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: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 7:31:14 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment? If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.


(just my 2 € cents)

Well, referring to other computer games, instead of boardgames who for reasons of their own are developed in a very different way, if you look at V4V / W@W, you could re-assign almost to your heart's content, but, given that there is only a finite amount of supply, the more units an HQ had, the more supply it would require, this in turn restricted supply to your other HQ's, with the consequence that, at some point you would have one functional HQ and several non-functional ones. Also, there was a limit to how many units an HQ could handle efficiently, that is, a regimental HQ could only handle x number of units, a divisional one could handle y, hence putting an effective limit onto the number of units you could pass to one HQ.

In there, there were several benefits of having a unit assigned to a particular HQ, one of them, given that the games modelled some significant individual commanders having a unit assigned to one of those commander's HQ would give it some bonuses , etc.

Of course, in the end, it's all down to the objectives of TOAW development, if you're looking to have a game that is aimed at newbie's, then these ideas are pointless and will indeed only add 'headaches' to game play, if you're aiming some notches higher then it's a different ball game and you need to consider things like these. If you try for both, then you probably will end up pleasing none of the two groups.


Referring to historical reality, HQ's that were overloaded with units started having problems managing everything.

So one could simulate all this by penalizing formation proficiency and/or supply past a (designer set) ceiling. In fact, this seems better than my previous suggestions.

Of course, this wouldn't do anything about 'units getting transferred all over the map.' But inasmuch as units benefit from being close to other units of the same formation and its HQ, this would seem to be a bogey man. Units and formations are going to want to stay where they are. They're only going to get transferred when there's a real need to do it -- again, as in real life.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/1/2011 7:32:49 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1591
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 7:35:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I don't know about anyone else, but one of the things I feel that needs to be focused on is making the game flexible. That flexibility can be used by scenario designers to make scenarios simple, for newcomers, to complex, for grognards.

When people argue that something will make the game too hard then make that something optional for the scenario designer. Why does everything have to be mandatory? If this game engine is a game design tool then make it that. Sheesh. IMO everything in the game engine should be optional or adjustable by the guy making the scenario. If you are a scenario designer who wants to make a scenario for new players then you can leave out the things that you feel would make a scenario too complex for a beginner. If you want to make a scenario for hardcore wargamers throw in all the bells and whistles available.

The hierachy and reassignment ideas can be optional just as the new supply rules are. Just as the png graphics are. Just as supply levels are. I can go on and on. But just dismissing something out of hand because one person thinks it would make the game 'too hard' is not rational.

Having said that, it all comes down to a progarmming problem for Ralph or whoever else has to muck through the code. I don't know if the code looks like a plate of spaghetti or if it's orderly. If Ralph says something is impossible or far too hard, so be it. I'm just one of the end users.


Hear hear. This game is supposed to be a tool box. The fundamental attraction is that you can shape it to simulate things as you think best.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1592
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 8:01:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yes but -- unless I missed something -- you're setting up a straw man. No one proposed that it be totally free.


I'm just saying that no one ever specifies just what the hierarchy is supposed to effect, and just what the limits on reassignment are supposed to be. If it does nothing, and there are no limits, then it's just chrome. I like chrome, mind you, but there's so much we need that isn't chrome.

quote:

I'd say it's fairly obvious that there should be a cost. Make it something like embarking, in that a unit can only do it if it hasn't expended movement points, and something like entrenching, in that it consumes the rest of the turn for that unit. Hopefully, of course, the designer could set that cost as a percentage for each force. Like, it'll cost 0% of your move, or 10%, or 50%, or 100%. Alternatively, the cost could be expressed as a decline in readiness and/or supply -- which seems more appropriate, actually. Getting to know the quartermaster at XII corps. Learning never to try sending a request to General Stickinbutt that isn't on the proper form...

It's possible it would all just be too hard...but that's an unknown. There's certainly no reason to dismiss the idea in principle. And it would make our forces look more like forces. After all, right now 'Transcaucasus Front' is just an agglomeration of various support units plus some divisions that moved around a lot. It has no relationship to its subordinate armies at all.


Let's just take reassignment. Can we allow any at all without designer intervention? How does the designer specify just what is possible and what is not? (This has been discussed elsewhere in some detail).

