RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback



Message

jecunningham -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 6:49:31 PM)

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 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 8:24:21 PM)

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 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 8:31:25 PM)

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. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 8:49:14 PM)

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 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 9:25:40 PM)

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 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 10:19:57 PM)

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



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/2/2007 10:41:08 PM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/3/2007 1:12:13 AM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/3/2007 2:57:54 AM)

Patch Feedback continued

quote:

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. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/3/2007 5:32:54 PM)

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.



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 Some issues (9/3/2007 6:21:04 PM)

Well, couple of things changed with this patch. First, trying to play the July 1861 scenario as CSA, canīt do this, because a problem with the province appears (not in the database IIRC). So I try the Coming Fury as the CSA (not the balanced economy one), advanced options (greater populations, sergeant), also beginning in July 1861. So far so good: nice touch adding the supply indicators in detailed battles, very useful!! And here come the things Iīve noticed: Iīve start the game with aprox 10 divisions, 1 corp and 2 armys, and 5 4stars generals... the maximum brigade strength for CSA appear to be 3250, but the patch info donīt say nothing about this, in my latest game before the patch it was 4000. Another strange thing: in april Iīve received 29 populations points, but the camps consumed 31!! Is that possible?? IIRC the camps had a chance of 10% to consume 1 point of population, it appear to me that every camp I have consumed 1 point... Another point: in june 1862 Iīve conquered Cairo, Jefferson, St. Louis. My NW is -2 and the Union 1? How is this possible?? I didnīt loose any important battle (I play all detailed battles) ; cities Iīve lost (but reconquered quickly were Petersburg and Chatanooga, due to a ghost single infantry brigade, that appear unspotted behind my lines and conquer my empty cities... BTW, nice game, and I find the patch a great advance!!
Max



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 Some issues (9/3/2007 7:38:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoePirulo
Well, couple of things changed with this patch. First, trying to play the July 1861 scenario as CSA, canīt do this


This scenario was obsoleted several versions ago and should have been removed by the last official update. Coming Fury is the updated July, 1861 scenario.

quote:

Another strange thing: in april Iīve received 29 populations points, but the camps consumed 31!! Is that possible?? IIRC the camps had a chance of 10% to consume 1 point of population, it appear to me that every camp I have consumed 1 point...


Sure, camps now have 5 chances at 25% each to consume 1 population point, so they'll generally consume a point each and what they consume is separate from what you regenerate (population regenerates, then camps consume).

Regards,

- Erik



Suvorov928 -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 Some issues (9/3/2007 7:47:29 PM)

Ok, thanks for the info on Fort Henry.  I am new to the game, so I am still learning some quirks, so I had no idea about the graphics fading when a fort was damaged.

About the July 1861 scenario, I too have an option for that scenario, along with Standard Campaign, Small Setup, Soutern Steel, and both Coming Fury's, for a total of 6 scenarios to choose from.  Is this correct, or should some a couple of these scenarios not be shown as being able to play?



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 Some issues (9/3/2007 9:29:43 PM)

Sounds like the latest installer isn't removing the old July scenario properly. That one is out of date and has been replaced by the two Coming Fury scenarios.



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 Some issues (9/4/2007 12:48:56 AM)

JoePirulo, you're right about brigade maximums having been reduced. This was done mainly as another way of eliminating the "CSA hordes" issue. (While brigades theoretically could be at 4000 maximum -- USA and/or CSA, I can't remember which offhand -- they usually were well below that.)

One thing we're concerned about is whether the changes made to reduce the hordes (especially camps consuming more population) might severely hurt the CSA player in human-human games. If anyone out there is trying one of these, either PBEM or networked, it would be very helpful.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 Some issues (9/4/2007 3:42:56 PM)

Note that you can still increase your brigade sizes with two upgrades if you wish, it's just the starting size that was decreased.



proginc -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/4/2007 4:35:52 PM)

When starting the "July 1861" scenerio, I get a Problem error.  It reads "Province info failed column check."  and have to reboot the game.  The other scenerios work fine



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/4/2007 9:58:52 PM)

Erik, Gil. Thanks for the replys, and I find these changes positive so far. Another thing that I donīt understand, is the fact that when I conquer a city as the CSA I lose 2 points of NW... seems wrong to me.



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/5/2007 12:48:56 AM)

Proginc, from the title "July 1861" it seems to me that you might have the same problem someone else did, and the patch installer did not delete the old versions of the July scenario. (Erik Rutins posted on this issue up above.) I am out of town and unable to access wireless from my laptop, so could someone else who knows for a fact that he has the right scenarios type out the full list of names of scenario folders as they should appear in Windows Explorer, or post a screenshot?
Where I'm going with this is that if you have an old scenario folder, that would probably mean the code was looking for data that are no longer there, or have moved around.

JoePirulo, that's a question for Eric. I just didn't want to post right after you and seem to be ignoring your question.



