Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/20/2012 10:40:37 PM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 501
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

How did Matrix let it come to this. Only Ralph. Unbelievable. The game is being held hostage by one uncaring or unconcerned individual. Only Ralph needs to give up the source code if his is the only copy, as short sighted as that seems. How did it come to this?


I had to re-read this a few time to make sure I wasn't imagining things. I have only interacted with Ralph directly a few times, and always with great satisfaction.

Uncaring? Unconcerned? You should be ashamed to have written that, IMHO.

I have owned this game since TOAWI. As great as it was then, it is greater now.

And people wonder why many of the great mod creators, and people who assist development of games in addition to their other duties, walk away in disgust.





When I tell someone I am going to do something I understand that the responsible thing to do is what I said I would do. If, for some reason, I can't complete what was promised in a reasonable time I communicate that. Not to do either of those two things would be irresponsible. It would demonstrate that either I didn't care about my commitment or was unconcerned about the consequences of not finishing my stated obligation. Now, if any of this is untrue please tell me.

Furthermore, if my inaction, in this case holding onto the code, prevents someone else from finishing that task that I have been complacent towards then it worsens the situation.

Now maybe you and Ralph are good buddies. And if that is so perhaps you should have, long ago, interacted directly with Ralph concerning the long delayed 3.5 and we wouldn't even be having this conversation to all of our greatest satisfaction.

Also, there is no mention of the game being bad. BTW, your last paragraph is a good attempt at hyperbole. Wrong but a good attempt.

What disgusts me is when something is amiss and fanbois bury their heads in the sand and pander to the very ones who hold the entire fan base hostage.


I am not "good buddies" with Ralph. I have exchanged a few emails with him and that is it. I was objecting to what appeared to me to be unwarranted character assassination. However, you appear satisfied that it is warranted.

As Klink stated above, let's work together to move forward.

_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 121
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 1:03:00 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Surely someone on the TOAD team has a phone # for Ralph, and can call him to see what's up and mention some of these points?


I called the number he gave me twice (it was long distance - Colorado - by the way). Got an answering machine both times. Left a message & return # both times. He never returned my call either time.

quote:

As to other comments, I'm sure Bearflag wasn't here to trash anyone's efforts, either Norm's or Ralph's,


He sure did a bang-up imititation of it.

quote:

just to point out some unpalatable truths,


Interwoven with some unpalatable falsehoods.

quote:

and squabbling among ourselves doesn't help the community cause much it seems to me on issues like this.


Well, then stop squabbling!

quote:

Some of the points you'd mention I'd disagree with also:

Direction. Matrix did/does have a direction- profit. If it doesn't help in that direction, it won't get much air time. Which is why it got handed off to TOAD, since improvements for free could increase revenue for little or no cost.


Matrix doesn't set the direction - except via Ralph. The development team works for free. Ralph must be close to working for free. So much for that theory.

quote:

Development.As you point out we needed to fix the basics and get a decent baseline first.


Gee, that sure sounds like "direction" to me.

quote:

As to 1/2 assed, to date I wouldn't agree, but I think nobody would quibble if I suggested that any development effort is almost by definition 1/2 assed (I'd suggest completely bolloxed myself) when the owners of the product- Take 2, Matrix or TOAD- can't get their hands on at least a release version of the source code (3.4 say) any time they want.


It's your privilege to consider anything you want to be "half-assed". But you don't get to say that and also say:

"The changes to get to 3.4 were important and there seems no criticism, implied or otherwise, of the approach taken by TOAD- everybody, including Bearflag I think, sees this, so I'd hardly say it was contrary to his opinion. Nor do I see any intimation in Bearflag's post that 'we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph' so that statement strikes me as absurd."

quote:

The thrust of what is being said- along with all available future development 'avenues'- is that we seem to be dead in the water here with TOAW,...


Well, then you know more than I do. I expect 3.5 to be finished - I just don't know when.

quote:

So then we'd have to go to your last point that if MG 'was just interested in profits, they would get out of wargames altogether' and agree. But the corollary of this is that if they were interested in wargaming's and TOAW's future they'd be engaging more with the TOAW community on these issues, wouldn't they?