Note that it makes a big difference what the size of the units are as to whether they can be reassigned or not. Armies, Corps, and Divisions tend to get easily reassigned. But inside the division, or lower, it's another story. You don't see regiments reassigned between divisions much and swapping battalions between regiments is rarer still. However, divisions and above often have "attached" units of various sizes that can come and go.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1593
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 8:05:41 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So one could simulate all this by penalizing formation proficiency and/or supply past a (designer set) ceiling. In fact, this seems better than my previous suggestions.


I prefer effects to the Formation parameters better than any other idea I've heard.

So, if the Formation has a command radius (set by the designer - default = unlimited) of, say, 4 hexes, and the units in the formation are spread over 8 hexes, then Formation parameters are scaled by 1/2, or 1/SQRT(2), or such.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1594
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 8:38:28 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So one could simulate all this by penalizing formation proficiency and/or supply past a (designer set) ceiling. In fact, this seems better than my previous suggestions.


I prefer effects to the Formation parameters better than any other idea I've heard.

So, if the Formation has a command radius (set by the designer - default = unlimited) of, say, 4 hexes, and the units in the formation are spread over 8 hexes, then Formation parameters are scaled by 1/2, or 1/SQRT(2), or such.


Sommat like that. Assuming this means you're not opposed to the idea in principle, the next step would be to look at what would be involved from a programming view to implement the change at all. Then we can work out what penalties would be both reasonably accurate and practical to implement.

I'll note that the deleterious effects I've read of relate not so much to distance as to simply having too many units under command. Specifically, Sixth Army began to suffer from a problem with controlling all the corps that were transferred to it -- at least, so Glantz says. Distance should be self-penalizing -- after all, presumably much of the point to being in the same formation is to improve cooperation with adjacent units. Why would someone assign a unit to a given formation if it's actually wandering around with other folks entirely?

There's probably some unspeakably dull manual somewhere that recites the problems that arise and recommends limits.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/1/2011 8:42:34 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1595
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 8:49:16 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that it makes a big difference what the size of the units are as to whether they can be reassigned or not. Armies, Corps, and Divisions tend to get easily reassigned. But inside the division, or lower, it's another story. You don't see regiments reassigned between divisions much and swapping battalions between regiments is rarer still. However, divisions and above often have "attached" units of various sizes that can come and go.


Well, there you are. The truth of this depends on the army you're referring to.

The British can drive you mad. Everything from battalion on up was subject to continual reassignment. Try tracking a few battalions through the war. Some are homebodies -- but some go off to a different formation every few months.

Conversely, the Germans might not have formally reassigned units -- but they were very prone to forming mission oriented task forces made up of this and that. A battalion of 24. Panzer attached to 398.Infanterie and reinforced with the engineer battalion from 305. Infanterie. Wouldn't bother them at all.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1596
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 10:49:38 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		I throw my 2 cents in the V4V pile as what should be used as a template for a TOAW supply/subordination model. There need not be any penalty for attachment, if a player chooses to spend three hours attaching and reattaching units, who cares? A division HQ can have 8 battalions subordinated to it, or 6 battalions, whatever the designer desires. A corp HQ can have 3 division HQ's plus 4 battalions of units directly attached, or whatever the designer chooses. The designer can easily choose to avoid the entire situation by attaching no units to any HQ, in which case all units trace supply normally, as TOAW does now. This allows all previous scenarios to remain unchanged and playable. V4V only allows attachment during the morning turn, but TOAW has different scales. So allow attachment only on every 4th turn, or 3rd or 5th, whatever the designer chooses. Individual units attached directly to higher HQ's such as Army or Corp can reattach to any other HQ at any time. The supply system automatically adjusts and will result in very realistic on map situations. You can ship three more divisions to Africa, but no supply will be available for them as all available HQ's are at their maximum attachments already. Move the LIV Corp from Sevastopol to Leningrad and you will need to attach it to 18th Army or it will be drawing supply from 11th Army in the Crimea (we all know the TOAW result of such an extended supply line). Its all very simple and elegant and doesn't require all the brain twisters that are being batted about. Its a matter of convincing Ralph to put in three years of programming and hair pulling. For what its worth, I'll contribute anything to the cause that I am capable of.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1597
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 12:21:07 AM   
1_Lzard


Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Its a matter of convincing Ralph to put in three years of programming and hair pulling.


