ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
C. Hecht wrote:
I'm not aware that any 6pdr were build in the late war, what is here are surely modified guns only. Even the ANV send back their 6pdrs to recast them to 12pdr, by the time of Gettysburg there was just a single 6pdr field gun in the ANV left.
Problem in my eyes is that the naming does not really reflect the modification, you simply can't use the weight anymore as benchmark for the weapons performance to compare a modified 6pdr with a none modified 12pdr.


One thing to keep in mind, is that in Petersburg, the weapons in question, are not used. At least, I don't think they are, I can't recall. Point them out if you see one. But on the pdt, "all" weapon types are visible.

_________________
Brig. Gen. Rich Walker
AotW I/3/4
Scenario Designer:
Franklin, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Petersburg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1002
Location:
Rich Walker wrote:
C. Hecht wrote:
I'm not aware that any 6pdr were build in the late war, what is here are surely modified guns only. Even the ANV send back their 6pdrs to recast them to 12pdr, by the time of Gettysburg there was just a single 6pdr field gun in the ANV left.
Problem in my eyes is that the naming does not really reflect the modification, you simply can't use the weight anymore as benchmark for the weapons performance to compare a modified 6pdr with a none modified 12pdr.


One thing to keep in mind, is that in Petersburg, the weapons in question, are not used. At least, I don't think they are, I can't recall. Point them out if you see one. But on the pdt, "all" weapon types are visible.

Hi, Rich,

There is one in the Jerusalem Plank Road scenario.

But the larger issue is the variations in weapons effectiveness over PDTs in the other games. A Napoleon should be as effective in Georgia as it is in Virginia. In either case, I believe it
should be significantly more effective at close range than a 3" rifle. For what it's worth, I think they overdid it in the Overland package, where a Napoleon is over twice as effective as
a 3" rifle at one hex. I hope as the Civil War titles conclude a standard PDT file that makes sense will apply to all.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Terra
Now, I worked through all the weapons in the PDTs and in comparison to Overland all none-artillery weapons got lower values while all artillery has gotten higher. On 1 hex it's not that much but rather high fire values are kept in ranges up to 10 hexes. Usually we had a quick drop in that range and after that a slow decline of the fire values till max range, now the decline is rather straight from the start and runs more in a straight line instead of a curve.
Just wonder what reasons are there to make artillery so different from all previous games.


mihalik wrote:
I hope as the Civil War titles conclude a standard PDT file that makes sense will apply to all.

Standard PDT may be nice but the designer always has to consider all factors, starting from quality/availability of various ammo types up to tactical doctrine of artillery and the many other factors that should be considered. That may lead to a 12pdr in 1861 having not the same values as a 12pdr in 1864, and this for one or more good reasons.

_________________
Brigadier General Christian Hecht
Corps Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
Union Cabinet Secretary
Support adding a AAR SUB-FORUM


Last edited by C. Hecht on Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
mihalik wrote:
Rich Walker wrote:
C. Hecht wrote:
I'm not aware that any 6pdr were build in the late war, what is here are surely modified guns only. Even the ANV send back their 6pdrs to recast them to 12pdr, by the time of Gettysburg there was just a single 6pdr field gun in the ANV left.
Problem in my eyes is that the naming does not really reflect the modification, you simply can't use the weight anymore as benchmark for the weapons performance to compare a modified 6pdr with a none modified 12pdr.


One thing to keep in mind, is that in Petersburg, the weapons in question, are not used. At least, I don't think they are, I can't recall. Point them out if you see one. But on the pdt, "all" weapon types are visible.

Hi, Rich,

There is one in the Jerusalem Plank Road scenario.

But the larger issue is the variations in weapons effectiveness over PDTs in the other games. A Napoleon should be as effective in Georgia as it is in Virginia. In either case, I believe it
should be significantly more effective at close range than a 3" rifle. For what it's worth, I think they overdid it in the Overland package, where a Napoleon is over twice as effective as
a 3" rifle at one hex. I hope as the Civil War titles conclude a standard PDT file that makes sense will apply to all.


Because these games have been created over a twenty year span, some of the uniformity has broken down, so with the new updates being worked on we intend to create uniformity in the game basics. Not everyone will like the changes, but at least, uniformity will be the norm.

