Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

LOL what naivete....

quote:

I would agree with you - hell why not... why not have both options? Lets have both options, sing Kumbaya and throw rose petals in the air...

But unfortunatelly there is a fine line between rhetoric on the board and actual game development. Thus, to have it your way, or both ways, you first have to find an individual capable of understanding and improving TOAW code.

quote:

Then you need to spend many many months to actually introduce "formation by formation" turn ending (I still can't imagine how would this work in actual game... you'd get message "Turn ended for SS LAH"? while other formations will still have their phases?).

quote:

BTW Norm is not "god", he is simply the designer of this game. This game is product of his method of thinking, brilliance, genius, and faults, misconceptions, warts and all. That's all there is to it. With him at drivers seat, you may have somewhat imperfect, but consistent product.

quote:

With "wargaming democracy" in drivers seat you will have simply - nothing. Nothing but endless flame wars. That was my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

(Turn based tactical games also make life for the attacker too easy, EVEN if they are not IGO/UGO, but since discussion about tac wargames is beyond the scope of this thread I won't expant this further here.)

quote:


Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK?

quote:


If you chose to make such scenario anyway, and play it, you accept any weird result that may come out of any such scenario. Still, good scenario designers like Daniel McBride, found a way around many of the problems and quirks inherent to such schemes.

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

quote:


2. TOAW development plans are clearly outlined in some "official" posts in recent days, and I highly doubt you'll see any substantial changes, so, again, this makes this whole discussion moot.

quote:


3. I will restate again what I consider to be very important point, ignored by many: IGO/UGO simplifies attacker's problems greaty, so anything that will make attacker's life harder is welcome.

Oleg

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
btw, If you think this constitutes a 'flame war', you haven't lived.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I never said this thread constitutes a flame war,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

(Turn based tactical games also make life for the attacker too easy, EVEN if they are not IGO/UGO, but since discussion about tac wargames is beyond the scope of this thread I won't expant this further here.)

The changes being proposed here don't make it easier for the attacker involved in any specific attack. If the formation suddenly stops and its out of position then thats the way its going to be in this sector of the front. Attacker - here - is still punished. It however does not neccisarly mean that all attacks everywhere else are punished as well.

quote:


Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK?

Simply because of the manner in which the turn ending is handled. Without this rather gamy restriction TOAW would be better able to handle both the small operational ones - sonmething it already does well. But it would be also capable of simualting larger more complex scenarios as well. Its not like one would loose out one teh smaller operational scenarios. They'd still work fine - its simply that it could handle all of France as well and we would not have to argue that people that make scenarios covering larger operations like whole campaigns are bad scenario designers.

quote:


If you chose to make such scenario anyway, and play it, you accept any weird result that may come out of any such scenario. Still, good scenario designers like Daniel McBride, found a way around many of the problems and quirks inherent to such schemes.

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

I doubt that 60% of the code would have to be rewritten. The tactical rounds must be on some kind of a loop - here the mechanism that abruptly stops the loop and activates a new turn is halted and instead some kind of freezing mechanism is placed on formations that have lost the rest of their turn.

quote:


2. TOAW development plans are clearly outlined in some "official" posts in recent days, and I highly doubt you'll see any substantial changes, so, again, this makes this whole discussion moot.

And you may be right - no significant expansion to the TOAW engine will take place. I'd personally be pretty unhappy if it simply went back to being static after a small upgrade but its possible.

quote:


3. I will restate again what I consider to be very important point, ignored by many: IGO/UGO simplifies attacker's problems greaty, so anything that will make attacker's life harder is welcome.

Oleg

However the mechanism being proposed still means that the attackers plans can get screwed up. Their formations can suddenly stop part way through an operation and be very vulnerable to counter attack. That aspect has not changed. Its simply whether one attack effects another unrelated one that is changing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The fact is that the bulk of people who actually care agree that this part of the game needs to be reviewed. Your main objection is that it won't get reviewed regardless of what we think. I just don't see how anyone's going to get any more worked up over this than you have- and you've only gone so far as to call me naive.

quote:

For those who fight for it, life has a flavour the sheltered never know - USMC

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

ahhhh, another thread gone astray.

The fact is that I doubt Norm is going to have any significant input (if any) down the road. Matrix owns the rights to the game now. They will do what is needed to finalize any patches and use whatever data or engine to make the game most stable. Personally, I can't see anyone buying a game that is so old in terms of looks, graphics, etc. Then again, if all Matrix does is patch up the existing game there's no money in that either.

So I see it like this:

1. Patch the existing game so current gamers can get a more stable game, perhaps doing away with the need for the CD. Sort of what Matrix did with SP.

2. Re-do the game with new graphics, interface, and engine some time down the road.

One must not forget that Matrix is in business to do business, not give away free stuff. But re-hashing old games seems to me as a non-profit making venture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I see no reason though. Several times in this thread I stated this discussion is most probably moot, cause we'll never see substantial changes to the engine. Difference between me and you is: I am OK with that, you most probably aren't. I may be wrong though.

quote:

I have nothing against your beloved "per formation" change being experimented with down the road. You didn't convince me this change is really needed at all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

You guys start from a faulty premise, that all players have a certain knowledge level. That level includes stuff like finding and downloading scenarios or simplying understanding game mechanics.

quote:

If you want to expand the community, you must reach out to a younger crowd who may have absolutely no idea how to play TOAW.

