Slitherine

quote:

Curtis Lemay:
A complete falsehood. Norm made major engine changes to TOAW all the way till Talonsoft folded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodia



Hey, I signed as well.

Maybe we should aid promoting the game by adding some reviews and scores in the Matrix TOAW page.

Anyways, Oberst_Klink, did you contact with "Punta de lanza"?

I'm not registered there but I ask because I can translate to language of Spanish TOAW compadres.

quote:

ORIGINAL: josant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodia



Hey, I signed as well.

Maybe we should aid promoting the game by adding some reviews and scores in the Matrix TOAW page.

Anyways, Oberst_Klink, did you contact with "Punta de lanza"?

I'm not registered there but I ask because I can translate to language of Spanish TOAW compadres.

Yes "punta de lanza" is informed, I put a message in this forum yesterday.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag

Of all the things to single out and declare false, you chose the one most easily defended, ... That said, tweaking an engine does not a new game make. There is no better argument that TOAW is indeed a series, following the general pattern, than that is, well, a series. If TOAW II wasn't a topical expansion then I'm an unky's muncle.

quote:

As for direction and progress, I think we're talking on different levels entirely.

quote:

To be sure, many changes have turned blue. But these are nearly all mechanical aspects of the game (calculations, unit behavior, graphical tweaks, fixes). Important, no doubt, but decidely not the direction indicated by scenario designers, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
For anyone to suggest that we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph is just absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

It's now 6 days for Xmass. it's that there is mayby no
Xmass release. But with Oberst Klink

https://www.change.org/petitions/matrix-games-keep-toaw-iii-supported

I have hope that there is a future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages :(

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto
1. Who de jure or de facto owns the TOAW franchise now -- Ralph or Matrix?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
2. We thought we were finally at the point by 3.5 that some serious expansion could be addressed. Unfortunately, that's when Ralph's issues seem to have cropped up. We still don't know why.
3. Games are still being played; scenarios are still being designed. I fully expect 3.5 to be completed. I just can't say when.
4. Hmmm. You mean like a made from scratch TOAW IV? I wonder...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag

Of all the things to single out and declare false, you chose the one most easily defended, ... That said, tweaking an engine does not a new game make. There is no better argument that TOAW is indeed a series, following the general pattern, than that is, well, a series. If TOAW II wasn't a topical expansion then I'm an unky's muncle.

Then consider yourself one. The differences between the combat engines of TOAW I and TOAW II were profound. And let's not forget that your statement - which you think is so easily defended - was: "Add some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment and re-release it." That doesn't even allow for engine "tweaks". It was, and is, a complete falsehood.

quote:

As for direction and progress, I think we're talking on different levels entirely.

No. We're really not. We just differ on the right way to get there.

quote:

To be sure, many changes have turned blue. But these are nearly all mechanical aspects of the game (calculations, unit behavior, graphical tweaks, fixes). Important, no doubt, but decidedly not the direction indicated by scenario designers, IMO.

Clearly, what you considered to be the high priority task list differs from the direction development has taken so far. But those priorities are just your opinion, and not a very well thought out one. To pursue "blue sky" expansion into areas TOAW had never been intended for before addressing the myriad of problems it had in areas that it always was intended for would have been insane. This is especially the case when you understand that the expansion that you want is so difficult a task it was mostly beyond the entire coding budget TOAW III has so far expended. Had we followed that path, we'd still be working on it without a single update. What has come before it was more important, more beneficial, more cost effective, and, contrary to your opinion, just as desired by the fanbase.

Honestly, I'd ask anyone to compare the change list for TOAW III and compare it to WitP's. There's no comparison, and WitP must have sold x10 to TOAW III. For anyone to suggest that we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph is just absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag

Hi all,

1) This is probably a very bad first post. But as an (old) newbie, perhaps I can get away with speaking the unspeakable which, likely, is on the minds of some.

2) Suffice for brief intro that I've played TOAW for ten years mostly as a solitaire escape, have played wargames for over thirty years, have lurked here for a few years and have an extensive techie background.

3) That said, I'll stir up a hornets nest. I'll defiantly call out the (much thinned) crowd of torch bearers and pitchfork wielders.

4) Describing progress on the game as glacial would be understatement. Matrix took over the series in 2006 and has failed to establish a direction. And let's face it, versions 3 and 3.4, while cool, were not groundbreaking. Many of the things the game desperately needs, it still needs. Release times are now measured in years and maintenance releases have become none existent.

5) One could level the charge that Matrix's handling of TOAW has been visionless, but I doubt it is a lack of creative spark. Instead, I imagine the reality is more common and familiar - money. And who can blame them. A game and a company has to pay the bills and TOAW is not a big seller. This has been a chronic problem in the wargaming world since the days of Avalon Hill and SSI. There's just not a big audience. The series is caught between a rock and a balance sheet.