_________________
Brig. Gen. Rich Walker
AotW I/3/4
Scenario Designer:
Franklin, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Petersburg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
mihalik wrote:
Rich Walker wrote:
C. Hecht wrote:
I'm not aware that any 6pdr were build in the late war, what is here are surely modified guns only. Even the ANV send back their 6pdrs to recast them to 12pdr, by the time of Gettysburg there was just a single 6pdr field gun in the ANV left.
Problem in my eyes is that the naming does not really reflect the modification, you simply can't use the weight anymore as benchmark for the weapons performance to compare a modified 6pdr with a none modified 12pdr.


One thing to keep in mind, is that in Petersburg, the weapons in question, are not used. At least, I don't think they are, I can't recall. Point them out if you see one. But on the pdt, "all" weapon types are visible.

Hi, Rich,

There is one in the Jerusalem Plank Road scenario.

But the larger issue is the variations in weapons effectiveness over PDTs in the other games. A Napoleon should be as effective in Georgia as it is in Virginia. In either case, I believe it
should be significantly more effective at close range than a 3" rifle. For what it's worth, I think they overdid it in the Overland package, where a Napoleon is over twice as effective as
a 3" rifle at one hex. I hope as the Civil War titles conclude a standard PDT file that makes sense will apply to all.


Because these games have been created over a twenty year span, some of the uniformity has broken down, so with the new updates being worked on we intend to create uniformity in the game basics. Not everyone will like the changes, but at least, uniformity will be the norm.

_________________
Brig. Gen. Rich Walker
AotW I/3/4
Scenario Designer:
Franklin, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Petersburg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Terra
1. Still to fix is the minor but annoying bug that weapons with a fire value of zero on the first range are not showing up in the in-game PDT screen. Currently the missing weapons are in slot d, e & v in all PDTs, these are all weapons with a fire value of zero on 1 hex.

2. Note sure if the weapon is used at all but "Multiple Arms" gets 300 fire value at 1 hex in certain PDTs, I guess that is a typo as Petersburg6406.pdt uses normal values. The 300 shows up in following PDTs:
_CWB_Petersburg_CSA.pdt
_CWB_Petersburg_CSA (Weather).pdt
_CWB_Petersburg_USA.pdt
_CWB_Petersburg_USA (Weather).pdt

_________________
Brigadier General Christian Hecht
Corps Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
Union Cabinet Secretary
Support adding a AAR SUB-FORUM


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
C. Hecht wrote:
1. Still to fix is the minor but annoying bug that weapons with a fire value of zero on the first range are not showing up in the in-game PDT screen. Currently the missing weapons are in slot d, e & v in all PDTs, these are all weapons with a fire value of zero on 1 hex.

2. Note sure if the weapon is used at all but "Multiple Arms" gets 300 fire value at 1 hex in certain PDTs, I guess that is a typo as Petersburg6406.pdt uses normal values. The 300 shows up in following PDTs:
_CWB_Petersburg_CSA.pdt
_CWB_Petersburg_CSA (Weather).pdt
_CWB_Petersburg_USA.pdt
_CWB_Petersburg_USA (Weather).pdt


300 is a typo, and I don't think it is used, but I corrected it. The others are mortars, and can't be fired at 1 hex, not enough arc at 125 yards.

_________________
Brig. Gen. Rich Walker
AotW I/3/4
Scenario Designer:
Franklin, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Petersburg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:57 am
Posts: 136
Location: USA
Rich Walker wrote:
Because these games have been created over a twenty year span, some of the uniformity has broken down, so with the new updates being worked on we intend to create uniformity in the game basics. Not everyone will like the changes, but at least, uniformity will be the norm.

I'm glad that this is finally being considered, and hopefully the weather and supply wagon movement is also part of the standardization plan. I'm currently playing a Vicksburg and an Antietam pbem and those Maryland supply wagons are hot rods compared to the Mississippi ones; it seems like a no-brainer that this should be fixed. (Let me know if you need help with these tasks).

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Simonitch
1st Brigade, 2nd Division
VI Corps, AoS
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
I have reevaluated the weapons data on the PDTs. They will be included with the new updates coming in a few weeks. They will be incorporated into all the games of the series. I have given the files to Joe, so if he can attach them here, I would welcome comments. I forgot how to attach files on the MB. Other MBs make it easy, but not here.

_________________
Brig. Gen. Rich Walker
AotW I/3/4
Scenario Designer:
Franklin, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Petersburg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 1208
Location: USA
Unfortunately the forum does not allow the uploading of PDT files at this time, but I do have copies of Rich's latest work and will be glad to send these along. as best as I can, to anyone who cares to e-mail me for them. Otherwise, as Rich said, the files will be included in the pending update.

