Two questions on the new version

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Two questions on the new version

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 >> Two questions on the new version

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Two questions on the new version - 2/17/2011 8:32:51 AM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

So I have installed last version. The change looks goods so far.

1/ What is the ANT ATTACK TACTICS? please don't use cryptic or hermetic name thinking every one knows it. We play between freinds and don't know what this refer to. Please explain in common language.

2/ I have look a classic TOA scenario and the sea appear to be "flat GREY", is it working as designed? If so it is ugly.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

Post #: 1

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/17/2011 8:52:10 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

There you go lad -

quote:

Ant unit attacks
The smallest and least valuable units, usually with nothing but passive equipment, are subdivided and employed alone in attacks repeatedly. The attackers thereby receive the above benefits while risking hardly anything. The impact is that powerful, healthy stacks of defenders can be decimated and redlined at little cost if exposed to attacking units. The fact that this is well known by most players and excessively exploited by them gives the game system a big realism hit.

from one of Curtis Le May's aka Bob Cross' articles

Plenty of graphic mods around or you can chance to the previous version's graphics, too.

Hope that helped.

kLiNk, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 2

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/17/2011 9:11:57 AM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Thank you.

I think the above benefit are Artillery support or other such things? When can I find this article?

For the graphic, my question question more is it normal? It look like a something is buggy.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 3

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/17/2011 10:12:08 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

a) http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?34588-Ant-unit-attacks

b) post a screenshot and we might tell; and the sea is grey'ish blue :D

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 4

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/17/2011 1:07:23 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Thank you,

I understand the Ant units tricks now. I wonder if the solution is not a bit too drastic but, a good one.

ok, I have check again the screen shot on matrix site and the sea is correct. One tip, it look far better with hex on. I still think it could have been imporved though.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 5

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/17/2011 2:20:48 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Thank God someone showed me how to disable a lot of the apparent 'improvement'. All these pop-ups made it almost impossible to play the game. Water is still a map feature, and it's still just for aesthetics. This game is approaching SPWAW without all the fancy graphics. Perhaps it's a more serious, 'West Point style' approach. How nations such as the US or UK who have relied on seapower to conduct any 'operations' for centuries can be effectively represented without credible naval representation is a mystery to me. As long as everyone is content that this is a game and not a serious simulation, it's all good I suppose.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 2/17/2011 2:22:17 PM >

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 6

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/18/2011 11:55:49 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Naval units or campaigns, as well as strategic aerial warfare were never the main focus of the game. They can be simulated splendidly with the help of events and theatre options. For shorter scenarios or medium length, it's also not an issue using one capital ship per counter and the escorts bundled in another counter, too. They support the initial landings and won't stay at sea with their ammo already consumed for long anyway. One could argue to introduce "tender" oder "supply" ships - but that's like if I ask the developers of harpoon to include proper land units for amphibious assaults. As far what the graphics etc. is concerned... most "kids" of generation iPhone or PSP think the graphics are "lame" and so ooooollld :)

kLiNk, Oberst

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 2/19/2011 4:59:40 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 7

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/18/2011 4:14:45 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
As far what the graphics etc. is concernd... most "kids" of generation iPhone or PSP think the graphics are "lame" and so ooooollld :)

kLiNk, Oberst

There also may be a cultural thing going. I heard somewhere years ago that Americans like primary colors and Europeans like more subdued colors. I don't know if anyone has done any studies to prove that, but I suspect that there may be some truth to it from the games I've played.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 8

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/18/2011 5:41:59 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I love how matrix has managed to reduce the expectation and change the mission for TOAW. It's cool I suppose. My demographic has been anything but quiet and I do believe there will be a game that offers slightly more detail than Strategic Command-Global Conflict. I do resent being lied to when first joining Matrix about how this game would develop, but I imagine the rest of you are rather content with the limited scope of the development. all I can say is have fun.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 9

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/18/2011 6:08:32 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I love how matrix has managed to reduce the expectation and change the mission for TOAW. It's cool I suppose. My demographic has been anything but quiet and I do believe there will be a game that offers slightly more detail than Strategic Command-Global Conflict. I do resent being lied to when first joining Matrix about how this game would develop, but I imagine the rest of you are rather content with the limited scope of the development. all I can say is have fun.