6) It is long the wargamers' lament that the genre will never see the success (or resources) of "Call of Duty" or "Starcraft." Perhaps the nearest turn-based game that made a load of cash was the "Civilization" series and its knock offs. But then, Civ was never really a wargame. Given the continued interest in TOAW and its obvious utility as a "game system" or "game maker", it occupies a niche which, to the best of my knowledge, has no other competing peer and so has a future.

7) But as is, the TOAW series is dead. It has exceeded its lifespan. It remains a fun game but is very long in the tooth. Developmentally, it's a corpse. Those changes (some listed below) that MUST be part of a nextgen "TOAW" are not forthcoming. And I think everyone knows it.

8) Because there is a niche, TOAW faces the certain prospect of replacement. The only real questions are when and whether that replacement is a further development of TOAW or a newcomer being written, perhaps right now, in a dark basement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BearFlag

The possible futures for this game, this game type and niche are...

a) Do a massive revamp and devote the resources for a near complete rewrite. You could retain the current series name (with whatever legal hooks are involved) and renew dominance in the niche before someone else does.
b) A totally new game. If TOAW does not evolve, this is going to happen any way ... in that basement. It will mean the death (and the death of sales) of TOAW.
c) A complete rewrite. A new name. As an MG project.

I'm guessing, however, that current sales of the game are too low to justify options a) or c). Oddly enough, if someone undertakes b) it may well end up in MG's stable as many wargame writers are independent and go through a distributor like Matrix.

Continued incremental development of the game could follow a few paths:

d) As is. Which is to say barely. Sell it while you can. Kiss it goodbye when someone does b) above.
e) Adopt a more open development model in cooperation with the community. Put it up on secured SVN, vet a few (a couple? one?) player-programmers, have them sign non-disclosures, put Ralph in overall charge and see what happens.
f) Make it open source. This will not happen, of course. Just being thorough in presenting possibilities.

I could be wrong, but I believe TOAW singularly occupies its niche even after 14 years. It is less a game than an operational/strategic game-making system. A lot of games come with a scenario designer, but none achieve the scale and scope of TOAW. If there is another, please let me know. I'd like to switch. I've played TOAW for years but not much lately. It's a tired old game. Its limitations remain. Its irritations remain. And there seems to be no prospect for serious revamp.

So what would a nextgen TOAW (or new replacement) look like? Well, one need only look at the extensive and lovingly assembled Wishlist. You don't need to research interest groups; it's all there.

In the bigger picture however, there's also a need to recognize what the TOAW community and scenario designers have done with the system. In general, the urge has been toward big and strategic. The popular scenarios tend to this. This is also a direction that exposes TOAW's severe shortcomings. Consequently, the next evolutionary plateau for this niche would lean toward the strategic (but strive to still handle company-level battles) and provide much more refined scenario design controls. The fine details of the Wishlist aside, the "big" items would include:

1) Force identity and hex control: more exclusion zones (possibly with attributes), non-player/multi-player hex control, true neutral countries...
2) Players: multi-general, multi-player. The ramifications of such are extensive but well within reach of game modelling/programming
3) Multi-player implies levels of diplomatic engagement (and governing program). Imagine an operational wargame combined with the wheeling/dealing of the old Diplomacy game.
4) Strategic implies economy. The current equipment-based units and replacement system nearly begs for an economic model to input feed the replacements system.
5) Of course - better sea/air
6) Scenario design: almost EVERYTHING should be accessible to the scenario designer. This means easily pluggable graphics (much more soft rendering and much less hard blitting), granulated access to program variables, fine control of replacements (start, stop, numbers, bolus). The goal strongly suggests a script-driven event system with the option (not requirement) for complex triggers and results.


Finally, money. The uniqueness of this niche, its lack of contenders and its possiblities may well support an entirely different business approach. It's not that there's "Call of Duty"-like cash out there, but there is the opportunity support the company and the game with a new marketing model.

Bring on the pitchforks... ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

1. Matrix, though Ralph obviously has a copy of the source code.

quote:

2. OK, let's have cards on the table, what are they and how do we (MG, Ralph, the TOAW Community) resolve them? If we know what the problems are, we have step 1 to a solution. Can someone at MG let us know?

quote:

3. Yes, and yes, though a lot of design work seems on hold pending 3.5. Who can say when? Again, it would seem only MG, if only to kindly put us all out of our misery and let us know there are no plans...