We seem to be having these "engagings" on a regular basis, now. I can't wait for the next wonderful session.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/21/2012 1:04:53 AM >

(in reply to General Staff)
Post #: 122
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 1:23:41 AM   
General Staff

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Dublin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Well, then stop squabbling!

We seem to be having these "engagings" on a regular basis, now. I can't wait for the next wonderful session.

Yes, let's. I can't wait to see what Matrix has to tell us either, although I'd hardly call them regular sessions.

_____________________________

Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 123
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 1:39:09 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Thanks to Erik Rutins I'm satisfied with what is being done. While I would have liked to have it all done yesterday, January is ok. Sometimes progress is measured in small increments. It's just that, recently, the increments have been almost microscopic.

In a large family things sometimes get noisy, don't they.

< Message edited by Panama -- 12/21/2012 1:42:25 AM >

(in reply to General Staff)
Post #: 124
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 6:32:24 AM   
BearFlag

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

Curtis Lemay:

It's future is half-assed patches (quoting BearFlag)

Gee, he's practically a cheerleader. But be sure and carp Matrix about getting Ralph back to work on the next half-assed patch we're all waiting on.


So that's what it comes to Curtis? Snide sarcasm derived from a quote stripped of context? Connecting me, to "half-assed," to
Ralph when I said nothing of the sort. That's low technique and apparently mean-spirited.

That quote was, and was clearly, a prognostication predicated on no less than four conditions, two of which you have expressed yourself. The other two, highly contentious I'm sure, were "risk" (business risk) and "vision" (a creative frontier). In the very next paragraph, please note, I talk of ways to avoid that future. It's not quite so inflammatory and negative in proper context, is it?

You pulled the same trick with "Add some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment and re-release it" which was written, and meant to be, reductionist. The greater context however is found in repeated references (without condemnation) to marketing models - including a forty year old model for which you grope to justify excluding TOAW. The first wargame I can remember that established this precedent was PanzerBlitz (but there may be something older). I didn't invent the model and ToAW is certainly not exempt from it based on 'big changes' which were coincidentally attended by an equipment expansion, a topical subtitle and scenarios to match. We could argue endlessly and fruitlessly over what dividing line separates a "new" game from a new release, re-release or expansion. But such ambiguity doesn't negate the manifest pattern or that that pattern is found very clearly in TOAW releases.

If you don't like what I have to say, that's fine. Make a case against it. But stick to what I said rather than cherry-picking for quick and contextless gotcha's. Have you noticed, Curtis, that the common denominator in two sidebars is you?

It is ironic that you use the word "cheerleader" even while you defend in absentia others. I am not unsympathetic to the fact that you are the chargé d'affaires and yet nearly as much in the dark as the rest of us. But you may want to listen to that "fanbase" you so readily cite. When I joined in, I expected hornets and pitchforks and they have arrived. But the hornets (over a hundred) flew off to sign Klink's petition and the only pitchfork is yours.

I have a theory that you just don't like my screen name because our flag is so much cooler than that Lone Star thing.

=========================back to topic

Michael H raised the heretical idea of an open source project. And Curtis mentioned that TakeTwo owns the game and so the legalities are likely more complex than us mere players can know. Obviously, Matrix will not/cannot release the source though a cooperative development model may still be possible. We are left to speculate on such possibilities from ignorance as the background arrangements remain close-hold.

A long while ago on this or another forum, a player suggested that the TOAW community should band together and buy the game outright. Everything has a price, the only question being what price. In such a case, the game would (probably) become open source and would be managed by the Buyout Foundation's board. A variant of the same idea might be a foundation/Matrix partnership with the same goal with the result being a hybrid commercial/community-owned game. Complicated, but possible with enough fine print? I dunno. But Oberst_Klink demonstrates there's a healthy number of people who care enough to sign a petition. Would they also be willing to offer $25, $50 or $100 to a Buyout Foundation?

