Timing for next patch?

[GShock]

JastaV and I are interested in playing a PBEM and we already also agreed on posting 2 full and separated AARs to document it. Since we're both ultra experienced with the AGE engine this looks to be a very promising WiA game.

However I have requested to postpone this match till a few problems are solved.

1) Besieged force resupplies at will from the very same regional facilities.

2) The Shipping box rules management differ from setting to setting with the least micromanagement corresponding to the least EP generated but unfortunately this doesn't match the prices to be paid in EP for the various actions. EP prices should match the % of EP generated according to the rule in place.

I was wondering if there are any news about these reported issues. Some sort of timing would be nice so we can get organized on when to actually start this pbem.

[dunnsa]

1) WIP. Prototype works well

2) Please point me to where this was reported so I can understand it better. Design discussion started with WIA beta team.

Patch timing TBD. Bug list submitted and being worked on.

[GShock]

1) This answer was a charm.

2) Reported to Hok who was busy on other project. I'll explain:

I am merely remarking upon the paradox of a math proportion between EP "income" and "expense" where the changing of the rule alters only one parameter (the EP shipping income) while it should alter both parameters (the expense too).

Ledger choices make sense when playing with full antimicromanagement rules for shipping boxes. The EPs generated with this setting really force the player to take choices and are just basically perfect.
When this rule is not in place the amount of EPs generated per turn is so high that there's no need to take a choice...you can take all options even simultaneously.

Example: Rightmost shipping rule =

You generate 4 points per turn and supplies cost 20 EPs. Balanced: it takes 5 turns to build 20 EPs.

Example: Leftmost (Default) shipping rule =

You generate 8 points per turn (with same number of ships) and supplies cost 20EPs. Unbalanced: It takes 3 turns to build 20EPs.

4:20=8:X
X=40 <--

(Figures are according to example on 4 and 8 numbers)

You understand what i am trying to say?

[Arsan]

Hi

Certainly on previous version EP's were to easy to come by. One could buy all the options and still have EP to spare.
But on this last patch i think they were reduced.
Playing the 1755 campaign as the British i get 4+4+3 EPs form the boxes plus some other from taking strategic towns, events and the like.
Let say like 15 per turn. With this number i can only take an option a turn and i have to make choices and let a dozen unused options in store.
I think the generation/spend is more or less Ok now.
Maybe on the 1775 campaigns EP's are more numerous?? [&:] (i have not tried it on 1.04c)

PS: i always play with the micromanaging naval option. IMHO there is not much to do there on WIA (much less than on AACW) so i don't see much use for the automated managing of the boxes.

[dunnsa]

Fascinating math. Of course, it typically takes the USA side that long to buy supply too, and the purchase of it is not simulating shipping across an ocean
[note that the FIW Campaign has added French Merchants, so they are also affected...]

At this time, we will probably not change the EP costs in options when the naval option is changed.

There are ample other opportunities to earn EP:
Hold Strategic Cities
Capture Objectives
Win battles
Events

The simplification of the naval handling [allowing privateers and other combat ships longevity in shipping boxes] is offset by fewer EP from shipping, which reduces the need for expensive combat ships [Privateers, Frigates, etc] to be there. Look at it as a difficulty setting, reducing the huge advantages given the side with merchants [usually GBR]

Corollary: AFAIK, choosing the similar option in AACW does not reduce the costs of unit purchases. Same logic.

Your opinion on this component of the game is duly noted, and will recieve all the consideration it is due.

[GShock]

Very well, we shall wait for the next patch and then start our pbem. [:)]

[GShock]

P.S. to be extrasure, when i mentioned 1) i was also meaning that besieged troops not only get resupplied but they also get replacements. I really hope your prototype takes this thing in consideration. Anyway, no hurry, we can wait for the PBEM.&nbsp;

[JastaV]

EP flow is okay in first 2-3 years of longer campaign scenarios.
Not so later when player gains advantage over Athena: at that point you have a mess of EP against few Options to activate.

Notice, gains from Options activation have till a limited effect over game. For example by MO you'll get very few units while most new units will be added by scripted events.
There's not a war effort mamagement in WIA.

[JastaV]

Is FE counter working???????
Playing the USA Indipendence War GC scenario for British side I achived a negative FE points value, none the less France and Spain jointed the rebel side.
That's okay for game challenge and for historical accuracy, but I start thinking FE does not work....
Why I should, as a player, expend EP to activate Options influencing the FE in my favour when France and Spain will joint the Rebel side anyway?

[dunnsa]

ORIGINAL: JastaV

Is FE counter working???????
Playing the USA Indipendence War GC scenario for British side I achived a negative FE points value, none the less France and Spain jointed the rebel side.
That's okay for game challenge and for historical accuracy, but I start thinking FE does not work....
Why I should, as a player, expend EP to activate Options influencing the FE in my favour when France and Spain will joint the Rebel side anyway?

Bug already reported.
http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread. ... ghlight=FE post #28
Fix is on the buglist.
Completed beta tests show that FE is working correctly for both sides, but display is incorrect for British side.

[GShock]

Well but i see then that there are many important things being worked on and i'm super happy. Cant' wait to start this pbem and i hope the new 1) prototype denies reinforcements from joining the besieged forces. There might be a real cut on sieging times forcing early surrenders which, on the other hand is a good thing because of the VP involved in the process and the general lack of siege arty on the besieging side which is always under attrition stress.

JastaV try playing with the rightmost shipping box rule and see if you still have more EPs than you need.

[JastaV]

ORIGINAL: GShock

JastaV try playing with the rightmost shipping box rule and see if you still have more EPs than you need.

Thanks for the tip, I will do in next scenario I'll play!