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

I'm not sure this is helpful, trashing someone who's trying to help and has posted just 3 times, though in it with his 10 years worth of accumulated wisdom with TOAW.

quote:

I know there's some difference between how players and designers view the game. I never bought TOAWII or FK or EE precisely because of the points Bearflag has made- they looked like, to me and as he says, a re-release of "some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment", and I didn't see much point paying to find out the 'profound' differences- largely playing solitaire at the time I didn't care as a player. And can anyone remember- and tell me- what the dazzling differences were between II, FK and EE, scenarios of (contemporary topical) interest aside, which only reinforced my cynicism?

quote:

The changes to get to 3.4 were important and there seems no criticism, implied or otherwise, of the approach taken by TOAD- everybody, including Bearflag I think, sees this, so I'd hardly say it was contrary to his opinion. Nor do I see any intimation in Bearflag's post that 'we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph' so that statement strikes me as absurd.

quote:

What we're looking to is the future of TOAW, with a lot of experience of its past. And bearing in mind Talonsoft's prior and MG's current experience. It's blindingly obvious the direction wargaming is following as you look at MG's- and others- attempts to wring $s from the hobby with their intimate knowledge of the #s- you only have to look at what MG is doing with Decisive Campaigns and Panzer Corps to see it's a basic game and add-on/follow-up expansions (scenarios anyone?) that pursue what revenue is available, and in that universe TOAW is about as useful as a shot in the foot, providing a relatively useful scenario editor that provides for almost unlimited replayability at zero additional cost to the owner and revenue to the publisher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. Actually it's Take-Two. Matrix has a license from them to sell it. But what really matters is who has the source code. So far as I know, that's only Ralph.

Only Ralph knows what his problems are, and he's not talking.

Again, this isn't anything Matrix can answer. Only Ralph.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

We've been talking with Ralph about future plans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

I'm not sure this is helpful, trashing someone who's trying to help and has posted just 3 times, though in it with his 10 years worth of accumulated wisdom with TOAW.

Sounded more like someone who's helping to trash instead.

quote:

I know there's some difference between how players and designers view the game. I never bought TOAWII or FK or EE precisely because of the points Bearflag has made- they looked like, to me and as he says, a re-release of "some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment", and I didn't see much point paying to find out the 'profound' differences- largely playing solitaire at the time I didn't care as a player. And can anyone remember- and tell me- what the dazzling differences were between II, FK and EE, scenarios of (contemporary topical) interest aside, which only reinforced my cynicism?

As I said, the profound differences were between I & II. But Norm continued to work on the game engine all the way till Talonsoft folded.

quote:

The changes to get to 3.4 were important and there seems no criticism, implied or otherwise, of the approach taken by TOAD- everybody, including Bearflag I think, sees this, so I'd hardly say it was contrary to his opinion. Nor do I see any intimation in Bearflag's post that 'we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph' so that statement strikes me as absurd.

Matrix took over the series in 2006 and has failed to establish a direction.
Developmentally, it's a corpse.
Development of the game, both old and new, has progressed little in the direction suggested by its common use.
It's future is half-assed patches

Gee, he's practically a cheerleader. But be sure and carp Matrix about getting Ralph back to work on the next half-assed patch we're all waiting on.

quote:

What we're looking to is the future of TOAW, with a lot of experience of its past. And bearing in mind Talonsoft's prior and MG's current experience. It's blindingly obvious the direction wargaming is following as you look at MG's- and others- attempts to wring $s from the hobby with their intimate knowledge of the #s- you only have to look at what MG is doing with Decisive Campaigns and Panzer Corps to see it's a basic game and add-on/follow-up expansions (scenarios anyone?) that pursue what revenue is available, and in that universe TOAW is about as useful as a shot in the foot, providing a relatively useful scenario editor that provides for almost unlimited replayability at zero additional cost to the owner and revenue to the publisher.

If Matrix was just interested in profits, they would get out of wargames altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

How did Matrix let it come to this. Only Ralph. Unbelievable. The game is being held hostage by one uncaring or unconcerned individual. Only Ralph needs to give up the source code if his is the only copy, as short sighted as that seems. How did it come to this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

How did Matrix let it come to this. Only Ralph. Unbelievable. The game is being held hostage by one uncaring or unconcerned individual. Only Ralph needs to give up the source code if his is the only copy, as short sighted as that seems. How did it come to this?

I had to re-read this a few time to make sure I wasn't imagining things. I have only interacted with Ralph directly a few times, and always with great satisfaction.

Uncaring? Unconcerned? You should be ashamed to have written that, IMHO.

I have owned this game since TOAWI. As great as it was then, it is greater now.

And people wonder why many of the great mod creators, and people who assist development of games in addition to their other duties, walk away in disgust.