Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Next version News (4.0)

 
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: Next version News (4.0) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/20/2013 9:56:13 AM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Telumar set up the most complicated event sequence for my last scenario, and tested true. The next project will likely consume about 2.5k events. I don't think it is difficult to use, but definitely "more options/parameters" would help. I appreciate every little minor enhancement.

The last project convinced me to stick to simple routines wherever possible. Simplification makes it easier to test A/B vs A-F+ variations.

The most complex event sequence/s are best to handle with the Event Engine Variable. While there is only "one variable that can be tracked at any given time" - in long scenarios it can be used multiple times provided the time frames of the respective "event sequences" don't overlap.

If you need to capture x points worth of cities for a country to capitulate, you can set EEV for that (loc 1 "x points", loc 2 "x points", etc.). Once it is "done", you can reset the EEV to 0 (or whatever) for the next EEV routine. The EEV can make super complex routines vastly easier, with each event being a simple A/B test.

It won't work if the 2 routines can be expected to overlap.

If we could have 2 or more Event Engines, that would be very, very cool.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 61
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/23/2013 12:16:24 AM   
geozero


Posts: 1883
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline
I would beta test this

_____________________________

JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 62
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/31/2013 1:37:37 PM   
Johan Dees

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 12/31/2013
Status: offline
Hi Generals,

First post here. I am new to TOAW, just got it, and played a little with it.
Since the sheer number of units, big maps, I like to see in a new version:

1. Ability to seek up a certain unit from a list and search box
2. Ability to rename a unit (give it a name easy to remember, and to follow it better)
3. Ability to draw on the map some symbols, like arrows, text, etc.. to lay out your own battle plan, and help to remember objectives on a large map.

Johan

(in reply to geozero)
Post #: 63
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/31/2013 11:02:45 PM   
Pax25

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 4/2/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
Great news. Even after all these years TOAW remains one of my favorite games. I seem to always come back to it.

(in reply to Johan Dees)
Post #: 64
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 3/16/2014 8:40:27 PM   
lcesar

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline
Excellent news, I'm looking forward for that.

_____________________________

LCesar

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 65
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 3/26/2014 5:35:28 PM   
berto


Posts: 19416
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

Could it be?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3575540

quote:

Last but not least we will be showing you a new incarnation of one of the most famous wargaming series. This operational level wargame will bring all the classic gameplay of the previous titles in the series and improves and enhances them. While we are not yet ready to officially announce the game, we are convinced that we can make a lot of fans very happy with this game.



_____________________________


(in reply to lcesar)
Post #: 66
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 3/28/2014 3:44:12 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1983
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Oh here it comes guys hold your breath!!!

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 3/28/2014 4:44:42 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to berto)
Post #: 67
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 3/29/2014 4:38:04 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 38816
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan Dees
Hi Generals,

First post here. I am new to TOAW, just got it, and played a little with it.
Since the sheer number of units, big maps, I like to see in a new version:

1. Ability to seek up a certain unit from a list and search box
2. Ability to rename a unit (give it a name easy to remember, and to follow it better)
3. Ability to draw on the map some symbols, like arrows, text, etc.. to lay out your own battle plan, and help to remember objectives on a large map.

Johan

Hey there Johan dude. All great ideas. You are aware of the hotkey 'b' function to find cities and units right? or is it 'B'. not sure.

(in reply to Johan Dees)
Post #: 68
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/17/2014 12:45:12 PM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 574
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Oh here it comes guys hold your breath!!!


better not...

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 69
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/17/2014 5:23:04 PM   
Dr. Foo


Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
This is one game I still play. I have games less than a year old that I've given up on. But TOAW is one that I think I will play as along as I can get it to run! I look forward to 4.0.

Is there any thought of getting rid of the combat rounds?

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 70
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/17/2014 10:41:52 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

Is there any thought of getting rid of the combat rounds?