Afraid it's not that simple, Steve. Matrix is going to want thier coins from his efforts (even if he's not paid that much) so it's all about how much code it takes to get this done.

I DO appreciate the idea of getting this thing under one umbrella (definitions, always definitions!) so that Ralph could put some sort of list together, but off hand, 'heirarchy' is something that's going to wait for ToaW IV, unless I miss my guess!

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1598
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 2:05:42 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Its a matter of convincing Ralph to put in three years of programming and hair pulling.


Afraid it's not that simple, Steve. Matrix is going to want thier coins from his efforts (even if he's not paid that much) so it's all about how much code it takes to get this done.

I DO appreciate the idea of getting this thing under one umbrella (definitions, always definitions!) so that Ralph could put some sort of list together, but off hand, 'heirarchy' is something that's going to wait for ToaW IV, unless I miss my guess!



I for one have no particular problem with paying for a 'TOAW IV.'

I'm just mildly apprehensive as to what I'm going to get.

In general, I'd vote for something that is as open-ended as possible -- that let's designers decide what they want as opposed to having it imposed on them.

...and of course, the ability to port scenarios over. Some revision is okay -- but I wouldn't want to have do maps, OOB's, and deployment from scratch.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to 1_Lzard)
Post #: 1599
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 4:14:11 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Let's just take reassignment. Can we allow any at all without designer intervention? How does the designer specify just what is possible and what is not? (This has been discussed elsewhere in some detail).


Note that if designers find that the mechanism doesn't meet their needs for a particular scenario, they can always disallow it.

I disagree with several things in the game -- so I don't use them. Bocage, for example. AT rifles would be another. Doesn't really matter why -- I'm able to avoid employing them, I wish to avoid employing them, and I do.

So long as the designer has control over whether a mechanism can be employed, it can't really do much harm to add it. Some kind of tertiary or even greater formation structure only has to be good enough to meet somebody's needs -- it doesn't have to meet everybody's. If it produces unreasonable effects in your scenario, don't use it.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/2/2011 4:15:02 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1600
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 6:56:27 AM   
jmlima

 

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...
I for one have no particular problem with paying for a 'TOAW IV.'

I'm just mildly apprehensive as to what I'm going to get.
...


Colin, you're really an optimist. TOAW 4? Just take the time this last patch took, which included fairly minor stuff compared to some of the items being discussed for TOAW 4, multiply it by those items and see what you get.

Heck, that one you're now thinking of is basically a V4V / W@W clone and it's taking 10+ years with no signs of it.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1601
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 7:37:35 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I for one have no particular problem with paying for a 'TOAW IV.'


I have no problem with that either. I don't remember what the price was, but if I got ACOW for $40, and TOAWIII for $40, that's $80 over the past 10 years, $8 a year. I pay $63 a year to listen to a radio station.I pay $41 a month for cable tv, I guarantee I spend more time with TOAW than watching tv. So if there is a TOAWIV some years from now I'll gladly pay. And if it has a supply/subordination system, that's great.

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1602
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 3:53:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		I just want to point out that this was discussed to death in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2582060

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1603
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 4:29:35 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to point out that this was discussed to death in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2582060


And it was equally unresolved there.

Hierarchy and reassignment will work hand in hand. A division can handle x number of units beyond it's TO&E but nothing larger than what the scenario designer specifies. Same for corps on up. Scenario designer sets the limits.

Through events the scenario designer can establish either a set number of command points used for reassignment for the duration of the scenario or a turn by turn cumulative number of command points. Depending on what happens during the sceanrio these numbers could be positively or negatively impacted.

Reassignment can cost x number of command points for a battalion, more for a regiment, even more for a brigade, yet more for a division, etc. These could also be adjusted during a scenario to account for negative or positive battlefield events, distance from HQ units, line of communication considerations, etc.

There. Limits imposed by the scenario designer on reassignment. Hierarchy given meaning and purpose. Both working together to form a cohesive chain of command and cost of giving commands so you don't have units running willy nilly without regard to support and cooperaton.