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/5/2007 8:44:49 PM)

Thanks again Gil. Hope that this issue isnīt a big problem.
Max



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/6/2007 1:35:33 AM)

You wouldn't happen to have a save on that, would you Joe?  I've noticed that what I consider a large battle and what the comp considers a large battle sometimes aren't the same.  So maybe you lost something you thought was small which can swing it.  Of course, you could tell quite quickly from the Nation screen if you had a negative VP for battles or not but I'm just hypothesizing. 



ericbabe -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/6/2007 2:09:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoePirulo

Erik, Gil. Thanks for the replys, and I find these changes positive so far. Another thing that I donīt understand, is the fact that when I conquer a city as the CSA I lose 2 points of NW... seems wrong to me.


Our beta testers thought the NW changes for city captures were working, but I'll look into this. Do you happen to remember which city it was?



cesteman -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/6/2007 6:27:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Proginc, from the title "July 1861" it seems to me that you might have the same problem someone else did, and the patch installer did not delete the old versions of the July scenario. (Erik Rutins posted on this issue up above.) I am out of town and unable to access wireless from my laptop, so could someone else who knows for a fact that he has the right scenarios type out the full list of names of scenario folders as they should appear in Windows Explorer, or post a screenshot?
Where I'm going with this is that if you have an old scenario folder, that would probably mean the code was looking for data that are no longer there, or have moved around.


FYI, I have 4 count them 4 Coming Fury scenarios. I have a generic Fury, plus two that say Balanced scenario ( a&b) plus one that says Coming Fury balanced scenario. I noticed they've been there for at least the past month. Cheers.



Gil R. -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/6/2007 4:58:55 PM)

No, that's two too many. Since I still can't access this info, could Erik or Eric or someone else with the proper two scenarios please illuminate everyone on this?

In the meantime, those eager to know can simply look at the commanders.txt file in each of the folders -- the two current scenarios will have a copy of that file updated about two weeks ago, while the other two will have a file not updated in months.



JoePirulo -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/6/2007 5:23:27 PM)

Eric,
I use to save every turn of my game, so I found it. When I conquer Cincinatti (I play CSA) in the events report I found this. My NW before the conquest was -2. And after the conquest -7, and this appear in the report (I copy the text, because I donīt know how to post the screen, sorry): "CSA NW changes: -5 city captured (New NW -7). USA NW changes: 1 capture city (New NW 0). Cincinatti has been successfully besieged and capture by the CSA." Hope this help. Best regards,
Max.



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 5:48:09 AM)

Unfortunately I've confirmed Joe's observation. And may have found at least 2 more bugs. Since I can only do 1 pic per post the next several posts will illustrate this.

Here's confirmation of National Will backwards. Note that VP still seems to be working appropriately despite the erroneous message.




[image]local://upfiles/17404/9E96CD8CB41C4A2BBBACD2F21BC075BC.jpg[/image]



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 5:50:53 AM)

I also happened to take a screenshot of this same city being captured in a different playtest session. Interestingly the NW affect is different which I found weird. I thought it was constant. In neither scenario was there any mustering or anything from this city so I'm believing that the pop was the same both times.





[image]local://upfiles/17404/AFC46640457F46B9B7BB448ADB90F728.jpg[/image]

Umm, after reviewing this pic the NW actually seems to behave as expected. Doubly weird.



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 5:55:30 AM)

Not sure if this is a bug but it's confusing. Here's a capture of Topeka by the CSA. Note that there are two NW messages but only the bigger one actually went into effect.



[image]local://upfiles/17404/415762FB0B2A49608EE27E7CA300B85C.jpg[/image]



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 5:57:02 AM)

Here's another screenshot showing the NW from the same event list. It only shows -4 for the US.


[image]local://upfiles/17404/C1886631A9BF46089E9B91CCB77D7A33.jpg[/image]



Joram -> RE: Testing of Patch 1.10.5 (9/7/2007 6:01:54 AM)

I'll lay off the rest of the screenshots but here are other bugs I saw.

1) When US recaptured an Open Topeka, there was no NW change though they did gain 1VP
2) Similarly, when i had a session where CSA just walked into Topeka, there was no NW change, just 1VP gain.

There is never an event message saying that the city has been captured when it's open.

3) I've had several instances where the strategic map shows a city capture but there is no mention of it in the event list.  This happens after a siege (the first screenshot I posted actually had this issue).  The event list does show the capture a whole turn later.  Not sure if this is related to the NW issue or not.  It could be related to the double siege mechanic perhaps?

I've seen no VP issues, that is always reflected on the turn the strategic map shows the change regardless of what is listed in the event dialogue.  It is always 1VP per city though, correct?

To recap, sometimes the NW works such as in the Topeka screenshot and the 2nd Cairo one but sometimes it doesn't as in the 1st Cairo screenshot and another I have of Wheeling. And the behaviour I noted when Topeka was wide open.

All this testing has been done in PBEM so I can control the movement.

Oh, one more thing:
4) I've had a devil of a time getting "Attack the Fort" working in PBEM mode. In single player, you are kicked into hexwar and the result is the result from that (or if you let the comp fight the battle). But in PBEM, what happens? Is it actually trying to siege and then halving the result since there are two siege phases but the program is getting confused?

4b) I was besieging a fort in PBEM and wanted to switch the option to "Attack the Fort" and that option was not available.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75