Discontinued?

[Shazman]

A few days ago 'someone' at HPS indicated TOAW may be discontinued. Then today another 'someone' at Net Wargaming Italia indicated the same thing. First time I thought it was a rumor. Now I'm not so sure. No support. No patches. No communication from those who know things. Low sales. Makes me wonder.

I guess if it goes belly up we could all go with John Tillers Strategic War series. 10km per hex. Two day turns. Will cover all of the Euro theater. Some others out there too.

[sPzAbt653]

But but ... just six short months ago Erik said '... whatever may come, it is not our intention to "retire" TOAW, it's our goal to continue and improve it ...'

So these must just be rumours ?? [:(]

[Telumar]

No, he's just recruiting for the John Tiller series

@Shazman: So, seriously - any links so that we can verify for ourselves?

[Shazman]

@Telumar: Evidently you passed over the word 'rumor' in my post. You gotta stoop the sped redding. [;)]   No, not selling JT Games although they are supported and they are well done. I used to campaign for TOAW and Matrix too. [;)]

@sPzAbt653: In August 2009 my employer said "there will always be a <company name here>. It wasn't being sold and it wasn't folding. It's all rumors". November 2009, the day after Thanksgiving, all the locks were changed and no one could get in. The following Saturday we all got letters in the mail. The company was closing. Never believe the suits even if they don't wear suits. They will lie to you right up until they slam the door in your face. [:-]

I didn't say TOAW was being discontinued. Others have. That's all. However, seeing what has transpired over the last year or so gives me flashbacks to 2009. [:D]

[Oberst_Klink]

WT*?! Well, if they discontinue it, then they should release the source code, no? Just 2 little fixes and I'd be happy as Larry -> AAA and the 'ignore losses' thing. In my scenarios the AAA is not that serious, because I have separate AA units anyway; but ignore losses with a fortification, oh well... even an Italian lone Autoblinda 41 held out for 4 weeks against a British Corps attack near the Mareth line...

Klink, Oberst

[sPzAbt653]

Hey Shaz, I was tongue in cheeking it there. I've come across a couple game threads recently that show that some games do disappear with no official mention.

TOAW discontinued ?? Obama better do something, this is important !!

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

But but ... just six short months ago Erik said '... whatever may come, it is not our intention to "retire" TOAW, it's our goal to continue and improve it ...'

So these must just be rumours ?? [:(]

Net Wargaming Italia

Perhaps time for a reminder or some Femen style protest at the Historicon in Virginia next weekend? Writing on my chest - 'WE WANT 3.5!'

Klink, Oberst

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

WT*?! Well, if they discontinue it, then they should release the source code, no?

My understanding is that Matrix doesn't own the source code for TOAW, they own the right to develop and publish the game. The core rights reside with Take-Two Interactive.

Anyway, I think everyone will be a lot happier if they stop anxiously expecting another patch and work with what we have.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

WT*?! Well, if they discontinue it, then they should release the source code, no? Just 2 little fixes and I'd be happy as Larry -> AAA and the 'ignore losses' thing. In my scenarios the AAA is not that serious, because I have separate AA units anyway; but ignore losses with a fortification, oh well... even an Italian lone Autoblinda 41 held out for 4 weeks against a British Corps attack near the Mareth line...

Klink, Oberst

Yup these 2 errors at least need adressing (asap), I also might note, that I see probs with too many AA units, if the AA in the combat unit itself does not work, that leads to:

a) much more seperate AA (which might be also unrealistic OOB wise)
b) more player + designer workload to create these units
c) you need to send those AA units to the front, if you wanna give protection to units directly near enemy units. But the small aa units may be in great danger to evaporate if involved in direct attack or defense. I know most sides used AA also vs. ground troops as long their werent enough enemy planes to shoot at. Like the allied ones in 44+45.