One of my basic proposals is that TOAW occupies a unique niche. It's fair to say that a program would not survive 14 years if that was not the case. This signals opportunity and vulnerability. If the program does not evolve to the potential of that niche, it will be replaced. Soon or later. TOAW has survived so long because it is a great game, but also because it has no competition. Such a replacement could hail from the dark basement or, as Michael H hints, from an open source project. I would not get my hopes up on an open source approach though. That development model indeed ~can be~ powerful and yield very impressive, very quick results. But getting past the startup hump is exceedingly difficult.

If we were to define, as exactly as possible, what that niche is then we should see what TOAW presently is in relation to the niche potential. The niche is a game (not just scenario) design system which faithfully preserves classic, operational wargaming covering the modern era. There's more, but that is the brief. From this hypothetical niche we can say a couple of things:
1) there's really no system that fills it
2) TOAW hands-down comes the closest

To me, this strongly suggests the overall direction should be towards "a game design system" with an accompanying empowerment of the 'scenario' designer. I believe the clamorings of scenario designers and players alike have for years been suggesting the same thing. Work on the underlying combat engine is all well and good but how many players really care if a T34 is being virtually pitted against a PzIV - particularly when such details have no direct visibilty? Generally, loss results and the knowledge that reasonable calculations have been made are satisfactory to most. At any rate, a new direction in devlopment doesn't preclude continued refinement of the engine.

Curtis Lemay has rightly pointed out that some of the proposed changes have big price/time tags on them. That means a lot of screen time with Visual C. But the game is getting very little of that time now and ways to improve it without heavy cost to Matrix have been proposed. However, not all such changes are so daunting in their time demand. For example, more exclusion zones have been coveted for a decade. That this relatively simple change has not been added demonstrates to me that development direction has not emphasized those very aspects which place TOAW in a unique niche.

(Exclusion zone is probably stored as a 2-bit element in struct MapHex (or whatever). Changing that part is easy as long as the program is properly handling dynamic allocations. There would then be a couple of dozen points where the presence of EZ is tested for. Those would have to be updated. The editor UI would have to be updated. There are possible ramifications in other parts of the program, for example file storage format and backwards compatibility. Sounds like a lot but given that EZs don't have further complicating attributes, this should not be a big change.)

Who wants 15 non-overlapping exclusion zones or 4 overlapping?? (4-bit)
Or how about 255/8 ?



< Message edited by BearFlag -- 12/21/2012 7:11:48 AM >

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 125
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 10:47:43 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2780
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Thanks to Klink for making it apparent that we will not stand idle, we will MARCH !!

Thanks to Erik for taking the time to respond.

quote:

Would they also be willing to offer $25, $50 or $100 to a Buyout Foundation?


Let's see, $40 for COW in 2002, $40 for TOAW III in 2006, that's $80 divided by ten years = hmm ... I think that's $8 a year. Compared to my cable bill of $120/month, which over ten years comes to $14,400. Either cable is an extreme rip-off, or TOAW is an extreme bargain. I think its both, so name your price for a Buyout Foundation.

Exclusion Zones - I don't know about the computer stuff like BearFlag and others do, but I have talked to Ralph about it and it is a complex fix, but is on the big list of things to do.

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 12/21/2012 10:48:46 AM >

(in reply to BearFlag)
Post #: 126
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 2:38:40 PM   
Major SNAFU


Posts: 501
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline
I would contribute to a buy out project.

_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." - T. Bartlet Rile, Prof. Irish History in Frank Delany's "Ireland: A Novel."

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 127
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 4:36:28 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1316
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hear, hear. I second this one!

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 128
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 5:18:02 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 481
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
It.s now 4 days for XMass

And with the following message, I am with the future of
TOAW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi everyone,

We're listening and we understand that the commmunity wants TOAW to thrive and be supported. That's our goal as well. First, I want to say that the TOAD team has done an extraordinary job with TOAW to date with post-release support beyond what most titles, even here at Matrix, receive. With that said, TOAW is definitely a special title for us all and we would all like to see it continue to grow and improve in the future. We've been talking with Ralph about future plans. We'll have a big discussion in the New Year to chart the best path forwards and we'll let you all know what the outline of that plan is regarding TOAW.

