Testing of Patch 1.10.5

[Johnus]

Motomouse:

You should not be fighting the first battle of bull run in Southern Steel. I believe Southern Steel begins in November and assumes first bull run has been fought and lost historically.

[BigJ62]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Before we release this next major patch, we want at least a week of public beta-testing to make sure that we haven't missed anything in internal testing. Obviously, you should alert us to any bugs or CTD's that didn't come up, but the main reason for public testing is to see whether the changes we made to eliminate the CSA AI's "hordes" is working as desired, and isn't either leaving hordes in place (which I'm quite sure it doesn't) or making the CSA too weak now (which it possibly does). We will use this public-beta feedback forum to discuss any matters pertaining to this patch, while the main forum will be for other issues. In other words, please only discuss the patch in here!

Thank you for your input!

Oh, I almost forgot: the patch is supposed to be in the Members Only area. I'd check myself, but can't remember my password.

Ok I've had no CTD's.
Thanks

[Motomouse]

Johnnie @ Motomouse:

You should not be fighting the first battle of bull run in Southern Steel. I believe Southern Steel begins in November and assumes first bull run has been fought and lost historically.

Thanks for the info. My fault, the engine titled it as battle of fredericksburg anyway. I am no expert in ACW history (location Europe [;)]), yet games like FOF and AACW managed to raise my interest and i am reading battlecry of freedom right now.

Regards Motomouse

[rockmedic109]

Coming Fury.  Allied player, CSA AI.
 
I've noticed a major drop in the number of starting USA Generals.  Did several restarts with same results.  No McClellan in about ten starts. 
 
Did the patch reduce the number of Generals available early in the game {perhaps a way to simulate poor Union leadership early in the war}?
 
Do the 100%ers that do not start and have a "0" start date ever come in?  First generals to show up were Meade and Reynolds {start date 15 in the commanders.txt file}?

[Gil R.]

There's been no reduction. What you're seeing is the result of the change that lets most of the Turn 1 generals start off where they did historically, instead of James River/Potomac River. Look for McClellan in that division in western Virginia, and look inside your other armies/corps/divisions to see your other generals.

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Coming Fury. Allied player, CSA AI.

I've noticed a major drop in the number of starting USA Generals. Did several restarts with same results. No McClellan in about ten starts.

Did the patch reduce the number of Generals available early in the game {perhaps a way to simulate poor Union leadership early in the war}?

Do the 100%ers that do not start and have a "0" start date ever come in? First generals to show up were Meade and Reynolds {start date 15 in the commanders.txt file}?

[ericbabe]

We should document this better in the version history.

[Ironclad]

The readme doesn't mention the additional CSA forts in Southern Steel.

[rockmedic109]

Nope. McClellan is nowhere to be found. Same with Hancock.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

There's been no reduction. What you're seeing is the result of the change that lets most of the Turn 1 generals start off where they did historically, instead of James River/Potomac River. Look for McClellan in that division in western Virginia, and look inside your other armies/corps/divisions to see your other generals.

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Coming Fury. Allied player, CSA AI.

I've noticed a major drop in the number of starting USA Generals. Did several restarts with same results. No McClellan in about ten starts.

Did the patch reduce the number of Generals available early in the game {perhaps a way to simulate poor Union leadership early in the war}?

Do the 100%ers that do not start and have a "0" start date ever come in? First generals to show up were Meade and Reynolds {start date 15 in the commanders.txt file}?

[Gideon Stargrave]

Is the invincible gunboat bug fixed?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Ryan Jackson
Is the invincible gunboat bug fixed?

As far as I know, yes.

[jecunningham]

So far, so good, playing the USA through spring of 1863, Southern hordes are gone and Southern troop levels feel accurate. No other issues, seems stable.
 
-Jim Cunningham
 

[sirduke_slith]

While playing with the new patch i discovered a serious flaw.  I was playing the south and every time the union was in a siege the screen shows the union forces can do damage to my fort twice.  I diddn't understand it and it happened over and over again.  I ended up losing horribly being unable to defend my forts/cities.  I am unsure if it is from the new patch but it would make sense considering that this has never happened before. Any thoughts?

[Ironclad]

Its a change introduced by the patch, as stated in the documentation:

"Rule Change: Two Siege Phases. There are now two siege phases, one before movement and one after. Many siege values have been halved to compensate for the fact that there are now two siege phases."

