Torch disappointment.
Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Torch disappointment.
So I decided to buy the Torch expansion in the hope that at least one of the advertised 10 scenarios would be a campaign game that starts with Torch.
Boy was I disappointed.
Who thought it would be a good idea to finally add to the game what it should have had from the beginning and NOT add a campaign scenario that actually starts when the historical campaign started?
Apparently, the only way I'm gonna get a campaign game that starts with Torch is to create one myself.
Given so many poor design decisions between this game and WitE2 it appears that the 2by3 guys peaked with WitP and are running on fumes.
Boy was I disappointed.
Who thought it would be a good idea to finally add to the game what it should have had from the beginning and NOT add a campaign scenario that actually starts when the historical campaign started?
Apparently, the only way I'm gonna get a campaign game that starts with Torch is to create one myself.
Given so many poor design decisions between this game and WitE2 it appears that the 2by3 guys peaked with WitP and are running on fumes.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
Hans,
I hold the opposite view, I was not disappointed in either WITW, Torch nor WITE2.
I hold the opposite view, I was not disappointed in either WITW, Torch nor WITE2.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
I presume you must be an accountant.
It couldn't be more apparent that both games were designed by accountants for accountants.
As I mentioned long ago in the WitE2 forum I have no interest in playing games of lists.
Both of these games suffer from a severe lack of graphic and visual involvement of the player in what is happening while it is happening.
My entreaties in this regard kept getting responses like "but you can find it all in the Commanders Report". While the CR in this game isn't as bad as the one in WitE2, both relegate the player to playing a game of lists.
My entreaties to the design team to please consider adding a visual thinker to the team of accountants was met with complete silence. One has to wonder if that bunch even knows what a visual thinker is.
It couldn't be more apparent that both games were designed by accountants for accountants.
As I mentioned long ago in the WitE2 forum I have no interest in playing games of lists.
Both of these games suffer from a severe lack of graphic and visual involvement of the player in what is happening while it is happening.
My entreaties in this regard kept getting responses like "but you can find it all in the Commanders Report". While the CR in this game isn't as bad as the one in WitE2, both relegate the player to playing a game of lists.
My entreaties to the design team to please consider adding a visual thinker to the team of accountants was met with complete silence. One has to wonder if that bunch even knows what a visual thinker is.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
Your presumption is wrong, I am a software engineer and a frontend architect, but I do love detailed wargames such as WITW, WITE2 and WITP-AE, the detail is outstanding and all three games capture operational and strategic warfare very nicely.
These games are not for HOI or SC folks.
These games are not for HOI or SC folks.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
A software engineer is the same thing as an accountant. Both are number crunches, not visual thinkers.
Your snide attempt to categorize me as a beer and pretzels wargamer is offensive.
I have been a grognard wargamer since the early 1970s. I played and owned very mega boardgame ever made with the exception of SPIs Campaign for North Africa. I was most likely playing mega board games before you were even in diapers.
While I don't go around proclaiming my playtester prowess in the manner you do, my name is in the design credits of one of the classics of boardgames, Advanced Third Reich, as well as the computer game Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. Buried somewhere in an archive on this forum is an AAR I did of a playtest of a scenario from the Bulge game that got rave reviews.
I bought, and continue to play WitW and WitE2 because of my deep interest in both campaigns and my love of very detailed large scale games, in spite of my distaste for the many design failures in both.
I agree whole heartedly with you regarding WitPAE. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt the best game ever made. What it does that both of these games fail to do is involve the player visually in the combat resolution. At least so for the naval and air combat. It fails on the ground combat, because it is apparent that the entire ground game portion of the design received the least amount of design effort.
The fanboi nature of the defense of games on these forums in response to any effort to provide constructive criticism was a big part of my choosing to leave these forums a couple of years ago in disgust. I simply got tired of being shouted down by the fanboys. While your fan boy nature is shining through as you refuse to accept the validity of my criticisms, since this is my first interaction with you, I'm willing to take the time to explain where I am coming from and the considerable background I bring to the table rather than simply being dismissive with you.
ps...I take strong exception with the manner in which software engineers have hijacked the term "architect". Architects are visual thinkers who design buildings. That's what I did for 46 years before retiring from the profession.
Your snide attempt to categorize me as a beer and pretzels wargamer is offensive.
I have been a grognard wargamer since the early 1970s. I played and owned very mega boardgame ever made with the exception of SPIs Campaign for North Africa. I was most likely playing mega board games before you were even in diapers.