There is also a prob with long range sams, these wont engage planes in neighbouring hexes even if their range is long enough.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

Yes, it may be discontinued and soon.Will tell You why - it's the very specific case of Murphy's law, let's call it "burroughs' law". The definition says: if I like something, others don't and it vanishes. Examples; I don't watch any TV series - mostly no TV in general as a rule of thumb - but "Threshold" was surprisingly well. Then after some 9 episodes it ends abruptly and I think that the morons on the TV station just didn't buy the next season. But no - the truth is they were never shot! People ( I still mean morons )didn't get to like that ( because the plot made sense and there weren't any vampires nor werewolves ). Think to myself "alright, here goes nothing". Then I love the bands Death and Control Denied ( even though I generally don't listen to heavy metal stuff - death, thrash, black, speed yes, but heavy - maybe later). Chuck Schuldiner contracts the brain tumor. Scratch two great bands. A dozen years later there is a rumour that the Rolling Stones are back on the road again ... Thank You blind fate.
I get to love TOAW III, become a greedy wargamer, play numerous scenarios simultaneously, only the most hardened veterans bear my regular turn rate and my hard core approach. Comes patch 3.4 ... You know how this story unfolds already?

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Anyway, I think everyone will be a lot happier if they stop anxiously expecting another patch and work with what we have.

Yeah, I had thoughts along those lines but with no AA you can't seriously play WW2 and later. And with no ignore losses that fairly screws any WW1 scenarios. So you are left with U.S. Civil War or earlier. I don't think that's what most people bought the game for.

Someone at Matrix needs to buy a set of balls and do the right thing. Unless there are too few TOAW fans to care about. I can say there are fewer all the time. I wouldn't be surprised to see them shelve it.

My biggest problem is how much I like the bloody game. If I didn't I would have abandoned it long ago and not bothered moaning about the lack of progress. Two lousy things to patch. That's it and they can't frickin get it done. Lame. Very lame.

Oh, and here's a thought. If people would stop sucking up to Matrix about how things are just fine if you use workarounds maybe things might actually get done quicker. It sure doesn't help when people say things are just fine when they most certainly are not.

[fogger]

Erik,
Time for an update please. [&:]

[sPzAbt653]

Individual equipment has an AA Value that it used in AA Defense. If the designer puts AA Equipment into a frontline unit, that equipment is used in frontline combat. For pure AA Defense, the designer will put AA Equipment into an AA unit.

So there are no excuses, no work arounds needed, no reason to cover for a Matrix fault. (Or I'm an idiot, not sure which).

I'm going with the Golden Apple's assessment and forgeting about the rumored 3.5 and sticking with 3.4. Of course, we can't strike 3.5 from our memory. There is another thread that covered a game that died 10 years ago, yet people are still posting about it.

[r6kunz]

I agree with sPzAbt, GD and others.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I'm going with the Golden Apple's assessment and forgetting about the rumored 3.5 and sticking with 3.4. Of course, we can't strike 3.5 from our memory. There is another thread that covered a game that died 10 years ago, yet people are still posting about it.

We have a good, albeit not perfect, game in TOAW 3.4. 3.5 is not going to happen. Just get over it.

How long has AA been broken? How long did it take for us to notice it? As far at the Dug in/Ignore Losses issue, I dislike house rules, but designers and players should consider a statement in the introduction:

::PBEM:: ::German PO, Allies PO:: **Dug In Units may not also Ignore Losses**

A further help might be a limitation on the Engineer Build Rate(say 33-50% for one day, etc,) similar to the limitation to Attrition Divider and Maximum Rounds per Battle that Oberst and LeMay have proposed and a number of designers have been using.

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Individual equipment has an AA Value that it used in AA Defense. If the designer puts AA Equipment into a frontline unit, that equipment is used in frontline combat. For pure AA Defense, the designer will put AA Equipment into an AA unit.

So there are no excuses, no work arounds needed, no reason to cover for a Matrix fault. (Or I'm an idiot, not sure which).

In 3.5 a front line unit, say an infantry unit, will use it's AA assets to shoot at aircraft. In fact ANY piece of equipment with an AA value will. In 3.4 the same unit WILL NOT nor will any equipment with an AA value that is part of that infantry unit. Because 3.4 is broken making any scenario that uses air units kinda broken too. You propose taking the AA assets out of each and every unit and making a separate unit for that equipment giving it an AA icon so that it actually shoots at aircraft. Insanity. BTW, that's called a work around.

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ


I agree with sPzAbt, GD and others.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I'm going with the Golden Apple's assessment and forgetting about the rumored 3.5 and sticking with 3.4. Of course, we can't strike 3.5 from our memory. There is another thread that covered a game that died 10 years ago, yet people are still posting about it.