[Gil R.]

This is actually one of our best improvements, since it gives the player a better chance of rescuing besieged forces. In the current (pre-this-patch) version of the game, since sieges are taken care of first in the movement phase it's common for sieges to end before an army comes to chase away the besiegers, but with this patch one has a much more fair shot at doing so.

Regarding McClellan, he was there last time I looked. The Union AI might decide to move him around, but the Union player should be seeing him in the July scenario. Is anyone else not getting McClellan? (As for Hancock, I don't think he starts in Turn 1, so that's not a concern.)

Regarding forts, one thing to be testing for is whether the change made to Ft. Monroe -- we now have it starting off with a division named "Department of Virginia" under the command of Butler or Wool (depending on scenario -- is in some way messing up the game. Same goes for the two new forts added to Kentucky in the November scenario. My inclination is to keep all three changes, but if they're causing trouble, that can be rethought.

[Suvorov928]

When I started a game as the CSA, I could not see Fort Henry on the map.  I could see my CSA glag flying, and if I held the mouse over the area, or click on where the fort is, I could see and select it, but the picture representing it was nowhere to be seen.  Has anyone else had this problem?  I was playing the July 1861 scenario using advanced options.

[ericbabe]

Suvorov, was this the July balanced economy or July historical economy scenario?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Suvorov928
When I started a game as the CSA, I could not see Fort Henry on the map.  I could see my CSA glag flying, and if I held the mouse over the area, or click on where the fort is, I could see and select it, but the picture representing it was nowhere to be seen.  Has anyone else had this problem?  I was playing the July 1861 scenario using advanced options.

It starts out quite damaged and therefore mostly transparent. If you click on it, what does it say for damage %?

[sirduke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its a change introduced by the patch, as stated in the documentation:

"Rule Change: Two Siege Phases. There are now two siege phases, one before movement and one after. Many siege values have been halved to compensate for the fact that there are now two siege phases."

That is an excellent improvement, i guess my inability to hold my cities and forts was just my failure at the game.[:(] Thanks for the responses.

[Motomouse]

Patch Feedback continued

Started a Southern Steel Game on the advanced settings as the Union. Definitly no CSA Hordes so far. Union blockade enacted, invested a lot of money in european diplomacy. After the succesfull siege of Fort Johnston the Union won the Battle of ... Fredericksburg ... by a narrow margin (as attacker). The AI accomplished a coordinated attack on my right flank (perhaps the AI achieved this unconsciously ) and I had to shift my better quality divisions to this side to gain the win.

(By the way the Ai even tried to outflank me on the right, if this was not by chance, my compliments. I want my brigade level detailled battles in COG addon or COG 2)

Thanks for the good work on the game, will keep you updated on my experiences with the beta patch.

... continued ... Next month the AI came right after me and whipped me back to my starting position behind the Potomac River. No Chance to get a hold on Fredericksburg so early. After some high hopes and advances along the Mississippi during 1862 I overstreched my front and the AI took the chance and layed some minor sieges along the ohio river early in 1863 threatening my supply lines. In late march the Army of the potomac left the washington fortifications to deal with a smaller invasion in maryland. The confederates hit me hard in the flank with their main force. A bloody decisive battle at Annapolis was the consequence. Both armies brought around 80 k men to the struggle and suffered losses of more than 1/4 of their initial strength.

conclusion: The Southern Steel Scenario with the patch makes up for a very belivable game in my opinion. No CSA hordes anymore, but also a southern war effort that has still to be considered. Good work on the patch, I think you hit the balance quite well for a historical feeling with this one.

Once more I have to mention that I am really impressed with the ai on the attack in the detailed battles. I am not talking about strength in the first place, but it really achieves a very coordinated and quite plausible effort. Dont know if you tweaked it with the patch, cause i had limited experiences with the bigger battles before the patch, not playing long into the war because of the ai hordes. Glad that we got rid of them.

Regards Motomouse

[Gil R.]

Regarding Ft. Henry, Erik Rutins is correct about what's happening: to simulate the fort being under construction at that time, we started it off at a low %strength -- so low, I guess, that it is likely to confuse players. We should probably raise its %strength to the minimum number that is somewhat visible, whatever percentage that is. Thanks for drawing this issue to our attention.