Regards,

- Erik




_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
The CrazyDutch

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 129
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 7:47:54 PM   
desert


Posts: 825
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline

I would contribute to a buy-out, though ideally there would be created a Kickstarter project for a TOAW IV, with promised implementation of nearly all the cool features and engine optimizations elaborated in the Wishlist thread, as well as backwards-compatibility mode for all 1000+ old scenarios. I think the feature list and TOAW legacy (as well as legacy support) alone would get the angel-investor juices flowing. I wonder if Matrix could be the one to put forward the project - predicate development of this fantastic concept on a crowd-funding stimulus & show of interest from the wider wargaming community. At least a hundred grand and a few thousand or tens of thousands of unique investors might be enough of an encouragement for Matrix to sink serious money into a TOAW IV. It's a neat fantasy, at least.

An article on the subject: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/28/the-kickstarter-successes-where-are-they-now/

The fact that a major wargame publisher would be behind this particular project should serve to dispel any worries among potential investors of "flaking-out" or project abandonment. Still following the thread, Erik Rutins? You know, while we're putting together Christmas wish lists...

quote:

Work on the underlying combat engine is all well and good but how many players really care if a T34 is being virtually pitted against a PzIV - particularly when such details have no direct visibility? Generally, loss results and the knowledge that reasonable calculations have been made are satisfactory to most. At any rate, a new direction in development doesn't preclude continued refinement of the engine.


I can't tell whether this is a call for greater abstraction in the combat model, but if it is I have to say that I wouldn't prefer that path to be taken. Unit compositions are enjoyable to view and learn, and I believe they can add quite a bit to a commander's considerations in movement and engagement. Anyway, the trend in general should probably be toward more concretization in both combat and logistics. But that's just myself...

quote:

The development team works for free. Ralph must be close to working for free.


Aha! See? I was right to suspect that I'd heard this somewhere.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 130
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 9:09:01 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

I would contribute to a buy out project.


My recollection is the reason why TakeTwo still owns the game is that the price they offered it at was astronomical- as in totally out of the ballpark for what the game is now worth commercially. Signing a petition is one thing, but those 117 people would each need to fork out a lot more than they already have for the game.

If we want to get serious about a community project it would probably be more realistic to build a new game from scratch. A lot of people would be more able to dedicate time than money anyway.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 12/21/2012 9:11:29 PM >


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Major SNAFU)
Post #: 131
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 9:11:25 PM   
BearFlag

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline
@ desert

Kickstarter is an interesting approach. I had not heard of it. Transparency is a critical component of it as the would-be backers deserve no less. Under the circumstances Matrix is the only possible partner for such an approach and transparency has not been one of their strong points. The true legal status of the game is unknown to the community at large and the process (if anything exists that could actually be called 'process') has been hidden with development updates few and far between. The community could not be asked to front thousands of dollars without a profound change in company culture regarding this game.

Another requirement is very well defined goals. Whether the community could formulate a set of distinct objectives without breaking down into tumultuous debate is anybody's guess.

--
engine abstraction:
No, I was not suggesting the engine should be simplified. Rather I was arguing for a shift in emphasis (given finite resources) to the game's strong suits. Most players will cite the range of scale, the time span covered and number of scenarios as TOAW's best selling point, not its detailed engine. It's great to be able to fight WW I on the strategic level, Kursk at the operational level or a fantasy 2020 engagement without having to learn a new game, a new interface or shell out $50 for a topical game.

If one were conspiracy-minded, there are good reasons a game company would NOT want to develop a superlative game design system... an excellently done scenario (of say, the East Front) might well muffle sales of a dedicated product. ;)

--
quote:

golden delicious:
If we want to get serious about a community project it would probably be more realistic to build a new game from scratch. A lot of people would be more able to dedicate time than money anyway.


I fear you're right. In many respects it would be easier from scratch than a major revamping of an existing code base.