Why would anyone want to get rid of combat rounds? This is the most obvious part of the game that makes movement and time reasonable for a ugoigo turn based game. I guess you could make it like War in the East and throw time and movement out completely so it's more like a science fiction game. If you take out the combat rounds you remove the very thing that makes this game unique.

(in reply to Dr. Foo)
Post #: 71
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/18/2014 11:06:03 AM   
Jafele


Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
If you take out the combat rounds you remove the very thing that makes this game unique.


+1

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 72
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/29/2014 4:47:40 PM   
sealclubber

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/2/2013
Status: offline
Agree - the tactical round system is crucial. I think where the suggestion to get rid of them comes from is that the turn burn aspect of things. All the folks I tried to get interested in TOAW either got the turn system or didn't and most didn't. Those that didn't found it totally frustrating and gave up before really giving it a chance. I know we have the Max Rounds Per Battle scenario variable that can put a cap on how many can be burned, but it's not flexible enough. Perhaps there should also be a more intuitive correlation between loss tolerances and maximum rounds used?

I haven't really thought this through, but perhaps if you make attacks where everything is "minimize losses", 9 times out of 10 that attack shouldn't burn more than 1 tactical round, regardless of if the defenders inflict enough actual losses to force the attackers to retreat. Likewise "limit losses" should, 9 times out of 10, burn no more than 2 tactical rounds. "Ignore losses" should work as they do now - no restriction up to the MRPB. These are based on the assumption that there are no extra rounds being burned due to movement.

I use the 9 times out of 10 because an element of uncertainty is still important (no plan survives first contact).. and 9 times out of 10 can certainly be tweaked to say 7 out of 10 times.. or whatever.

The tactical round system still baffles many experienced players and makes PBEM scenario balancing all but impossible. More importantly, it reduces the entertainment value of the product considerably when you can only get 1 or 2 combat phases per turn because you tried to attack a weak but fortified enemy defender with all "minimize loss" attacks only to have it burn 4 tactical rounds and end your turn. Especially on large, multi-front scenarios (which seem to be the most PBEMed scenarios today).


< Message edited by sealclubber -- 4/29/2014 5:50:31 PM >

(in reply to Jafele)
Post #: 73
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/29/2014 5:42:06 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Too many people don't want to have to engage their brain when they play a game. It's 'too hard'. They don't want to bother to determine if it's a good idea or bad idea to include a unit in a combat because of how far it's moved that turn. They just want to move crap around and roll the dice.

Turn burn isn't the only reason a turn will end. A failed Force Proficiency test will also end the turn. If there is a lower MRPB this will become more likely if I recall since at the end of each series of combats this is done. So if either side has a lower Force Proficiency level that side will experience fewer combat rounds because of a greater chance of failing a Force Proficiency check if my reasoning is correct.

One thing that is a little irritating about the current system is that all combats across the board take the same amount of time regardless of how difficult or easy they are. You can have a difficult battle in one place and five hundred kilometers away have an easy battle but both battles end up taking the same amount of time because the difficult battle had a series of continues. Instead of battles ending when the difficult battle is ended perhaps all battles should end when they easy ones are over. Dunno, but something has to be better than the current system of all battles taking as long as the most difficult one.


(in reply to sealclubber)
Post #: 74
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/30/2014 1:14:40 AM   
walkra

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Lanus, Argentina
Status: offline
quote:

Too many people don't want to have to engage their brain when they play a game. It's 'too hard'. They don't want to bother to determine if it's a good idea or bad idea to include a unit in a combat because of how far it's moved that turn. They just want to move crap around and roll the dice.


That's right!.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 75
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/30/2014 3:41:14 AM   
sealclubber

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/2/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Too many people don't want to have to engage their brain when they play a game. It's 'too hard'. They don't want to bother to determine if it's a good idea or bad idea to include a unit in a combat because of how far it's moved that turn. They just want to move crap around and roll the dice.