While I don't go around proclaiming my playtester prowess in the manner you do, my name is in the design credits of one of the classics of boardgames, Advanced Third Reich, as well as the computer game Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. Buried somewhere in an archive on this forum is an AAR I did of a playtest of a scenario from the Bulge game that got rave reviews.
I bought, and continue to play WitW and WitE2 because of my deep interest in both campaigns and my love of very detailed large scale games, in spite of my distaste for the many design failures in both.
I agree whole heartedly with you regarding WitPAE. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt the best game ever made. What it does that both of these games fail to do is involve the player visually in the combat resolution. At least so for the naval and air combat. It fails on the ground combat, because it is apparent that the entire ground game portion of the design received the least amount of design effort.
The fanboi nature of the defense of games on these forums in response to any effort to provide constructive criticism was a big part of my choosing to leave these forums a couple of years ago in disgust. I simply got tired of being shouted down by the fanboys. While your fan boy nature is shining through as you refuse to accept the validity of my criticisms, since this is my first interaction with you, I'm willing to take the time to explain where I am coming from and the considerable background I bring to the table rather than simply being dismissive with you.
ps...I take strong exception with the manner in which software engineers have hijacked the term "architect". Architects are visual thinkers who design buildings. That's what I did for 46 years before retiring from the profession.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
HansBolter wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 5:54 am A software engineer is the same thing as an accountant. Both are number crunches, not visual thinkers.
Your snide attempt to categorize me as a beer and pretzels wargamer is offensive.
I have been a grognard wargamer since the early 1970s. I played and owned very mega boardgame ever made with the exception of SPIs Campaign for North Africa. I was most likely playing mega board games before you were even in diapers.
While I don't go around proclaiming my playtester prowess in the manner you do, my name is in the design credits of one of the classics of boardgames, Advanced Third Reich, as well as the computer game Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. Buried somewhere in an archive on this forum is an AAR I did of a playtest of a scenario from the Bulge game that got rave reviews.
I bought, and continue to play WitW and WitE2 because of my deep interest in both campaigns and my love of very detailed large scale games, in spite of my distaste for the many design failures in both.
I agree whole heartedly with you regarding WitPAE. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt the best game ever made. What it does that both of these games fail to do is involve the player visually in the combat resolution. At least so for the naval and air combat. It fails on the ground combat, because it is apparent that the entire ground game portion of the design received the least amount of design effort.
The fanboi nature of the defense of games on these forums in response to any effort to provide constructive criticism was a big part of my choosing to leave these forums a couple of years ago in disgust. I simply got tired of being shouted down by the fanboys. While your fan boy nature is shining through as you refuse to accept the validity of my criticisms, since this is my first interaction with you, I'm willing to take the time to explain where I am coming from and the considerable background I bring to the table rather than simply being dismissive with you.
ps...I take strong exception with the manner in which software engineers have hijacked the term "architect". Architects are visual thinkers who design buildings. That's what I did for 46 years before retiring from the profession.
I have over 500 board wargames and I started playing board wargames in 1978.
I have not even listed all the play testing credits I have done in board wargames.
I really don't have time to quibble with you on things of no importance.
Some of my favorite board wargames are Fire in the East/Scorched Earth and the Urals (GDW), War in Europe (SPI), TSS (SPI), WV (SPI) and the best is ASL, I have been playing ASL since 1985.
I enjoy WITW, WITE2 and WITP-AE. I am not disappointed with any of them.
I am disappointed with other things.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
Your portrayal of the needs of visual thinkers as something unworthy of quibbling over clearly demonstrates your complete lack of an ability to think visually and consider the needs of those who think differently than you.
One would presume that those setting out to design wargames would want thier product to have as wide of an appeal as possible. Your complete and utter narrow mindedness towards visual thinkers belies the fact that as a non- visual thinking number cruncher, your only interest is in creating a product geared toward like minded individuals. Thus my portrayal of this design effort as having been done by "accountants" for "accountants".
If everyone on the design team, with the exception of the one who created the map and counter art, are number crunchers, the end product is going to be a reflection of that.
You might want to work on learning to be cognizant of the fact that not all of us are number crunchers.
One would presume that those setting out to design wargames would want thier product to have as wide of an appeal as possible. Your complete and utter narrow mindedness towards visual thinkers belies the fact that as a non- visual thinking number cruncher, your only interest is in creating a product geared toward like minded individuals. Thus my portrayal of this design effort as having been done by "accountants" for "accountants".