I'm sorry you feel lied to. Feel free to check back to see if it becomes a game you like. The game is still being actively developed, and a future version may be more to your liking.

Feel free to post well worked out suggestions in either the scenario design or the support forum for discussion and possible eventual inclusion.

Ralph

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 10

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/18/2011 8:37:48 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'm sorry you feel lied to. Feel free to check back to see if it becomes a game you like. The game is still being actively developed, and a future version may be more to your liking.

Feel free to post well worked out suggestions in either the scenario design or the support forum for discussion and possible eventual inclusion.

Ralph

I'm sorry too Ralph. What I've come to understand is that programmers of this genre do not grow on trees. I suppose I would've bought the game anyway, just as the 5 previous TOAW products. I'm a little surprised that no one has stepped forward offer to do a naval 'mod' on this game. I imagine that under the right circumstances that would be okay with Matrix.I know I'm not alone in wanting the scope to include naval combat, though perhaps more so than previously thought. Alas, I am incapable of offering such a mod myself. I'll survive. Unfortunately, I won't likely be playing this game, which I otherwise might enjoy.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 11

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 2:35:29 AM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

I've been buying TOAW editions for a long time. Never thought a full naval strategy would work all that well with it. The game was designed to be ground combat and the naval would detract from that imo.

I never bought the Strategic Command Global Conflict because it didn't have the level of detail I wanted. BUT I did buy the other ones, SC2 WaW PDE PT, because they did. They come with full land and naval and are very good games. Perhaps, macgregor, those might work for you.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 12

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 5:05:16 AM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

... I'm not alone in wanting the scope to include naval combat ...

+1

EDIT: Not saying that TOAW should lose its land combat orientation or centeredness. Just wishing for greater naval combat detail, more realistic integration with land combat, and in general less naval combat abstractedness.

< Message edited by berto -- 2/19/2011 1:59:16 PM >

_____________________________

Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1515
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, Civil War Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 13

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 3:30:55 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich12545

I've been buying TOAW editions for a long time.� Never thought a full naval strategy would work all that well with it.� The game was designed to be ground combat and the naval would detract from that imo.

I never bought the Strategic Command Global Conflict because it didn't have the level of detail I wanted.� BUT I did buy the other ones, SC2 WaW PDE PT, because they did.� They come with full land and naval and are very good games.� Perhaps, macgregor, those might work for you.

That's right. Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem. This is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, selfish attitude toward this game I've encountered since being one of the first people to post on this forum. What a crock! Who would tell the programmer NOT to do work on the game unless he was setup by the programmer? David Heath is an idiot for letting this happen. As some know, I enjoy posting and I will do my utmost to expose this over-priced turd for the sham it is.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 2/19/2011 3:33:41 PM >

(in reply to rich12545)

Post #: 14

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 3:41:07 PM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
... As some know, I enjoy posting ...

And on occasion I enjoy clicking the little green block button.

Begone, macgregor!

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 15

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 4:37:24 PM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
That's right. Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem. This is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, selfish attitude toward this game I've encountered since being one of the first people to post on this forum. What a crock! Who would tell the programmer NOT to do work on the game unless he was setup by the programmer? David Heath is an idiot for letting this happen. As some know, I enjoy posting and I will do my utmost to expose this over-priced turd for the sham it is.

And this is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, VERY selfish attitude toward this game that could, if implemented, make it something it's not and ruin it.

I've been reading your whining periodically over the last few years. This game has been out for more than 10 years and is a classic the way it is. Hey, if you don't like the game then go look for a different one. But stop cluttering up the forum with your adding an additional facet that would take tons of dev time and probably wouldn't fit. Leaving naval and air as abstract is fine.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 16

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 4:55:28 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich12545
And this is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, VERY selfish attitude toward this game that could, if implemented, make it something it's not and ruin it.

