SCENARIO: American Civil War Full-Release Version

Originally posted by Procifica
19 people (at least) have downloaded this scenario. Has anyone else had any problems with it?

Click to expand...

I downloaded both the PTW c and d versions, and tried to load it maybe half a dozen times, but I always got the 76% crash. I have the European 1.14f PTW version, and a very old computer (P3-500, 256MB). In any case, it seems that the 76% bug occurs before any interaction with the map, and thus most of the scenario contents. Could it perhaps be a memory allocation problem? Considering the amount of work you have put into this scenario I think that someone at Firaxis should take a look at this. Messing around with backups in vanilla civ is, to be honest, a pain, and I would very much like to have a working PTW version before I give it a try. Besides, having a good PTW scenario should appeal to Firaxis as well, especially since they failed to include any in the release.

Rocoteh, myself, and several others have been trying to figure out what is causing this 76% crash for over a month now, with no success.

We thought Beta Version 1.93 was the solution to the crash (taking off the massive amount of units/improvements associated with 1860 tech and leaving them with no tech), but it still results in crashes for some.

The scenario was created on the Civ3 editor (Version 1.29f), and no one has reported ANY problems on Civ3 that I know of. But I understand that backing stuff up in regular Civ3 can be a pain...I gave up on doing that and just dumped everything into the respective folders (except pediaicons.txt and civilopedia.txt, which I have to switch back and forth). Since for myself, it loads on PTW, this no longer is as much of a problem. BUT, it needs to load for everyone on PTW.

I wish there was someone around on this forum who knew more about the technical aspects of the editor, who could maybe help.

I doubt Firaxis would seriously consider helping.

Anyways, on to other news. Based on the new Civil War book series I'm reading, I will be slowly working on some changes to army placement in West Virginia and Missouri (WVa is quite inaccurate at this time, Wheeling and Grafton should be Union, and Union forces should be larger, I'll probably add at least 1, probably 2 more cities between Grafton and Charleston for the Confederate forces to hold (Phillipi will be one if it fits)). Missouri, well, Jefferson City seems to have been Union as of June 14, 1861, but another book I read had it as Confederate in early July. So I'm not sure what to do about that. I also need to boost the army in St. Louis slightly.

Pawel: You said that the error occurs before interaction with the map. Do you maybe know what part of the load is at 76%? Scenario contents, so like what part would be the problem? Memory allocation, where would such an error be likely to occur? I would appreciate any help you could offer.

Pawel,

Have you tried loading from Multiplayer?

Rocoteh

Is the 76% crash still a problem for others, who have
downloaded ACW?

Rocoteh

I am sorry to say that I really have no inside knowledge of the scenario load sequence. One can of course speculate, but I think that the best way to proceed is actually to contact someone who does know the internals of the program. While they may not be willing to debug the scenario, I would be surprised if Firaxis would not respond at least in some general manner.

What I can say for sure is that on my hardware I did load an earlier version (I don't remember which) on vanilla civ, and I have never managed to load a PTW version in single player mode. I have not tested multi, but I can try.

While there may be some legal aspects to consider, I think that in general you underestimate value scenarios such as this, and other in this forum, add to the game. In my opinion it goes far beyond the few maps that were included on the CD. A couple of good scenarios might easily double the number of times the average player would play the game. I doubt that Firaxis is completely insensitive to such considerations.

Thank you, for your reflections concerning ACW.

Yes, I think you are right. We should consider to
contact Firaxis. I am a pro. historian and I can say
that Procifica have done a really good research on
this scenario.

If you try to load from multiplayer it would be very interesting
to hear if it works.

Rocoteh

I'll see if I can contact Firaxis later.

Almost all of the vanilla civ versions since very early beta have loaded with no problems as far as I know, except for ones which had known bugs (which were later corrected).

I work every day this week till Saturday (then have a meeting on Saturday), so my time spent on this scenario is not going to be much till Saturday or Sunday.

If anyone else can test the scenario so we can try to pinpoint what is specifically causing the error (or even narrow it down some), that would be a great help to me.

PTW-version have loaded 150+,( without a single crash)
from Multiplayer on my computer.

I should appreciate if a computer-pro could explain that.

Hello. I also had the 76% problem on version C, but on version D it worked fine. Also, I believe you have 2 2B 2nd Division Army of the Potomacs in DC.

Yes, you're right...I do. I've corrected it on my hard drive version...it'll be put into the next uploaded update (whether it be a bug fix or the major update described below).

