeling command and control to reflect the difficulty in coordinating + controlling divisions and corps with semi-independent leaders in an era lacking modern communications. Command, control and leadership were often a wild card during that timeframe and the quality + characteristics of division/corps leadership was very important. IMO, the HPS system was on the right general track in terms of scale and visual appeal but had significant problems in tactical modeling and tried to its best to simply ignore such a vitally important component as command and control. It seems like HPS started the job but never finished it. So for me, simply no cigar there. Anyway enough for now in off subject distractions and back to the Ardennes.

PS: Ernie might be interested in a Nap/ACW mod of the Ardennes system???

I would love an updated version of Age of Rifles. I loved Norm's games in general in the 90s.

Klink, Oberst

[Jagger2002]

I would love an updated version of Age of Rifles. I loved Norm's games in general in the 90s.

I had Age of Rifles and I played it. Unfortunately it has been so many years now that is about all I can remember.

[Vic]

Bump. Small hotfix. Back in office jan 3rd

[Vic]

bump!

[Nico165b165]

-Fuel bug with quite massive underconsumption is fixed.

Oh-oh... Could you explain a bit more this one ? Smells like big trouble for the panzer divisions now

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Nico165b165

-Fuel bug with quite massive underconsumption is fixed.

Oh-oh... Could you explain a bit more this one ? Smells like big trouble for the panzer divisions now

There was a relatively big bug introduced with v1.00.04 which caused movement of units always to cost only 10AP worth of fuel. With this fix you are paying the fuel again you are due.

best wishes,
Vic

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[Vic]

bump! once again

[Vic]

Mostly quality assurance stuff patch. Both on the scenarios (Davide) and engine (Vic).
Steam launch is very nearby (t-10) so please be vigilant and do report anything that even resembles a bug please!!

Best wishes,
Vic

[Oberst_Klink]

Vic

Can you double-check the dates (modification) of the VR Basic Library v.45? It still got the date (modified/created) of the one that was present in the patch before.

Klink, Oberst

[Vic]

right i forgot to include the newest vr basic library