I like the fact that you need to consider movement before making attacks. Operational warfare is largely about planning. That's actually the basis for my suggestion... the problem is you can plan out a series of moves to crack a weak point in a front and try to exploit it but... if that attack takes 4 rounds instead of 1-2 your entire plan goes out the window. If this consistently happens I think it just gets frustrating.

quote:

Turn burn isn't the only reason a turn will end. A failed Force Proficiency test will also end the turn. If there is a lower MRPB this will become more likely if I recall since at the end of each series of combats this is done. So if either side has a lower Force Proficiency level that side will experience fewer combat rounds because of a greater chance of failing a Force Proficiency check if my reasoning is correct.


This is my understanding of how it works. I also don't think a MRPB any less than 3 is actually a good thing, because sometimes you just gotta crack that hex _now_ and if it takes 10 rounds, so be it. I think having a degree of uncertainty in planned battles is a good thing, but I think that uncertainty is too high for an operational level game.

quote:

One thing that is a little irritating about the current system is that all combats across the board take the same amount of time regardless of how difficult or easy they are. You can have a difficult battle in one place and five hundred kilometers away have an easy battle but both battles end up taking the same amount of time because the difficult battle had a series of continues. Instead of battles ending when the difficult battle is ended perhaps all battles should end when they easy ones are over. Dunno, but something has to be better than the current system of all battles taking as long as the most difficult one.


Agreed but I'm not sure there is a solution here without breaking the phased combat system. For units that don't participate in combat, how many rounds of movement do you consume? If two battles occur, one taking 2 rounds and one 4 rounds, the system consumes up to 4 rounds from all other units to maintain the integrity of time. The big problem I have with WiTE is that it defies the reality of space and time and (for me at least) the entire game goes out the window as a result.

I really like TOAW. It's the most flexible wargaming system I have ever played, full stop. The combat phases adds a great abstraction for time. But I do feel the focus tends to be on he who controls tactical rounds best, which is not really what an operational level game should hinge on. I think giving the player somewhat more certainty (but not complete) over tactical round usage would be a good thing.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 76
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/30/2014 6:20:57 AM   
Cfant

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/12/2010
Status: offline
The frustrating thing is e.g. in a WWII game: A 100 sovjet soldiers attack 10 german defenders in a village in farfarawayrussianprovince. The fight takes its time or the soviet small group fails its prof-check. And 8000 miles away the British say: "Oh, you heard of these 10 brave german defenders in Russia? Better stop our ongoing offense in Lybia against italian forces!" That's, of course, ridiculous.

An MRPB can help a lot. My suggestion: A failed prof-check only ends the turn for this certain force (all counters who are on "intern cooperation" with the failing counter), sending them in reorg for the ongoing turn, but no effect for all other formations. So the British could still kick Italians despite the 100 Soviets, who run away ;)

(in reply to sealclubber)
Post #: 77
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 4/30/2014 1:03:34 PM   
rjcme

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/15/2011
Status: offline
That´s the problem with the IGOUGO system. If only Matrix tried to limit its disadvantages...

(in reply to Cfant)
Post #: 78
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/1/2014 5:54:07 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
Very good news, especially to hear that the UI will be updated. I've always been drawn to this game, but every time I try to get into the UI has been such a chore that I can't continue for very long...

Any chance that data import/export will be allowed? That would be awesome!

(in reply to rjcme)
Post #: 79
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/1/2014 10:22:51 AM   
Cfant

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjcme

That´s the problem with the IGOUGO system. If only Matrix tried to limit its disadvantages...


TOAW does limit the disadvantages. Therefore we have the combat turn system Problem is, that a turn ending hits the whole troops of one side. I guess it's because TOAW was designed to allow single-battle-scenarios? However, if turn endings would only hit the concerning formation, it might be better, not only for big scenarios.

(in reply to rjcme)
Post #: 80
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/1/2014 11:16:32 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4213
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cfant2


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjcme

That´s the problem with the IGOUGO system. If only Matrix tried to limit its disadvantages...