I've been reading your whining periodically over the last few years. This game has been out for more than 10 years and is a classic the way it is. Hey, if you don't like the game then go look for a different one. But stop cluttering up the forum with your adding an additional facet that would take tons of dev time and probably wouldn't fit. Leaving naval and air as abstract is fine.

That's even better than 'detract'. 'Something it's not'that will 'ruin it'. May I ask that unless your name is Norm Koger ...what exactly qualifies you to make such an outlandish and preposterous statement? I'm sorry. We've had this conversation before, and I realize it ends up with more people saying stuff like 'Don't improve the naval aspect please!'(is that you Ralph?) It's like a bad dream. But fortunately for me, one I only endure by choice.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 2/19/2011 4:57:19 PM >

(in reply to rich12545)

Post #: 17

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 4:55:58 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

TOAW is definetly not a naval wargame. And as far as I know no pnp mixe naval and land well. Even if it is a failure (don't argue with me on that) WitP is pearhaps the only one that does both, but the game is so slow.

We will need another game for that not just a patch, period.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to rich12545)

Post #: 18

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 5:02:05 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

TOAW is definetly not a naval wargame. And as far as I know no pnp mixe naval and land well. Even if it is a failure (don't argue with me on that) WitP is pearhaps the only one that does both, but the game is so slow.

We will need another game for that not just a patch, period.

So we'll just equate any improvement with 'making it a naval wargame'. LMAO at the absurdity.

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 19

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 5:19:09 PM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
That's even better than 'detract'. 'Something it's not'that will 'ruin it'. May I ask that unless your name is Norm Koger ...what exactly qualifies you to make such an outlandish and preposterous statement? I'm sorry. We've had this conversation before, and I realize it ends up with more people saying stuff like 'Don't improve the naval aspect please!'(is that you Ralph?) It's like a bad dream. But fortunately for me, one I only endure by choice.

You keep whining about improving the naval aspect in TOAW. Yet I've never seen a post where you say how or why. All you do is complain and start flame wars like this one.

Just in case nobody told you, this is an operational level game. It typically covers individual battles. How many individual battles in the last 100 years are equally divided between naval and ground assets where each is just as important? I suppose there are a few but I can't think of any offhand.

Why don't you go to the Carriers at War forum and demand they include ground forces? That would make as much sense as coming here and demand a game that depicts ground battles include naval forces.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 20

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/19/2011 8:53:28 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
That's right. Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem. This is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, selfish attitude toward this game I've encountered since being one of the first people to post on this forum. What a crock! Who would tell the programmer NOT to do work on the game unless he was setup by the programmer? David Heath is an idiot for letting this happen. As some know, I enjoy posting and I will do my utmost to expose this over-priced turd for the sham it is.

No conspiracies, just different priorities. Take a look at the wishlist, there are 47 pages of ways to change TOAW.

For the 3.4 patch, the major things we picked like reworking supply were simply more important for that patch than Naval warfare. That doesn't mean that will be true for a future patch.

I appreciate passion, but please don't make any more personal attacks. If you want to be helpful, critique the naval warfare mod listed in the wishlist or work up your own scheme. If you want to be even more helpful, tell me how the AI would work for a naval oponent.

Ralph

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 21

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/20/2011 3:32:16 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

As I'm posting, Ralph is roaring ahead with 3.5. And, while I hate to get people salivating over it when 3.4 has just come out, if things work out as planned, it's going to have some very sexy things in it (in fact, it already has), including some of the naval issues. After years spent mostly just fixing things that never worked right in TOAW, we finally seem to have our heads far enough above water to be able to address some of the "blue sky" desires.

But there has to be a recognition of the enormous number of those desires, and the non-trivial nature of their implementation. You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

By the way, I'm posting this from the vicinity of Trinidad, Colombia.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 22

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/20/2011 4:15:18 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I appreciate the responses from the developers. It's the responses from the players that just incenses me. I just hope that if the day arrives that the naval combat improves, that they don't all start whining like me - saying things like 'I don't like the game now that you improved the scope'. I'm confused. I honestly don't know what is driving this kind of reaction.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 23

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/20/2011 4:15:56 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem.