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer,
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1002
Location:
Rich Walker wrote:
I have reevaluated the weapons data on the PDTs. They will be included with the new updates coming in a few weeks. They will be incorporated into all the games of the series. I have given the files to Joe, so if he can attach them here, I would welcome comments. I forgot how to attach files on the MB. Other MBs make it easy, but not here.


Thanks, Rich!

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Terra
Although I had pointed it out myself I think the strange 300 fire value in weapon slot l (Multiple Arms) was purposely set so. I found a unit in the "July 30 1864.oob" called "Mine" with just a single men using that weapon slot. That OOB is used only in the scenarios "034 The Crater, July 30th, 1864.scn" & "035w The Crater, July 30th, 1864.scn".
If that is really meant to simulate a mine I recommend to add another PDT that keeps the 300 in slot and change the PDT used in these 2 scenarios. That way this "Mine" can be used by these scenarios and by future variants/3rd party scenarios that what to utilize a mine, this way it's also assured that any unit using the "normal" Multiple Arms can use it in the main PDTs.

_________________
Brigadier General Christian Hecht
Corps Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
Union Cabinet Secretary
Support adding a AAR SUB-FORUM


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1002
Location:
C. Hecht wrote:
Although I had pointed it out myself I think the strange 300 fire value in weapon slot l (Multiple Arms) was purposely set so. I found a unit in the "July 30 1864.oob" called "Mine" with just a single men using that weapon slot. That OOB is used only in the scenarios "034 The Crater, July 30th, 1864.scn" & "035w The Crater, July 30th, 1864.scn".
If that is really meant to simulate a mine I recommend to add another PDT that keeps the 300 in slot and change the PDT used in these 2 scenarios. That way this "Mine" can be used by these scenarios and by future variants/3rd party scenarios that what to utilize a mine, this way it's also assured that any unit using the "normal" Multiple Arms can use it in the main PDTs.


I believe the mine detonation uses the penalty for being too close to a reinforcement hex. I'm not sure what 'multiple arms' means, since you already have 'mixed arms'.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
mihalik wrote:
C. Hecht wrote:
Although I had pointed it out myself I think the strange 300 fire value in weapon slot l (Multiple Arms) was purposely set so. I found a unit in the "July 30 1864.oob" called "Mine" with just a single men using that weapon slot. That OOB is used only in the scenarios "034 The Crater, July 30th, 1864.scn" & "035w The Crater, July 30th, 1864.scn".
If that is really meant to simulate a mine I recommend to add another PDT that keeps the 300 in slot and change the PDT used in these 2 scenarios. That way this "Mine" can be used by these scenarios and by future variants/3rd party scenarios that what to utilize a mine, this way it's also assured that any unit using the "normal" Multiple Arms can use it in the main PDTs.


I believe the mine detonation uses the penalty for being too close to a reinforcement hex. I'm not sure what 'multiple arms' means, since you already have 'mixed arms'.


No need to over complicate things. It's no longer a 300, as the 300 had no significance. It's a mine

_________________
Brig. Gen. Rich Walker
AotW I/3/4
Scenario Designer:
Franklin, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Petersburg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Petersburg: Feedback and Fixes, post here
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Terra
Worked a bit through the scenarios and found some minor things:
1. Scenario titles that can be confused
Usually the scenario titles for variants/what-Ifs do at least differ by the addition of the Roman II, III, IV, etc, but some titles don't follow this path and should be corrected. The scenarios are:
013
018
019
022
025
026
027
028
031
040
041
044
045
046(uses already Roman I in title what is usual not used)
047(uses already Roman I in title what is usual not used)
048(uses already 2 in title what is usual not used)
049(uses already 2 in title what is usual not used)
054
066
071
094
104
105
142
143


2. Titles wrong
Some titles are obviously wrong:
081 "Hatcher's Run_Weather, Feb 6th, 1865" That titles differs from 080.
099 "Five Forks II, April 1st, 1865" It's variant III not II.
139 "Appomattox I, April 9th, 1865 Weather" That titles differs from 138.


3. Titles of AI scenarios
These usually start with CWB_ but some don't:
212
223
224w
224x


4. Number of turns of weather & none weather variant diffe.
Usually these are the same and there maybe be reasons that the number of turns differ but it's just not clear if intended or an error:
038
039
080
081
082
083
092
093
134
135

_________________
Brigadier General Christian Hecht
Corps Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
Union Cabinet Secretary
Support adding a AAR SUB-FORUM


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: