RE: Next version News (4.0)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Next version News (4.0)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Next version News (4.0)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 2:38:54 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Would love to see something like Scaff's unreleased mod abit further down in the link below..see the new unit images? Look much better and cleaner than the current 3D icon thats used.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1161658&mpage=7&key=

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 31

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 8:25:37 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You would end up doing the exact same thing except now one truck for 36 240mm guns is not
going to move them ten hexes.

I don't think it was unreasonable for Norm to make the assumption that designers wouldn't make units with one truck
for 36 240mm guns. It's proven over more than a decade to be a reasonable assumption. Why do you need it?

quote:

What is really laughable is one infantry squad can move those same guns one hex. I don't give a hoot what
distance one hex is. Ten guys won't get it done unless they are all the Hulk.

Huh?? Infantry squads don't move guns at all. If a gun has no transport of any kind it can move one hex by itself
- presumably moved by its gun crew - which, for bigger guns could be quite a lot of men (regardless of whether they
are physically shown in the unit). And, again, Norm made assumptions about designer's choices about hex scale and
turn scale combinations that would make that move doable. Only when designers deviate a long way from those
assumptions would it become unrealistic.

quote:

And what if the division didn't have enough trucks to move their artillery? Historically they would have to
leave some of it behind as happened time and time again.

I actually addressed this in my France 1944 scenario. German divisions in Brittany sent mobile reinforcements to
Normandy, but that left the remainder of the division transportless. I just split them into two parts - one mobile,
one static.

quote:

Really, for 4.x moving guns needs to be looked at. Transport needs some loving. Just like naval. Just like
air.

I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum
you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 32

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 10:47:48 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

Hallelujah. Some sanity. Since those 240s are allied guns in France 1944: Cobra I'm going to make a logical assumption and assume the allies will be under the same one gun one vehicle.

BTW, historically units lost enough transport to have to leave guns behind. That is what I'm speaking of when I mention that. Having an abstract truck policy really does limit realism in scenarios. Transport becomes far too flexible in some armies when that was not the case.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 33

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/28/2013 4:01:26 AM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

I think that you have here a point. Every APC/IFV/Truck had in the game the same movement or load points. I like to see that there are differnd movement orload point for differend vehicles like the real world. Like th helicopter say. Jeeps + light trucks 1 Load point, medium trucks 3 load points and heavy trucks 5 load points. Or that you can set it differend for each vehicle as for every 1 ton or fractical of it, you have 1 point. Like a 10 ton truck has 10 points. A 4 ton Truck has 4 points.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 34

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/28/2013 7:12:45 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

Try assigning porter squads.

quote:

BTW, historically units lost enough transport to have to leave guns behind. That is what I'm speaking of when I mention that. Having an abstract truck policy really does limit realism in scenarios. Transport becomes far too flexible in some armies when that was not the case.

Sigh. You can actually do this. Create a bunch of dummy equipment in the database to mock up the stuff the trucks were carrying- supplies, medical personnel, that mobile field kitchen. Your unit will STILL move everything.

One could program something in which would require a minimum amount of transport for heavy equipment before the unit can move at all, combined with an option to abandon some of said equipment in order to mobilise it. However this wouldn't require a (totally unnecessary) reworking of the (completely satisfactory) means by which motor transport is reflected.

In any case, it's a really marginal issue. I can't believe this is the one thing you think needs doing when there are about a hundred others I can think of I would work on first.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 11/28/2013 8:14:52 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 35

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/29/2013 12:01:07 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

Try assigning porter squads.

quote:

BTW, historically units lost enough transport to have to leave guns behind. That is what I'm speaking of when I mention that. Having an abstract truck policy really does limit realism in scenarios. Transport becomes far too flexible in some armies when that was not the case.

Sigh. You can actually do this. Create a bunch of dummy equipment in the database to mock up the stuff the trucks were carrying- supplies, medical personnel, that mobile field kitchen. Your unit will STILL move everything.

One could program something in which would require a minimum amount of transport for heavy equipment before the unit can move at all, combined with an option to abandon some of said equipment in order to mobilise it. However this wouldn't require a (totally unnecessary) reworking of the (completely satisfactory) means by which motor transport is reflected.

In any case, it's a really marginal issue. I can't believe this is the one thing you think needs doing when there are about a hundred others I can think of I would work on first.

Why assign porter squads? We are talking about trucks, not people carrying boxes on their heads.

We are talking about a new build, TOAW4. If you are making a new game then why would someone have to bother with work arounds? Make it realistic the first time. And we are not talking about what Norm wanted or didn't want. Norm isn't doing it. People are mentioning things they want to see. Why do you have a problem with a simple request for a new version of TOAW 4? Do you feel it's some kind of personal attack for someone to simply ask for something? The only ideas concerning transportation I see are work arounds, work arounds, work arounds. We are talking about a new game, not TOAW 3. Why bother with work arounds?

And who said it was the only thing I wanted to see? It's the only thing I mentioned. Nothing more. Nothing less. I'm all for the things you mentioned and whatever the hundred other things are. Including hierarchy, better naval and air simulations etc etc etc. Why the truckaphobia? In an operational scale transport becomes very important. Model that importance, don't paint over it. I see nothing of value in your suggestions when it comes to a new game because they are all workarounds, not anything new.

BTW, Alpha77 and Rodia mentioned some things. Maybe you should jump on them with both boots too. Don't understand why you feel I've earned a thrashing for a simple request. I've seen plenty of them.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 11/29/2013 1:16:02 AM >

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 36

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/29/2013 7:19:58 AM

Oberst_Klink

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

Let's all cool our boots, shall we? As Onkel Bob mentioned in his post:

I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

Among other features I suspect; so let's be patient. I am more than happy if we are able to get hold of a public beta 3.5.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 37

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/1/2013 11:52:39 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
And who said it was the only thing I wanted to see?

You did. "Only thing that irks me is...."

This is why I objected- because I see this as a non-issue or at best a very low priority development. Worst thing about it is it would mean all existing scenarios would need to be reworked (or are we saying no backwards compatibility?). So I objected to you giving it your number one priority.

Now I'm also objecting you trying to paint me as a troll. I made a reasoned response to your post and you didn't like that I disagreed.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 38

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/2/2013 8:10:21 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Sigh..... 4.0.... And you want us to be restrained??

I think not young padwan - I say let the creativity flow, let imagination run wild, let loose the dogs TOAW - full steam ahead and damn the combat radii!! ;)

My wish list is pretty simple...in concept at least!

1/ Ability to shift units between HQ's in some circumstances (eg divisions between corps, but not companies between battalions)
2/ The ability to transform some squad types - eg as the Brits did in 1944 - turn all the AA and excess artillery into grunts...or, in Fabio's East Front, turn 20,000 surplus mounted rifle squads into unmounted ones goddammit!!

3/ Some other strategic stuff - yeah I know it is The OPERATIONAL Art of War....but it still makes a better strategic level game than many dedicated efforts!!

Rock on dudes doing 4.0

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 39

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/2/2013 8:19:24 AM

Ruppich

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

quote:

2/ The ability to transform some squad types - eg as the Brits did in 1944 - turn all the AA and excess artillery into grunts...or, in Fabio's East Front, turn 20,000 surplus mounted rifle squads into unmounted ones goddammit!!

This would definatly be needed to keep the long scenarios in good shape

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 40

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/2/2013 10:54:41 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

1/ Ability to shift units between HQ's in some circumstances (eg divisions between corps, but not companies between battalions)

This would be really great. Seen it mentioned more than once. Maybe kind of like Hearts of Iron. Maybe do something with equipment transitions too so it makes the ability to create super units impossible. If a unit TOE says 20 tanks it doesn't have the possibility to end up with 20 old type and 20 new type.

Maybe I should say something about trucks.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 41

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/2/2013 10:57:16 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
And who said it was the only thing I wanted to see?

You did. "Only thing that irks me is...."

This is why I objected- because I see this as a non-issue or at best a very low priority development. Worst thing about it is it would mean all existing scenarios would need to be reworked (or are we saying no backwards compatibility?). So I objected to you giving it your number one priority.

Now I'm also objecting you trying to paint me as a troll. I made a reasoned response to your post and you didn't like that I disagreed.

So we can't change anything because all of the existing scenarios would have to be reworked. Ok. I guess we are screwed. You right about everything obviously.

BTW, this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 12/2/2013 3:12:09 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 42

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/2/2013 3:25:17 PM

Telumar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

1/ Ability to shift units between HQ's in some circumstances (eg divisions between corps, but not companies between battalions)

This would be really great. Seen it mentioned more than once. Maybe kind of like Hearts of Iron. Maybe do something with equipment transitions too so it makes the ability to create super units impossible. If a unit TOE says 20 tanks it doesn't have the possibility to end up with 20 old type and 20 new type.

If you knew..

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 43

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/5/2013 8:40:33 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So we can't change anything because all of the existing scenarios would have to be reworked.

It's a major consideration. One can make changes of course- but the game needs to be backwards compatible. Otherwise the huge back catalogue of the game becomes junk.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 44

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/5/2013 9:15:53 PM

sPzAbt653

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

With all the issues of porting scenarios across the various versions, and the amount of changes coming with 4.0, might it not be better to leave older scenarios with 3.5 ? I know that leaves hundreds of scenarios out of 4.0, but since many won't work anyway, whats the point of importing more confusion to 4.0 ?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 45

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/5/2013 9:22:08 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum
you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

Because of this I would say it's too late to close the gate, the horse is already out. Perhaps there is some mechanism that will still allow pre 4.x scenarios to work but I really don't know.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 46

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/5/2013 11:45:32 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum
you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

Because of this I would say it's too late to close the gate, the horse is already out. Perhaps there is some mechanism that will still allow pre 4.x scenarios to work but I really don't know.

Depends. If the designer had the foresight to use the generic Tracked Tractor instead of the generic truck to tow
those 240mm guns, it will still be possible for the scenario to not break. And a truly rigorous designer would
have done that (sadly, I can't even count myself among such, though).

Otherwise, scenarios will have to have some adjustment to work in IV. Backward compatibility is nice, but not even
ACOW completely achieved it.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 47

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/7/2013 9:23:40 PM

USXpat

Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline

IMO, a bit more consideration needs to go into the design of "future compatible scenarios" - as the marketability of a "game engine" without a lot of scenarios to go with it becomes questionable. The whole gaming world has changed quite a bit since TOAW was first released. Considering the amount of detail that goes into a TOAW scenario, of virtually any size, even some of the smallest ones - is far greater than the kind of detail that goes into "Panzer General" type games or traditional board games with 3-3 infantry and 4-6 armor counters with no detail of is under the hood.

Hundreds of scenarios with backwards compatibility issues ranging from supply elements, to events, to equipment... and the desirability for most to have a functional PO that makes use of the newest features, plus the play testing involved... scary.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 48

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/8/2013 12:37:14 AM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat

IMO, a bit more consideration needs to go into the design of "future compatible scenarios" - as the marketability
of a "game engine" without a lot of scenarios to go with it becomes questionable. The whole gaming world has
changed quite a bit since TOAW was first released. Considering the amount of detail that goes into a TOAW
scenario, of virtually any size, even some of the smallest ones - is far greater than the kind of detail that goes
into "Panzer General" type games or traditional board games with 3-3 infantry and 4-6 armor counters with no
detail of is under the hood.

Hundreds of scenarios with backwards compatibility issues ranging from supply elements, to events, to equipment...
and the desirability for most to have a functional PO that makes use of the newest features, plus the play testing
involved... scary.

Within reason, yes. But we can't be straitjacketed by such a requirement. A requirement that existing scenarios
not even require re-play-testing would mean no material improvements of any kind. That can't even be demanded of
3.5.

Just take the mentioned issue: Designers would have to check their scenarios for units that have had their MPs
reduced to 1. Not that big an issue.

I'm sure there will be plenty of scenarios made ready for it. And what scenarios they will be!

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/8/2013 1:38:09 AM >

(in reply to USXpat)

Post #: 49

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/8/2013 12:51:29 AM

ralphtricky

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat
IMO, a bit more consideration needs to go into the design of "future compatible scenarios" - as the marketability of a "game engine" without a lot of scenarios to go with it becomes questionable. The whole gaming world has changed quite a bit since TOAW was first released. Considering the amount of detail that goes into a TOAW scenario, of virtually any size, even some of the smallest ones - is far greater than the kind of detail that goes into "Panzer General" type games or traditional board games with 3-3 infantry and 4-6 armor counters with no detail of is under the hood.

Hundreds of scenarios with backwards compatibility issues ranging from supply elements, to events, to equipment... and the desirability for most to have a functional PO that makes use of the newest features, plus the play testing involved... scary.

I plan to do reasonable things to maintain compatibility without being insane about it. In some cases it may make sense to put in options, in others, unfortunately, things may break.

A bigger concern is the AI, putting in a better AI is likely to break some older scenarios. I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

Ralph

(in reply to USXpat)

Post #: 50

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/8/2013 12:27:50 PM

shunwick

Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

Ralph

Ralph,

Nomonhan 39 by Norm Koger?