You're really starting to sound like Ernie...

"Rubber ducky, you're the one!
You make bath-time, lots of fun!
Rubber ducky, I'm awfully fond of you!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

How's 16:00 work for you? *grin*

_____________________________

"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 24

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/20/2011 10:44:37 PM

marjur

Posts: 101
Joined: 10/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As I'm posting, Ralph is roaring ahead with 3.5. And, while I hate to get people salivating over it when 3.4 has just come out, if things work out as planned, it's going to have some very sexy things in it (in fact, it already has), including some of the naval issues. After years spent mostly just fixing things that never worked right in TOAW, we finally seem to have our heads far enough above water to be able to address some of the "blue sky" desires.

But there has to be a recognition of the enormous number of those desires, and the non-trivial nature of their implementation. You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

By the way, I'm posting this from the vicinity of Trinidad, Colombia.

Wow, already a new patch in the works!

I wonder what'll be in it

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 25

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/20/2011 11:14:38 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marjur
Wow, already a new patch in the works!
I wonder what'll be in it

'Stuff'

I can confirm that I've coded settings in the INI file to allow you to adjust the animation delays for Movement and for Combat. I cannot confirm that they actually will be in 3.5, but they are simple enough that I would be surprised if they get pulled.

_____________________________

(in reply to marjur)

Post #: 26

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/20/2011 11:18:48 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem.

You're really starting to sound like Ernie...

"Rubber ducky, you're the one!
You make bath-time, lots of fun!
Rubber ducky, I'm awfully fond of you!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

How's 16:00 work for you? *grin*

Let me get this straight ...you're making a 'Sesame Street' reference ...in response to a comment I made about people who resist progress and technological improvement? Can someone explain this to me? Is there a segway I'm missing, some correlation there? I don't get it. This has definitely reached the level of 'twilight zone'.

In all fairness Curtis and I appreciate your response, can we agree that comparing the 7 years I have posted(I'm one of the original members) ideas and offered suggestions to a couple hours doesn't correlate either. In fact, my very first post in Matrix 7 years ago, was about this very subject.

It matters not to me what the problem is between the developers, or the other players and I is, if me leaving this forum and terminating my membership is the answer, and perhaps someone would care to start a thread, if enough of you wish it, I certainly will.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 2/20/2011 11:29:22 PM >

(in reply to E)

Post #: 27

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/21/2011 1:55:09 AM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I can confirm that I've coded settings in the INI file to allow you to adjust the animation delays for Movement and for Combat. I cannot confirm that they actually will be in 3.5, but they are simple enough that I would be surprised if they get pulled.

Hey, that's great. Fact is, I'd like to slow down animation displays even more, and more finely tuned, than what's available in 3.4 (via slowAnimation=Y). A pause-game hot-key would be a nice addition, too.

Enhanced naval (and air) combat? Wow, it keeps getting better and better!

_____________________________

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 28

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/21/2011 2:52:43 AM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Let me get this straight ...you're making a 'Sesame Street' reference ...in response to a comment I made about people who resist progress and technological improvement? Can someone explain this to me? Is there a segway I'm missing, some correlation there? I don't get it. This has definitely reached the level of 'twilight zone'.

It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to your obsession with water toys (I mean "Naval Combat Modeling" *grin*). The fact that it was Sesame Street-level jibe, seemed even more appropriate in the context of your telling the other poster his species should have remained on all fours. *grin*

_____________________________

"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 29

RE: Two questions on the new version - 2/21/2011 7:11:53 PM

Sprocket62

Posts: 73
Joined: 10/9/2010
From: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Status: offline

I believe macgregor would like this included in the next patch :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System

(in reply to E)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Two questions on the new version

Page: [1] 2 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

1.141

Slitherine

Two questions on the new version