TOAW does limit the disadvantages. Therefore we have the combat turn system Problem is, that a turn ending hits the whole troops of one side. I guess it's because TOAW was designed to allow single-battle-scenarios? However, if turn endings would only hit the concerning formation, it might be better, not only for big scenarios.

Indeed, Cfnat2... hence Operational Art of War, not Strategic Art of War. I love the flexibility of the system for the limited campaigns/operations; especially the combined arms concept with units in Rgt/Btl size. For an oldie I think it's still one of the best programs available, can't beat the editor etc.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Cfant)
Post #: 81
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/1/2014 1:17:04 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10349
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Combat rounds is one aspect that makes the game stand out from the crowd. It is a learning curve at first..but sometimes you have to put in some effort to get great rewards.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 82
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/2/2014 10:48:41 PM   
rjcme

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/15/2011
Status: offline
In my opinion there is too much an "All army stands still" feeling during turns. Perhaps if the distance a unit has to walk was more reduced it would sound a bit more realistic.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 83
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/3/2014 9:22:03 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4213
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjcme

In my opinion there is too much an "All army stands still" feeling during turns. Perhaps if the distance a unit has to walk was more reduced it would sound a bit more realistic.

Depends on the scenario and of course the scale. Hence I prefer the size/scale the system works more than just reasonably well. We'll see what RT and 'Onkel Bob' got in store for 4.0.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to rjcme)
Post #: 84
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/4/2014 10:47:58 AM   
secadegas

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sealclubber

I really like TOAW. It's the most flexible wargaming system I have ever played, full stop. The combat phases adds a great abstraction for time. But I do feel the focus tends to be on he who controls tactical rounds best, which is not really what an operational level game should hinge on. I think giving the player somewhat more certainty (but not complete) over tactical round usage would be a good thing.


I totally agree with every word from Sealclubber.

At the current game status (after 3xBb.exe) this should be the main development direction and where all efforts should be spent.
This together with even more design possibilities.

IMHO, PO/AI further development is hopeless (as is highly time consuming for potential results and useless when you get experienced with the system) and all other land "war" factors (supply, forces morale and fatigue, fog of war, the necessary combat uncertainty, unit's moviment, terrain, weather, etc) are already represented on a fairly realistic way.

There are always the "old" Navy and Air models with obvious potential for improvements but, IMO, not a priority as we must not forget TOAW is land Operational simulator system. And damned good one.






(in reply to sealclubber)
Post #: 85
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/19/2014 3:08:28 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
One more request for 4.0: fix the unit database so that you can limit the number of entries. For instance, I previously tried to create a unit database limited to WWII East Front units. Unfortunately, the database then refilled itself with other random units, apparently it needs to have a certain number of entries.

Also, I think that this game system could be viable for years to come, but to do so it might be necessary to limit compatibility with old scenarios. Some might complain, but I think it is necessary for the successful evolution of this engine.


(in reply to secadegas)
Post #: 86
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/19/2014 3:28:57 PM   
Sgt.Fury25


Posts: 141
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
Hi all,dropping in to ask has ralphtrick updated progress on 3.5 update? thanks

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 87
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/27/2014 7:02:57 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 2840
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
My only wish for 4.0 and I am hooked for another 10 years.

Add more level (front/army/corps/…) in the OOB but not just for display. Would be interesting to link this to supply effects or command radius for example. I am not sure exactly but you are the experts and you will figure out.

And the ability to change a unit from one formation to another in the OOB during the game.


(in reply to Sgt.Fury25)
Post #: 88
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 5/28/2014 5:52:28 AM   
Ruppich


Posts: 49
Joined: 11/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
And the ability to change a unit from one formation to another in the OOB during the game.
Nothing more than this and i'm "double hooked"

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 89
RE: Next version News (4.0) - 1/10/2015 4:43:06 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline
Hi Ralph,

Any update? I'm so excited!

(in reply to Ruppich)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Next version News (4.0) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

0.169