If everyone on the design team, with the exception of the one who created the map and counter art, are number crunchers, the end product is going to be a reflection of that.
You might want to work on learning to be cognizant of the fact that not all of us are number crunchers.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
Not getting you at all really. WITW, WITE2, and WITP-AE are all visual games. None of them are non-visual games, when I think of a non-visual game I tend to think of a DOS program or a java log file spitting out data. To me that is not what any of these three games are.
I am surprised that someone who claims to be a board wargamer (I own and have played both TR and ATR) thinks of these games as number crunchers or non-visual games.
Unless your meaning you want some visual feedback in real time or well I am really not sure what your after really.
I don't want a wishy washy game based on artwork, artwork alone is nothing. You have to be creative like RAS from SPI who pioneered wargame graphics back in the 1970s, but there was data (your idea of number crunching) and the user (i.e. the player) had to read the data and interpret the rules.
You can lay off with the name calling and snipping I could care less really about that and you can call me whatever you like, but don't expect me to get insulted or offended, cause I really don't care.
I am surprised that someone who claims to be a board wargamer (I own and have played both TR and ATR) thinks of these games as number crunchers or non-visual games.
Unless your meaning you want some visual feedback in real time or well I am really not sure what your after really.
I don't want a wishy washy game based on artwork, artwork alone is nothing. You have to be creative like RAS from SPI who pioneered wargame graphics back in the 1970s, but there was data (your idea of number crunching) and the user (i.e. the player) had to read the data and interpret the rules.
You can lay off with the name calling and snipping I could care less really about that and you can call me whatever you like, but don't expect me to get insulted or offended, cause I really don't care.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
I'll make another effort.
Where WitW and WitE2 fall short is providing visual, graphic, involvement in the combat execution process.
As I mentioned previously, WitP and its successor, WitPAE provides a graphic depiction of the combat resolution, at least for air and naval combat. The ball was dropped on land combat. Even something as rudimentary as lining the combat units up on opposite side of the screen and depicting which unit is firing and which unit is receiving fire goes a long, long way toward satisfying the needs of visual thinkers. Number crunchers, who have no desire to sit through the combat animations, can turn them off. Additionally, animations that are providing no real graphic involvement for the player, such as aerial bombing of land targets, can be skipped by clicking on the Done button, while still providing a combat report. Even the combat reports can be turned off by those who only want the turn to be resolved quickly and prefer to review results at the end of the turn by reading lists.
Clicking on the "x" in the upper right corner of the combat resolution panel in both WitW and WitE2, in order to end a tedious combat resolution of being forced to read flashing text completely bypasses a final combat report.
What is intended to serve as "increased levels of detail" in combat resolution in WitE2 is utterly lacking, to the degree that I would venture to guess that pretty much no one uses a setting above level 3.
The lack of screen centering on battle locations during air combat is another design failure. While WitW does a better job of it than WitE2, it also falls short. Whenever a battle location is completely off the current screen view, the game engine does center the view on that battle. However, subsequent battles that occur anywhere within that screen view do not cause the screen to recenter on them. As a result of this, many battles occur on the edge of the screen, half on and half off, obscuring the ability of the player to see where they are happening. Additionally, many battles then occur in locations hidden from the player by the interface in the bottom right of the screen that depicts the running tally of losses, or behind the combat resolution interface itself. Both of these conditions result in the battle location being completely hidden from the player.
Do you still consider my points as invalid and unworthy of quibbling over?
My assumption that you are a youngster, lacking in real wargaming experience, was obviously wrong and I apologize for it. Just to keep the record straight my wargaming life started in '73 and I also owned and played every game in the Eurpoa Series starting with DNO.
Where WitW and WitE2 fall short is providing visual, graphic, involvement in the combat execution process.
As I mentioned previously, WitP and its successor, WitPAE provides a graphic depiction of the combat resolution, at least for air and naval combat. The ball was dropped on land combat. Even something as rudimentary as lining the combat units up on opposite side of the screen and depicting which unit is firing and which unit is receiving fire goes a long, long way toward satisfying the needs of visual thinkers. Number crunchers, who have no desire to sit through the combat animations, can turn them off. Additionally, animations that are providing no real graphic involvement for the player, such as aerial bombing of land targets, can be skipped by clicking on the Done button, while still providing a combat report. Even the combat reports can be turned off by those who only want the turn to be resolved quickly and prefer to review results at the end of the turn by reading lists.