< Message edited by BearFlag -- 12/21/2012 9:28:23 PM >

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 132
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 10:59:23 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag

quote:

Curtis Lemay:

It's future is half-assed patches (quoting BearFlag)

Gee, he's practically a cheerleader. But be sure and carp Matrix about getting Ralph back to work on the next half-assed patch we're all waiting on.


So that's what it comes to Curtis? Snide sarcasm derived from a quote stripped of context? Connecting me, to "half-assed," to
Ralph when I said nothing of the sort. That's low technique and apparently mean-spirited.

That quote was, and was clearly, a prognostication predicated on no less than four conditions, two of which you have expressed yourself. The other two, highly contentious I'm sure, were "risk" (business risk) and "vision" (a creative frontier). In the very next paragraph, please note, I talk of ways to avoid that future. It's not quite so inflammatory and negative in proper context, is it?


There was nothing conditional about that post. "The future would then be half-assed patches" would have been conditional. What you said was not.

quote:

You pulled the same trick with "Add some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment and re-release it" which was written, and meant to be, reductionist.


"How dare you take my words litterally!"

quote:

If you don't like what I have to say, that's fine. Make a case against it. But stick to what I said rather than cherry-picking for quick and contextless gotcha's. Have you noticed, Curtis, that the common denominator in two sidebars is you?


I've actually been quoting what you said. Your posts have been offensive from the beginning and have gotten more vile in each reiteration.

If you had merely said that you wanted TOAW to progress in strategic areas I would have been happy to agree with you - not that your suggestion was anything new. But for some reason you felt compleled to insult everyone who's ever worked on TOAW, starting with Norm and working your way down - all made from the lofty vantage point of complete ignorance about any behind-the-scenes matters.

quote:

A long while ago on this or another forum, a player suggested that the TOAW community should band together and buy the game outright. Everything has a price, the only question being what price. In such a case, the game would (probably) become open source and would be managed by the Buyout Foundation's board. A variant of the same idea might be a foundation/Matrix partnership with the same goal with the result being a hybrid commercial/community-owned game. Complicated, but possible with enough fine print? I dunno. But Oberst_Klink demonstrates there's a healthy number of people who care enough to sign a petition. Would they also be willing to offer $25, $50 or $100 to a Buyout Foundation?


Last time I checked, Take-Two wanted $10,000 just for the privilege of meeting with their lawyers. What they would want for the rights to TOAW is probably unimaginable. Norm used to tell the tale of how he tried to buy his own obsolete title "Age of Rifles" from SSI. What they wanted was beyond ridiculus.

But I don't understand why anyone would want or need that if the objective is to build a new game from scratch. Note that the ACOW code is far too archaic to be modded to what you want. A new game is a must. But that means new graphics and scenarios, too. It's a huge task.

If some outsider makes that ultimate TOAW equivalent I'll be delighted to buy the first copy. Then I can focus on scenario designing & playing, instead of having to work on its development myself.

But what I fully expect to happen is just what has always been planned: TOAW IV will be a Matrix title sometime in the future. I'm so confident of that I've already worked up detailed plans for it.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/21/2012 11:00:59 PM >

(in reply to BearFlag)
Post #: 133
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 11:06:17 PM   
General Staff

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Dublin
Status: offline
I thought we said we'd try to stop squabbling, but I sense you perceive a personal insult when I didn't see one intended. To "insult everyone who's ever worked on TOAW, starting with Norm and working your way down" would include a lot of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
If we want to get serious about a community project it would probably be more realistic to build a new game from scratch. A lot of people would be more able to dedicate time than money anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag
In many respects it would be easier from scratch than a major revamping of an existing code base.

I'd absolutely agree this is the preferred way to go. There are enough problems developmentally without piling ownership/legal issues on top. If Take-2 want to sue, let's hope they have as much trouble finding the source code as we have.

< Message edited by General Staff -- 12/21/2012 11:12:38 PM >


_____________________________

Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 134
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 11:51:35 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Last time I checked, Take-Two wanted $10,000 just for the privilege of meeting with their lawyers.