[JastaV]

ORIGINAL: GShock

JastaV and I are interested in playing a PBEM and we already also agreed on posting 2 full and separated AARs to document it. Since we're both ultra experienced with the AGE engine this looks to be a very promising WiA game.......
I was wondering if there are any news about these reported issues. Some sort of timing would be nice so we can get organized on when to actually start this pbem.

Before starting a PBEM over a very long scenario as the one you suggested, I recommend to discuss and possibly clarify some issues.....

Siege routine optimization will be very welcome.
Although it’s coming a bit late: I had so many played scenarios wasted by bugs and unpredictable problems, in past months

Hopefully, clarifications regarding the Philadelphia bug I reported in past weeks will be useful too: here the “incident” was represented by winning troops retiring after the turn resolution rather than occupying the town.
Notice, I recently experienced something like that in a NCP PBEM: here my opponent orders to assault a besieged and breached fortress with an active army were ignored in the turn execution phase and the assaulting army retreated without assaulting my fortress …… not an AI trouble, it was a PBEM match: it’s rather an engine problem.

Recently, I had chance to start discussing with GShock over an abysmal “incident” wasting my plans in WIA! It’s curious I was the first and possibly only one to have experienced that.

I was playing WIA “Few Acres of Snow”, I was controlling Ticonderoga and on the way to launch an offensive to the north to occupy Montreal.
1. I had a 7000 men British army supported by artillery, supply carriage, cavalry in Ticonderoga. At May weather is okay for military operation and I order my Army to march north!
2. I process the turn: I see my army slowly advancing north as days flow. Then, when the turn resolution is close to conclusion the Army is abruptly and unpredictably shifted back on its starting position in Ticonderoga!!!!!!
No explanation in the after action turn report!!!!!!
3. June turn: same advance orders, same movement path planned, same effect!!!!????
4. All that same with July turn!!!!!!
5. August turn: my army is always in Ticonderoga and I’m a bit, very enraged!!!!
I order some irregular units (Indians, Rangers) to move north: they are ambushed by Franco-Canadian irregulars, some hundred men that were not visible on the map. My scouting party is defeated in the ambush and retires…. But know I’m aware of the presence of the enemy irregulars!
6. September: I move by separate stack the main 7000 men regular British army and the scouting party: these last men have reasons over French irregulars. The enemy un-scouted irregulars are wiped out and now my main Army can successfully advance north.
8. October: unfortunately winter is coming, I have to stop operations and move back my invasion army to Ticonderoga to seek cover from harsh weather.

Now some hundred men, invisible on the map succeeded stopping a 7000 men army movement.
We should admit its odd and stupid!
I wasted a year game time for that reason, and my campaign scenario was wasted: it’s abysmal!!!!

According to logic, historical, military and game logic, I can assume some 100 men could ambush my 7000 men regular army while marching north across the wilderness: I can assume to suffer some hundreds casualties in the ambush. I cannot assume 100 men will inhibit 7000 men movement for months. Notice, no actual ambush resulted out of many turns execution: my 7000 men army simply shifted back and the small enemy party was never revealed! Without using my irregular troops to screen and secure the area I’d never noticed the trouble!
Yes, a can see some analogy with the supply unit transport by see from Halifax to continental coast. An invisible enemy unit was always behind the troubles!

Comments and suggestions as regard, even to by pass the problems will be very welcome before starting a PBEM!

[GShock]

Well i understand your "a bit, very enraged" (lol a bit or very? cant be both sorry!).

This has also possibly already been reported. It's another of the reasons why despite willing (gladly actually) to play this pbem i suggested to wait for next patch. Be patient, meanwhile let's see if Lefty has something to say about this issue, i'm confident the solution is at hand and we won't have to wait much.

[dunnsa]

Region move blockage has been reported between Winooski and Crown Point, and between Crown Point and St Sacrement

Reason has been identified
It is on the bug list already.


Rage is counterproductive. Try calm, enlightened discussion of facts, without opinions.

[JastaV]

ORIGINAL: lodilefty

Region move blockage has been reported between Winooski and Crown Point, and between Crown Point and St Sacrement

Reason has been identified
It is on the bug list already.

Rage is counterproductive. Try calm, enlightened discussion of facts, without opinions.

Not WIA at hand now, but I'll check the map and wil report the exact regions were I experienced troubles, for AGeod to check it!

Guess forum pages exist to host but all, opinions!
As regard the "enlightened discussion of facts" their place is a professional beta testing and development team: you know, you pay proffesionists, you get aseptic professional work![;)]

Uncontrolled rage is counterproductive, a well directed rage is creative.... see Caravaggio's paints!!!![:D]

[JastaV]

ORIGINAL: GShock

Well i understand your "a bit, very enraged" (lol a bit or very? cant be both sorry!).

Who said cant be both?
You have to admit it sounds so Sheaksperian [8D] !

......and "A mid-time, unbugged, dreaming patch" could sound as a perfect title!

[GShock]

Lodi is there anything that can be done in "short terms" about besieged troops resupplying and getting replacements if depot is present despite the stack being besieged?

I mean as of 1) you said ...well you let slip out that prototype works well but we were talking about resupplying, does this also take into account replacements?

[JastaV]

ORIGINAL: lodilefty
Region move blockage has been reported between Winooski and Crown Point, and between Crown Point and St Sacrement

Here are locations were I met troubles:

St Sacrement to Crown Point
Crown Point to Winooski
Winooski to La Motte

Notice, "to" indicates movement direction.
And good most findings are matching!

[JastaV]

Pequot War scenario, Indian side played.
Noticed Mason's Army and Endecott's Army are using same British general portrait.
Hope reporting in time for a fix with next patch.