Best wishes,
Steve

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 51

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/8/2013 8:29:23 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

A bigger concern is the AI, putting in a better AI is likely to break some older scenarios. I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

I'm not so worried about that. If an intelligent AI means the scenario doesn't work, then it wouldn't have worked as PBEM anyway.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 52

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/9/2013 3:25:53 PM

shunwick

Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

A bigger concern is the AI, putting in a better AI is likely to break some older scenarios. I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

I'm not so worried about that. If an intelligent AI means the scenario doesn't work, then it wouldn't have worked as PBEM anyway.

I am with Ben on that one. Older scenarios can be fixed anyway. Indeed, older scenarios must be fixed to work with 3.4 as it now.

When it comes to scenario howlers, my personal favorite is Desert Storm 1991 by Wild Bill Wilder where the Iraqi scuds take out all the B52 bombers on Diego Garcia. I love that bit.

Best wishes,
Steve

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 53

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/10/2013 10:06:03 AM

Devast8or

Posts: 74
Joined: 4/16/2001
Status: offline

Great news for TOAW community. Welcome back Ralph..

(in reply to shunwick)

Post #: 54

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/19/2013 2:02:08 AM

Victor1234

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline

Well, I don't come here often, but still play TOAW 3 religiously, and just wanted to say that I don't have too many problems with the UI, except for one area. The scenario editor event engine is alright for about 20 events, but for scenarios with several hundred, it's painful to use it! Something done for the event editor would go a long way in my books.

(in reply to Devast8or)

Post #: 55

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/19/2013 10:54:57 AM

shunwick

Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Victor1234

Well, I don't come here often, but still play TOAW 3 religiously, and just wanted to say that I don't have too many problems with the UI, except for one area. The scenario editor event engine is alright for about 20 events, but for scenarios with several hundred, it's painful to use it! Something done for the event editor would go a long way in my books.

Victor1234,

A very good point. Personally, I would like to see a full-featured programming (albeit simplified) language interpreter. We need proper while...do, repeat..until, for...step...next, if.. then.. else, and [call] procedure...end constructs at the very least plus a random number generator. Retain the existing editor for compatibility with older scenarios and introduce a TOAW IV programming editor for TOAW IV and above.

The Evil Ed was not built for event structures of several hundred interconnecting events.

Best wishes,
Steve

< Message edited by shunwick -- 12/19/2013 11:59:20 AM >

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Victor1234)

Post #: 56

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/19/2013 3:11:31 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

A flow chart helps with large events projects.

(in reply to shunwick)

Post #: 57

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/19/2013 4:12:34 PM

Oberst_Klink

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A flow chart helps with large events projects.

A basic excel sheet also works, as Telumar demonstrated more than once :)

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/news-from-the-front-struggling-with-the-evil-ed/

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 58

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/19/2013 6:27:20 PM

shunwick

Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

Helps but still not ideal. Loops, particularly complex ones, are a nightmare. As for multiple victory locations, you can easily disappear up your own backside. And that's not easy.

As for debugging someone else's event nightmare....

Best wishes,
Steve

< Message edited by shunwick -- 12/19/2013 7:29:21 PM >

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 59

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 12/19/2013 8:07:39 PM

Telumar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Helps but still not ideal. Loops, particularly complex ones, are a nightmare. As for multiple victory locations, you can easily disappear up your own backside. And that's not easy.

As for debugging someone else's event nightmare....

Best wishes,
Steve

Indeed!

For complex things and an extensive list of events it is no bad idea to keep an excel sheet. See here:

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/news-from-the-front-struggling-with-the-evil-ed/
http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/struggling-with-the-evil-ed-part-2/
http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/struggling-with-the-evil-ed-part-3-masaf/

As for debugging i usually do an extra test scenario for complex loops etc. with news strings to each event so i can easily follow the course of events (which is triggered, which not and not too unimportant, the sequential order of events that trigger in the same turn) from the sitrep. I know, this can be done with setting uberdude=Y in the opart3.ini, but i prefer my method as i add to the event's news string event number and what the event does, i.e. a typical news string would look like this: "#9 EvAct 3 Enable 6". So i would know that event #9 has been triggered, that it has been activated by event #3 and that it will enable event #6.

EDIT: Last sentence of the post added.. Also i've seen that the Oberst had already pointed to one of the toawbeachhead articles. Nevermind. At least i added that bit with extra test scenarios.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 12/19/2013 9:28:59 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to shunwick)

Post #: 60