Clicking on the "x" in the upper right corner of the combat resolution panel in both WitW and WitE2, in order to end a tedious combat resolution of being forced to read flashing text completely bypasses a final combat report.
What is intended to serve as "increased levels of detail" in combat resolution in WitE2 is utterly lacking, to the degree that I would venture to guess that pretty much no one uses a setting above level 3.
The lack of screen centering on battle locations during air combat is another design failure. While WitW does a better job of it than WitE2, it also falls short. Whenever a battle location is completely off the current screen view, the game engine does center the view on that battle. However, subsequent battles that occur anywhere within that screen view do not cause the screen to recenter on them. As a result of this, many battles occur on the edge of the screen, half on and half off, obscuring the ability of the player to see where they are happening. Additionally, many battles then occur in locations hidden from the player by the interface in the bottom right of the screen that depicts the running tally of losses, or behind the combat resolution interface itself. Both of these conditions result in the battle location being completely hidden from the player.
Do you still consider my points as invalid and unworthy of quibbling over?
My assumption that you are a youngster, lacking in real wargaming experience, was obviously wrong and I apologize for it. Just to keep the record straight my wargaming life started in '73 and I also owned and played every game in the Eurpoa Series starting with DNO.
Hans
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
Additional issues have to do with screen resolution and the lack of the ability to alter it for the game.
I can appreciate the fact that during the design process 4k resolution monitors were not the norm.
However, they are now.
While scaling was added to WitE2, it has not been added to this game. In order to make this game playable I have to downgrade my monitor resolution from 4k (3560 x 2040) to 2k (1980 x 1020). I bit of a PITA, but something that can be lived with. I've come to the conclusion that I need to do the same for WitE2, because while scaling does help the screen view of the map and most interfaces, it has no effect at all on the Commanders Report. It remains at the 4k resolution of the monitor. This results in the text being so tiny it isn't worth trying to read it.
A small factor that would have gone a long way towards making the CR interface more legible would have been the use of bold or semi-bold text. Bold text, even when tiny is far more legible than spidery thin text. Another small item that would have increased legibility would have been to use full line spacing, rather than the 1/4, or at most 1/2 line spacing that was utilized.
Again, are these criticisms utterly invalid, or do they have some merit?
I understand that criticism is a hard thing for many people to accept. However, criticism is a considerable vehicle for improvement. Design crits in architecture school were some of the most brutal experiences one could ever want to endure and were the cause of many dropouts. Those willing to take the time to provide constructive criticism should be thanked for it, not shouted down and summarily dismissed.
I can appreciate the fact that during the design process 4k resolution monitors were not the norm.
However, they are now.
While scaling was added to WitE2, it has not been added to this game. In order to make this game playable I have to downgrade my monitor resolution from 4k (3560 x 2040) to 2k (1980 x 1020). I bit of a PITA, but something that can be lived with. I've come to the conclusion that I need to do the same for WitE2, because while scaling does help the screen view of the map and most interfaces, it has no effect at all on the Commanders Report. It remains at the 4k resolution of the monitor. This results in the text being so tiny it isn't worth trying to read it.
A small factor that would have gone a long way towards making the CR interface more legible would have been the use of bold or semi-bold text. Bold text, even when tiny is far more legible than spidery thin text. Another small item that would have increased legibility would have been to use full line spacing, rather than the 1/4, or at most 1/2 line spacing that was utilized.
Again, are these criticisms utterly invalid, or do they have some merit?
I understand that criticism is a hard thing for many people to accept. However, criticism is a considerable vehicle for improvement. Design crits in architecture school were some of the most brutal experiences one could ever want to endure and were the cause of many dropouts. Those willing to take the time to provide constructive criticism should be thanked for it, not shouted down and summarily dismissed.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
Well these last two posts make more sense in what your after.
But unfortunately I think that ship has sailed. As far as I know all three games are end of life from the development perspective so trying to get changes into WITW/WITE2 as your hoping is just not going to happen. If memory serves me, GG is retiring and I don't see anything coming from them in the near future.
Currently WITP-AE is expecting is last and final patch, but that was submitted almost two years ago (this Dec.) and it still has not materialized.
WitE2 just released its final patch a week or two ago and its done, in the hopper, finished.