We have a good, albeit not perfect, game in TOAW 3.4. 3.5 is not going to happen. Just get over it.

How long has AA been broken? How long did it take for us to notice it? As far at the Dug in/Ignore Losses issue, I dislike house rules, but designers and players should consider a statement in the introduction:

::PBEM:: ::German PO, Allies PO:: **Dug In Units may not also Ignore Losses**

A further help might be a limitation on the Engineer Build Rate(say 33-50% for one day, etc,) similar to the limitation to Attrition Divider and Maximum Rounds per Battle that Oberst and LeMay have proposed and a number of designers have been using.

Yet another work around. WTF. If I sold you a car and took off the tires and gave you back the rims you would probably be happy to put the rims back on without tires and drive it around that way because it's a work around. [;)]

I'm not happy with a broken TOAW. How the hell you people can not want a fixed TOAW is beyond me. Do you LIKE that it's broken and not being fixed? I'm beginning to believe you like it broken. Is that it? Don't you want it working PROPERLY? Unbelievable.

Maybe it is time to shelve the game. No one seems to care to see it fixed but a sorry few like me.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

I do want that fixed, I always have, but the Green Berets in Vietnam learned the lesson which says; what is stupid and works is not stupid.

[Shazman]

Never called anything stupid. But I will now. This is stupid. 100 AA Light Cruisers could not shoot down one single aircraft out of 40. Managed to sink 24 cruisers but not one aircraft shot down. Seems this AA&nbsp;bug also applies to aircraft vs ships. How would you propose a work around for that? Separate the ship's AA guns from the ship and make an AA icon for that and somehow make it float in the water like a ship?
&nbsp;
Not only that but almost EVERY unit type has an intrinsic AA value. How would you separate that out from units?
&nbsp;
AA does not work. Period. There is no work around for it short of not having aircraft in the game. Because every tank, every squad, every ship, has an intrinsic AA value that cannot be separated from the tank, ship, squad, whatever. And unless every fan of the game continues to demand a patch for that, it will not get fixed.
&nbsp;
BTW, we lost in Vietnam. Seems something didn't work.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

True as a matter of fact. In my "Operation >Weserubung<" the Royal Navy was ahistorically wrecked by the Luftwaffe naval bombers which prompted that to withdraw from the naval operations along the Norwegian coast and gave the Kriegsmarine a total naval supremacy. At the same time in Norway home defence units put up a stubborn defence against the most elite Wehrmacht, the SS and Luftwaffe units. I won in a way whcih I entirely didn't like: I was applying solutions, procedures, doctines and tactics I would employ anyway, but with insane results. Outrageous. 3.4 of course.

Well, from my studies it appars that in Vietnam what was deemed wise then didn't work - the grunts tactics.John Leppelman put an iconic anecdote about that in his "Blood on the Risers" in a reminiscence of a meeting with the 5th Speciel Forces Group (Airborne)Green Beret in a Saigon bar.

Wonder if anything would work on top of that. Myself I doubt that indeed. So the common agreement amongs the Americans now is that the Vietnam War was lost? Interesting.

[Oberst_Klink]

Let's hope peeps that Erik pays attention with the lately increased traffic on the board.

I am kinda lucky that I create limited and operational campaigns with a scale that more or less negates the bugs or where they don't have much effect. E.g. Eastern Front scenarios with Btl/Rgt units where in most cases the AA units are separate units, a low entrenchment rate, because the soil is so bloody solid that under NO circumstances an Inf.Btl or Inf.Rgt without an engineering detachment can create field entrenchments or fortifications in 6 or 12hrs or even a day. No naval units, useless anyway.

So, yes, 3.4 still works OK'ish *an understatement, but hey, aren't we all Brits in a way*. Interdiction works still OK, I had more than a few instances in Kharkov '43 where some Stukas and Level Bombers got shot down while interdicting a Tank Bde of Popov's Mobile Group. IF ONLY we could see the source code and a reference to the AA and dug-in mechanisms, a bit of C++ knowledge and we can fix it with the help of some pimpled, bespectacled, nerds, no?

Klink, Oberst