I really dislike the need to make all units or any units free support.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1604
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/2/2011 5:37:56 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to point out that this was discussed to death in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2582060


It was good to read thru that thread again, lots of good points.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1605
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/3/2011 8:36:14 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		I will repeat something.

As long as any command hierarchy system is optional, it doesn't have to be perfect. If it meets your needs, use it. If it doesn't, don't.

And it can't be perfect. Circumstances vary too much, we lack the ability to perfectly simulate the often intangible effects of altering an organization, etc.

So it boils down to a 'bang for buck' question. How much has to be done to create an option how many will find useful.

It'll be easy enough NOT to use a hierarchy. Just don't create the additional levels, and barring singular evil programming, nothing should change.

Otherwise, the designer should have the ability to impose a cost, and it should be in some relevant parameter. Ideally -- although this might be hard to do -- in immediate readiness and then in supply recovery for the next few turns. Now you've got to go across town for your cigarets...

I'd also rather not see it 'packaged' with other changes in the way that variable supply points are now tied up with having to use the new supply system in which supply units were also eviscerated. That's really the source of much of my discontent there. The fact that I have to use the one to get the other -- but then have to accept the third. Each change should be as independent as possible of the others.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1606
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/3/2011 8:45:27 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Hierarchy given meaning and purpose...




This makes you sound like an advocate of the Divine Right of kings or something. Next, you'll be for an established church and a properly enserfed peasantry.


quote:



Both working together to form a cohesive chain of command and cost of giving commands so you don't have units running willy nilly without regard to support and cooperaton.

I really dislike the need to make all units or any units free support.


I'm not defending the current system -- but have you looked into all you can do by varying unit colors, etc?

For example, I want infantry regiments to be able to cooperate freely, but I still want divisional artillery to be divisional artillery, not some free-fire asset that can be assembled at will for massive barrages of 18,000 tubes.

So...I give formations army level cooperation -- but give the artillery different colored icons. They can still cooperate freely with the units of their own formation, but (depending on what color scheme I choose) enjoy either limited cooperation or no cooperation at all with infantry regiments from other divisions.

At the same time, infantry regiments from different divisions that have wound up in the same hex together through the vicissitudes of combat can still cooperate.

Point is, there are things you can do.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/3/2011 8:46:39 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1607
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/3/2011 8:57:26 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not defending the current system -- but have you looked into all you can do by varying unit colors, etc?

For example, I want infantry regiments to be able to cooperate freely, but I still want divisional artillery to be divisional artillery, not some free-fire asset that can be assembled at will for massive barrages of 18,000 tubes.

So...I give formations army level cooperation -- but give the artillery different colored icons. They can still cooperate freely with the units of their own formation, but (depending on what color scheme I choose) enjoy either limited cooperation or no cooperation at all with infantry regiments from other divisions.

At the same time, infantry regiments from different divisions that have wound up in the same hex together through the vicissitudes of combat can still cooperate.

Point is, there are things you can do.



Something i did for Anzio 1km.

But i think you miss Panama's point. While the above solution works for some battles, for others of different scale (read: bigger and longer) it doesn't. For Barbarossa it doesn't.

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1608
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/3/2011 10:44:37 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not defending the current system -- but have you looked into all you can do by varying unit colors, etc?

For example, I want infantry regiments to be able to cooperate freely, but I still want divisional artillery to be divisional artillery, not some free-fire asset that can be assembled at will for massive barrages of 18,000 tubes.

So...I give formations army level cooperation -- but give the artillery different colored icons. They can still cooperate freely with the units of their own formation, but (depending on what color scheme I choose) enjoy either limited cooperation or no cooperation at all with infantry regiments from other divisions.

At the same time, infantry regiments from different divisions that have wound up in the same hex together through the vicissitudes of combat can still cooperate.

Point is, there are things you can do.



Something i did for Anzio 1km.

But i think you miss Panama's point. While the above solution works for some battles, for others of different scale (read: bigger and longer) it doesn't. For Barbarossa it doesn't.


No...I get his point.

I'm just suggesting what he might do in the interim -- until we do get an improved TOAW. It's even possible he already does it. It's just that pending developments, we do have to keep working. After all, a continuing supply of fresh TOAW scenarios is the only thing keeping the apocalypse foretold in the Mayan calendar at bay.