I don't think WITW is going to get any updates either, and I think that the last one was several years ago.
So while I now understand your requests and issue I just don't see anything being done about it for any of these three games. So I don't see a point in asking for these types of enhancements because I don't think the stewards of the code will having any inclination to do anything with it. But we can dream I suppose.
So I can say I am disappointed in not seeing any more changes to any of these games, but I highly doubt anything will change, at best maybe a patch to fix some really really bad bug but I don't even see that.
It was good while it lasted and they are still fun to play but I just don't see anyone in this business going about fixing or adding what your after.
So where does that leave a fellow?
We can just accept it as a fact that this is it and play it and see the bright spots or we can move on.
I just don't see any hope really.
I still tinker around with PC wargames but more and more I am finding myself right back in the board game world using VASSAL (and VASL for ASL) and these board wargames (at least some of them) are still supported or can still be played between two fellows using VASSAL.
I am also in a MP game of MWIF and again that game has been in development for a decade or so.
I don't know, it just does not seem like a good use of time to bemoan missing features or ask for enhancement if the well is dry and they moved on to other cash cows to tend to???
Maybe I am too pessimistic, or maybe too much of a realist, but I see no bright spots here.
Thanks for resolving our differences in a gentleman way, life is too short and I know this all too well, I had a 13% chance of surviving the widowmaker heart attack last year and we are such a niche group of folks its not worth it to fuss about somethings.
In the meantime I am enjoying life and what gaming I can, I have a couple of nice matches going on, until I am called home for good.
But unfortunately I think that ship has sailed. As far as I know all three games are end of life from the development perspective so trying to get changes into WITW/WITE2 as your hoping is just not going to happen. If memory serves me, GG is retiring and I don't see anything coming from them in the near future.
Currently WITP-AE is expecting is last and final patch, but that was submitted almost two years ago (this Dec.) and it still has not materialized.
WitE2 just released its final patch a week or two ago and its done, in the hopper, finished.
I don't think WITW is going to get any updates either, and I think that the last one was several years ago.
So while I now understand your requests and issue I just don't see anything being done about it for any of these three games. So I don't see a point in asking for these types of enhancements because I don't think the stewards of the code will having any inclination to do anything with it. But we can dream I suppose.
So I can say I am disappointed in not seeing any more changes to any of these games, but I highly doubt anything will change, at best maybe a patch to fix some really really bad bug but I don't even see that.
It was good while it lasted and they are still fun to play but I just don't see anyone in this business going about fixing or adding what your after.
So where does that leave a fellow?
We can just accept it as a fact that this is it and play it and see the bright spots or we can move on.
I just don't see any hope really.
I still tinker around with PC wargames but more and more I am finding myself right back in the board game world using VASSAL (and VASL for ASL) and these board wargames (at least some of them) are still supported or can still be played between two fellows using VASSAL.
I am also in a MP game of MWIF and again that game has been in development for a decade or so.
I don't know, it just does not seem like a good use of time to bemoan missing features or ask for enhancement if the well is dry and they moved on to other cash cows to tend to???
Maybe I am too pessimistic, or maybe too much of a realist, but I see no bright spots here.
Thanks for resolving our differences in a gentleman way, life is too short and I know this all too well, I had a 13% chance of surviving the widowmaker heart attack last year and we are such a niche group of folks its not worth it to fuss about somethings.
In the meantime I am enjoying life and what gaming I can, I have a couple of nice matches going on, until I am called home for good.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
I agree that I don't see real changes being made to any of the three games we have discussed and like you, I do my best to enjoy the positives of each.
AE is still my go to game of choice, but I have recently been putting in time with both of the European theater games. This is what led me to wax poetic on what could have been improved. I'm still working on a three year long game of AE, with a player generated scenario based on DaBig Babes mod. The scenario is The Long Road to Tokyo, by IanR and lasts till October of '48. My game is in March of '45.
I was hoping less to stimulate changes to the current games, than to open some eyes for future efforts. I see a strong need for a visual thinker to be intimately involved in the design process along with the code writers for more than just the map and counter art.
If you are looking for a bit of entertainment, my AAR of the Bulge scenario tactical game can still be found on these forums under Command Ops in the Discontinued Games archive. I had just finished reading several books by Michael Reynolds on the SS and was able to add commanders names to many of the units participating in that scenario. I believe it added quite a bit of authenticity to the effort.