Charming people. Let's get two dozen people to start writing very obvious clones of Opart and see if we can provoke them into spending lots of money trying to stop us.

quote:

What they would want for the rights to TOAW is probably unimaginable. Norm used to tell the tale of how he tried to buy his own obsolete title "Age of Rifles" from SSI. What they wanted was beyond ridiculus.


My understanding as well.

quote:

A new game is a must. But that means new graphics and scenarios, too. It's a huge task.


Well a) make a scenario converter and b) use the existing user-made graphics. I certainly don't want someone delaying any game by a year or two to make it all pretty and 3D. It looked fine in 1998 and it still looks fine now.

quote:

But what I fully expect to happen is just what has always been planned: TOAW IV will be a Matrix title sometime in the future. I'm so confident of that I've already worked up detailed plans for it.


I'd be surprised. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, there's a lot more money to be made from campaign-specific releases and action-oriented titles.

Note that this is no criticism of Matrix- companies exist to make money. It'd be like criticising me for producing CO2.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 135
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/21/2012 11:54:09 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

If Take-2 want to sue, let's hope they have as much trouble finding the source code as we have.


I doubt TakeTwo would even notice, provided we didn't actually call the game The Operational Art of War.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to General Staff)
Post #: 136
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/22/2012 7:07:38 AM   
BearFlag

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline
@Curtis
Actually, you're the only one who has expressed indignation, if not anger. All I have received is encouragement and pats on the back. So you might want to check your compass and drop the vendetta.
finis
---

From what folks have said, the "Buyout Foundation" idea is a non-starter, though still there is no loss but time in asking TakeTwo. Some kind of a cooperative arrangement with Matrix has also been mentioned. desert keyed us into the "Kickstarter" approach. Another would be some arrangement that would allow other programmers in on the development perhaps under Ralph's direction. In either case, there may be contract (TakeTwo/Matrix) inhibitions that we don't know about.

An open source project is certainly possible. But my experience there is that most such projects wither after the initial wave of enthusiasm subsides. Often a critical developer, whose knowledge in an area put him in charge of a major subsystem, loses interest and the project can't find a replacement. Crippled, in essence. Of course, there are hundreds of success stories too.

The area that you'll probably (just guessing) come up short in is programmers. I imagine there would be plenty of competent, non-programmer volunteers to work out the algos for an engine, help with art work, write docs, handle promotion and other housekeeping. But programmers? I dunno. Most would be like me - part timers with day jobs.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 137
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/22/2012 8:35:35 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1316
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
A healthy, at some times very heated, passionate and lively discussion, etc.- GOOD. It's a start to get noted by the 'head-honchos' for sure. Perhaps the 'Master' and genius behind TOAW will join the cause as well. If some of you got more examples about which army colleges, think-tanks use TOAW for educational purpose etc. and who would like to train their 'Flak-Truppen' or AAA troops, I am sure they'd like an update, too.

Klink, Oberst

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 12/22/2012 11:04:56 AM >


_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to BearFlag)
Post #: 138
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/22/2012 4:35:49 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

A new game is a must. But that means new graphics and scenarios, too. It's a huge task.


Well a) make a scenario converter and b) use the existing user-made graphics. I certainly don't want someone delaying any game by a year or two to make it all pretty and 3D. It looked fine in 1998 and it still looks fine now.


Trick is to figure out the TOAW file formats on your own if you want to convert scenarios. You could possibly use the XML scenario file instead, except that is contingent upon Ralph finally getting it fixed. Take-Two obviously owns the ACOW graphics and Matrix will claim the .png graphics. I'm not sure if any of the user made .bmp graphics were complete or not.

quote:

quote:

But what I fully expect to happen is just what has always been planned: TOAW IV will be a Matrix title sometime in the future. I'm so confident of that I've already worked up detailed plans for it.


I'd be surprised.


Then I fully expect you to be surprised.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 139
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/22/2012 4:38:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag

@Curtis
Actually, you're the only one who has expressed indignation, if not anger. All I have received is encouragement and pats on the back.


No one else has made your insult list yet. We money-grubbing scam-artists with no direction or vision feel differently.