So my remark was what I said it was. 'UNTIL we get to the mechanic, have you tried this?'

I'm certainly not suggesting an end to agitation, subversion, or whatever it may turn out will best serve to advance TOAW -- and I certainly have no objection in principle to the idea of a command hierarchy and/or some means of reassigning units from one formation to another. In fact, the scenario I'm working on now (everything eastern from Astrakhan to Tunis and from 1941 to 1943) could do very well with such mechanisms.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1609
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 3:25:42 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		IMO there are not enough agitators.

What would be best is to get TOAW to the point where each scenario can have enough different aspects that they are virtually different games from one another. The base is cheese pizza but the toppings added can make it seem something very different. Mmmm...pizza.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1610
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 4:18:36 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

IMO there are not enough agitators.


If there were more people giving Curtis grief, it might at least curb his arrogance.

...and then we'd get a better game. He's appallingly ignorant, completely unreceptive to argument, and usually manages to be simultaneously sure he's right in his own mind and quite wrong in fact.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 4:20:10 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1611
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 4:16:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If there were more people giving Curtis grief, it might at least curb his arrogance.

...and then we'd get a better game. He's appallingly ignorant, completely unreceptive to argument, and usually manages to be simultaneously sure he's right in his own mind and quite wrong in fact.


Considering the source, I'll take that as the highest form of praise.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1612
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 4:40:43 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		From where I sit Curtis, I find you two equally antagonistic. Everybody posts for a reason; either to offer ideas or try to shoot them down. As much as I seek input, I'd rather you two attack each other. But this is exemplary of how little traffic this forum gets anymore. This should mean something to somebody. I doubt it though.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1613
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 4:50:11 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline 		TOAW 3 was released 5 years ago. Seems normal to me that forum traffic decreases.


_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 1614
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 4:59:30 PM   
macgregor


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

ORIGINAL: Telumar

TOAW 3 was released 5 years ago. Seems normal to me that forum traffic decreases.


Normal? Rationalization is a beautiful thing. If I had a business, I'd see success or failure from each person that encounters my product/service. No. I'm sorry. To know me is to love me, not to lose interest in 5 years, or else I'm losing.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1615
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 5:25:35 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline 		So then, what do you think is the reason for this?

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 1616
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 5:33:21 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		My 2p... What about co-operation as much and as 'civilized' as possible? We identified the core 'issues' and together, pulling on one string, they can be fixed and the changes implemented. Prioritization and focusing on a fix; that's it. Otherwise we violate an imporant maxim: 'To defend everything is to defend nothing.'Frederick the Great.

kLinK, Oberst



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1617
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 5:45:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

My 2p... What about co-operation as much and as 'civilized' as possible? We identified the core 'issues' and together, pulling on one string, they can be fixed and the changes implemented. Prioritization and focusing on a fix; that's it. Otherwise we violate an imporant maxim: 'To defend everything is to defend nothing.'Frederick the Great.

kLinK, Oberst




I'm for it. I manage to keep a civil tongue in my head with everyone else who's participating in this discussion, and if Curtis manages to keep one in his, I'll strive to reciprocate.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 5:46:58 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 1618
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 5:50:20 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

TOAW 3 was released 5 years ago. Seems normal to me that forum traffic decreases.




...

I know several people who still play this game and still post avidly on the internet. They just don't post here.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/4/2011 5:51:51 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1619
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/4/2011 5:54:00 PM   
macgregor


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

ORIGINAL: Telumar

So then, what do you think is the reason for this?

Well, it would be selfish of me to say it's because they feel exactly like I do. Though I am perhaps the only somewhat critical voice that continues to post regularly here.

If you want my subjective opinion, I would say it is indeed because the areas of this game for which there is the most room for improvement seem to have been overlooked for this continual tweaking of things that are already superior to most games of this genre. I have to admit the rationalization I've encountered is disheartening. There is a small gang that appear to be VERY happy with the current situation, almost gloating over the fact that there is much less traffic, and certainly as defensive as all hell. It's been what? 10 years now I've been beating the same dead horse? The definition of insanity is beginning to have an effect on me as well.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 5/4/2011 5:58:56 PM >

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1620
Page:   <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   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

3.266