Next major update will include some small changes to unit placement in Washington DC (they'll get a larger garrison) and Richmond area (a couple Confederate units will be placed between Richmond and Norfolk), major changes to WVa (several new cities, larger Union force, concentrated Confederate force, Wheeling and Grafton Union occupied), and some changes to Missouri (several new cities, Jefferson City Union occupied, some Confederates in Carthage changed to Irregular, Irregulars placed in western and northern Missouri, Union force in northern Missouri). I'm also looking to add a city or two in central Kentucky/Tennessee, to fill the large gaps between Bowling Green and London, and Nashville and Knoxville.

I'm also yet again considering playing around with the railroads. Here's what I'm proposing. Change the roads to rails, EXCEPT at the following situations: ALL cities will have roads, all junctions of railroads (where they meet or cross) will be roads. Reason behind this: in most cities where railroads met, the railroads weren't connected to each other (example of this was the B & O in Baltimore, it did not connect with the Wilmington and Philadelphia line). This will somewhat help speed up the scenario in some ways, will give some advantages to the AI, and will allow more diverse strategy, while at the same time, you won't be able to zip forces across the map in one turn. If this is implemented, roads will be increased to 1/2 movement cost, instead of 1/3.

Anonymous: Its good that version D fixed the 76% error for you. I wish we could find a universal fix. I'll work on it probably on Thursday.

Before changing railroads, I suggest you make a playtest
version with the above changes.

I think there is a great risk that the new railroad-rules
you are talking about will give strategic mobility that
are unrealistic.

When you consider that Union rail-capacity was 10 000
men each month, it can give absurd effects if you allow
100 000+ moving around by rail each month.

Concerning new rules, a sudden death option (its easy
to create) should have priority.

Well, if I change roads to 1/2 movement, and make every city and every railroad junction a road, then rail movement wouldn't be that fast (not really much faster than the current roads).

That was just a proposed change, it probably won't go in with the other changes, as it needs more studying and such. The changes in army placement and city ownership is on my next set of updates, but it probably won't be for a week or two at least. I'd like further testing with the current version done, to make sure everything works good.

As I've stated before, this scenario will be updated and constantly improved, but the rate of Version changes is going to be about once or twice a month (except bug fixes). I encourage people to play the scenario now, so I know if any other changes should be included in future versions.

Sudden death option?

Sudden death option:

Yes we discussed this in the other ACW-thread a
month ago.
I suggested that by using the Mass Regicide rule,
the loss of 5 or 6 key cities would result in instant
defeat.
In fact its possible that this rule should be a "must"
option since many people probably don`t want to play
ACW 540 turns.

I think its also more realistic than conquest rules:
With CSA and Union fighting to the last city.

I can try setting that up for the PTW version (its impossible in Civ3 far as I know to mimic it).

I will add that to my changes list. A shorter game might draw more people into the scenario.

Not having to play the scenario 540 turns is one reason why I was considering tinkering with the railroads. Some rail movements were as much as 200 miles in one day. If only there was some way to limit rail movement. (as far as the realism of 10,000 troops/month, the current system of railroads setup could in theory allow 100,000+ troops to move by railroad/month)

Here we have the problem with the "holy" railroad rule.
I don`t understand why Firaxis is holding on to it.
Its an old boardgame-tradition to limit railroad-movement
by setting limits for each turn.
I hope Firaxis will change to that tradition.

I agree that being forced to play until all cities are conquered is unrealistic. Conquest of key cities should be sufficient to force a "surrender."

The only trick now would be to come up with the list of objective cities for each side.

Yes, and I suggest these:
Union Key Cities: Washington D.C.,Baltimore,Philadelphia,
Columbus,Indianapolis and Springfield(IL).
Loss of these cities should be=Union sues for peace,
CSA independent.

CSA Key Cities: Richmond, Atlanta, Charleston(SC),
Vicksburg, Nashville and Memphis.
Loss of these cities should be=CSA surrenders.

All ideas on these matter are welcome.

Rocoteh

Maybe there should also be a short-game option
with only 2 key cities per side.

Reflections on that are welcome.

Rocoteh

Originally posted by Rocoteh
Yes, and I suggest these:
Union Key Cities: Washington D.C.,Baltimore,Philadelphia,
Columbus,Indianapolis and Springfield(IL).
Loss of these cities should be=Union sues for peace,
CSA independent.

CSA Key Cities: Richmond, Atlanta, Charleston(SC),
Vicksburg, Nashville and Memphis.
Loss of these cities should be=CSA surrenders.

All ideas on these matter are welcome.

Rocoteh

Click to expand...

Might I also suggest New Orleans as a CSA objective? I think you just forgot it, as you had Vicksburg.