AE is still my go to game of choice, but I have recently been putting in time with both of the European theater games. This is what led me to wax poetic on what could have been improved. I'm still working on a three year long game of AE, with a player generated scenario based on DaBig Babes mod. The scenario is The Long Road to Tokyo, by IanR and lasts till October of '48. My game is in March of '45.
I was hoping less to stimulate changes to the current games, than to open some eyes for future efforts. I see a strong need for a visual thinker to be intimately involved in the design process along with the code writers for more than just the map and counter art.
If you are looking for a bit of entertainment, my AAR of the Bulge scenario tactical game can still be found on these forums under Command Ops in the Discontinued Games archive. I had just finished reading several books by Michael Reynolds on the SS and was able to add commanders names to many of the units participating in that scenario. I believe it added quite a bit of authenticity to the effort.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
I have all the Command Ops 2 modules, really a fascinating and interesting game system. I did not know or hear about the first generation of Command Ops and only discovered CO2 I think two years ago.
I’ll have to look for that WITP-AE scenario that goes to ‘48, don’t think I have seen that one.
I’ll have to look for that WITP-AE scenario that goes to ‘48, don’t think I have seen that one.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
The Long Road to Tokyo isn't showing up in the Scenarios Available list.
I can hook you up with a copy of my install if you'll provide your email address in a PM.
I have it set up in a separate folder from the base game. I do that for all the modded scenarios.
The CO game engine created by Dave O'Connor has the best AI I have ever encountered in a computer game. I haven't played any of them in a long time because my currently updated OS (Win10) will not allow the game to run properly and I don't have the skills necessary to correct the problem.
I recall that back during the development of CO Dave was approached the the Australian military (Dave is an Aussie) about the possibility of creating a modern war version that could be used as a training tool for military commanders. Pretty impressive.
I can hook you up with a copy of my install if you'll provide your email address in a PM.
I have it set up in a separate folder from the base game. I do that for all the modded scenarios.
The CO game engine created by Dave O'Connor has the best AI I have ever encountered in a computer game. I haven't played any of them in a long time because my currently updated OS (Win10) will not allow the game to run properly and I don't have the skills necessary to correct the problem.
I recall that back during the development of CO Dave was approached the the Australian military (Dave is an Aussie) about the possibility of creating a modern war version that could be used as a training tool for military commanders. Pretty impressive.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
As far as I know Dave is still producing CO2, I am on a discord server and he talks about updates from time to time and there is a small community that is producing scenarios, but one of the main characters just passed away a few months ago, I think he was more of a content creator and lead tester or something like that.HansBolter wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 10:53 am The Long Road to Tokyo isn't showing up in the Scenarios Available list.
I can hook you up with a copy of my install if you'll provide your email address in a PM.
I have it set up in a separate folder from the base game. I do that for all the modded scenarios.
The CO game engine created by Dave O'Connor has the best AI I have ever encountered in a computer game. I haven't played any of them in a long time because my currently updated OS (Win10) will not allow the game to run properly and I don't have the skills necessary to correct the problem.
I recall that back during the development of CO Dave was approached the the Australian military (Dave is an Aussie) about the possibility of creating a modern war version that could be used as a training tool for military commanders. Pretty impressive.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Torch disappointment.
I hope that wasn't Markshot. I believe he had some health issues back when I was involved.
Please tell Dave I said hello and wish him well next time you have a conversation with him.
It appears I won't be able to send you a copy of my Long Road to Tokyo install folder by email as its 2.65gb size far exceeds my email attachment limit.
You might try sending a PM to IanR, who created the scenario, for a download link.
Please tell Dave I said hello and wish him well next time you have a conversation with him.
It appears I won't be able to send you a copy of my Long Road to Tokyo install folder by email as its 2.65gb size far exceeds my email attachment limit.
You might try sending a PM to IanR, who created the scenario, for a download link.
Hans
Re: Torch disappointment.
No it was not Mark, I have some great conversations with him. Let me find it.HansBolter wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 12:28 pm I hope that wasn't Markshot. I believe he had some health issues back when I was involved.
Please tell Dave I said hello and wish him well next time you have a conversation with him.
It appears I won't be able to send you a copy of my Long Road to Tokyo install folder by email as its 2.65gb size far exceeds my email attachment limit.
You might try sending a PM to IanR, who created the scenario, for a download link.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
Re: Torch disappointment.
Jim Carravallah passed away on or around 5/30/2024.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games