(in reply to BearFlag)
Post #: 140
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/22/2012 5:38:21 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Then I fully expect you to be surprised.


I'm surprisingly expectant that you'll be full.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 141
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/22/2012 9:19:44 PM   
BearFlag

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

If some of you got more examples about which army colleges, think-tanks use TOAW for educational purpose etc. and who would like to train their 'Flak-Truppen' or AAA troops, I am sure they'd like an update, too.

Klink, Oberst


Some time ago I stumbled across a thesis-like piece from a Major Willmuth.

I'm not allowed to post links but you can search the title:

THE STUDY OF MILITARY HISTORY THROUGH
COMMERCIAL WAR GAMES: A LOOK AT
OPERATION CRUSADER WITH THE
OPERATIONAL ART OF WAR

by Maj Thomas Willmuth

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 142
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 6:01:00 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1316
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

If some of you got more examples about which army colleges, think-tanks use TOAW for educational purpose etc. and who would like to train their 'Flak-Truppen' or AAA troops, I am sure they'd like an update, too.

Klink, Oberst


Some time ago I stumbled across a thesis-like piece from a Major Willmuth.

I'm not allowed to post links but you can search the title:

THE STUDY OF MILITARY HISTORY THROUGH
COMMERCIAL WAR GAMES: A LOOK AT
OPERATION CRUSADER WITH THE
OPERATIONAL ART OF WAR

by Maj Thomas Willmuth

quote:

THE STUDY OF MILITARY HISTORY THROUGH
COMMERCIAL WAR GAMES: A LOOK AT
OPERATION CRUSADER WITH THE
OPERATIONAL ART OF WAR

by Maj Thomas Willmuth


Well, the archives of Fremde Heere West revelaed this:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA397321

Because I am heading with a special LW flight to the UK, I might be offline later on ;)

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to BearFlag)
Post #: 143
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 7:13:08 AM   
BearFlag

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Because I am heading with a special LW flight to the UK, I might be offline later on ;)

Klink, Oberst


Ah, a serviceman. Good for you. I spent two years in Berlin ... when it had a little wall around it. The Army was kind enough to pay for my ticket. ;) I worked at the famous/infamous Teufelsberg.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 144
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 7:24:38 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1588
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Who the hell goes the the UK at this time of the year... at any time of the year!
Using your Bf-110 for a little paradrop to negotiate peace with UK? :-)

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to BearFlag)
Post #: 145
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 7:30:48 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1316
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
Even with drop-tanks I couldn't fly from Cyprus to Scotland with a Bf-110C ;)
I need a change of scenery; before my flight to the US I'll be in London for a few
days and hope I can manage to meet the 'Surrey' lads, incl. Ben Turner. Me and sPzAbt653
will organize a meeting of the east coast lads who dwell in the region of MD/WV/PA/DC/VA.

Tally-ho!

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 146
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 10:11:49 AM   
General Staff

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Dublin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Who the hell goes the the UK at this time of the year... at any time of the year!
Using your Bf-110 for a little paradrop to negotiate peace with UK? :-)
A Bf-110 might come in handy policing this thread too. With that in mind, it might seem we need new mods for the TOAW area, given absence of existing ones- RT and JAMiAM.

Herr Oberst- you might do well to consider using a LW Blohm & Voss Bv 138 given current weather conditions ;-). Hals- und Beinbruch!

< Message edited by General Staff -- 12/23/2012 10:52:14 AM >


_____________________________

Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 147
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 12:01:21 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1316
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
Well, we'll see what General von Klinkenhofen decides.

Klink, Oberst




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to General Staff)
Post #: 148
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 1:57:03 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Who the hell goes the the UK at this time of the year... at any time of the year!


Wonderful warm weather this time of year.

Also: general awesomeness.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 149
RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? - 12/23/2012 1:58:21 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

hope I can manage to meet the 'Surrey' lads, incl. Ben Turner. Me and sPzAbt653
will organize a meeting of the east coast lads who dwell in the region of MD/WV/PA/DC/VA.


It can happen. When do you leave again?

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141