You want to expand the community, design and include a tutorial.

quote:

You want to expand the community, stop acting like freeking "experts" and stop with the threads bashing TOAW.

Any young casual gamer will look at this thread and say "quark this, I ain't buying a game that complicated."

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

1. Patch the existing game so current gamers can get a more stable game, perhaps doing away with the need for the CD. Sort of what Matrix did with SP.

2. Re-do the game with new graphics, interface, and engine some time down the road.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So naturally what I want is a kit that is as flexible as possible and that lets me change as many of the parameters as possible. Whether that's what Matrix wants to give me is another matter entirely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So naturally what I want is a kit that is as flexible as possible and that lets me change as many of the parameters as possible. Whether that's what Matrix wants to give me is another matter entirely.

Likewise. I'm probably more into actually playing the game than Colin, but I basically agree with the above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll let Matrix fret about the profitability

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Yep, couldn't care less could ya?

It's attitudes like this that have driven wargaming close to extinction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Right.... so when you were playing Avalon Hill games, you were lobbying them to give them wider appeal so that the company would have a bigger profit margin?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I am a miniatures player, not a board gamer.

quote:

When I first started painting miniatures, it was historical all the way. I painted Roman armies, ACW armies and of course, the most glorious of all.. Napoleonic armies. That hobby, unfortunately, also got hit by "grogidous" and went into a very steep decline. Then a company known as "Games Workshop" appeared. I remember painting their first boxed set of plastic pointy nosed space marines and thinking, these seem weird, but at the same time, kinda liked them.

quote:

The next thing I know, GW had sprouted into an international company

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll let Matrix fret about the profitability

Yep, couldn't care less could ya?

It's attitudes like this that have driven wargaming close to extinction.

Ray (alias Lava)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Right.... so when you were playing Avalon Hill games, you were lobbying them to give them wider appeal so that the company would have a bigger profit margin?

I am a miniatures player, not a board gamer.

So let me give you my experience from a miniatures player viewpoint.

When I first started painting miniatures, it was historical all the way. I painted Roman armies, ACW armies and of course, the most glorious of all.. Napoleonic armies. That hobby, unfortunately, also got hit by "grogidous" and went into a very steep decline. Then a company known as "Games Workshop" appeared. I remember painting their first boxed set of plastic pointy nosed space marines and thinking, these seem weird, but at the same time, kinda liked them. The next thing I know, GW had sprouted into an international company with some of the best scuptled figures on the market. I loved them. I painted a space marine army and an eldar army, and had great fun. But more importantly, when I walked into a GW store I found young people inside. And that is when it struck me, that my once solid belief that if it wasn't historical it wasn't "wargaming" was wrong, and that I had contributed to the decline of my hobby. Today, miniatures wargaming is doing much better, it is in a revival of sorts I believe. I am presently painting Flames of War World War II miniatures.

But there is a difference in my attitude today. I saw a hobby that I dearly loved almost slip into oblivion, and I will not be a party to that again. I am an ardent supporter of any miniatures company, whatever their subject matter, if it means bringing in young people who want to pick up a brush and start painting, and I go to great pains to whack people with their arrogant attitudes about what miniatures gaming should or shouldn't be.

And that scenario is replaying itself today, but this time it is in the computer wargaming hobby. And yes, I am concerned with profitablity for those who make the games, because I have seen this before and I personally will not let it happen again by staying silent.

If you guys really love this hobby, you better start thinking hard about its future and start being a little more open minded and concerned that producers have their backs against the wall, because we have put them there.

Ray (alias Lava)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

Lava,

Unfortunately it's not in the hands of the wargamers, but that of the Software companies. Because TOAW represented the next step from the board to the computer, it was taken up by ex-boardgamers, but note that it had no competence at all. There wasn't any other comparable game at the time nor it is now. In contrast I can think of at least 2 other games that do what Norm Kroger is going to do with his next game, and probably there are more than 10 that put the player in first person landing in Normandy.

Wargaming as we know it today (or rather, boardgaming) was born in the 60s out of enthusiast that had heard of the war their father had fought, and after a few glorious years in the 70s, entered a decline until it hit a bottom-line in the 80s and has remained there ever since. Those who are attracted to the hobby are attracted by history, not by simplicity, because for simple games there are other who do the same more attractively; now, enters Matrix, who, in contrast to Talonsoft, already knows there's a base out there that is likely to buy its product - but only if it delivers.
Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hellen

Sure, I've had those times when one stinkin' tank held up a battalion.....but it happens, in war and on the gameing field.

You just have to live with it, and counter as best you can.

Life's not fair. Neither is war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You're right. The objection is when one tank holds up a battalion- which is 300 miles away doing something completely different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You're right. The objection is when one tank holds up a battalion- which is 300 miles away doing something completely different.

Here we go again... this argument is downright laughable.

To say that some unit was held up by some enemy unit 300 miles away is gross exaggeration, or malice, or failure to understand basic principles of this game. It's like saying my car stopped because some mammoth didn't care to die and turn into fossil oil many hundereds of thousands of years ago.

No, the car stopped because I was stupid enough to forgot to fill the tank on gas station.

That's how the game works. Basic mechanism of the game. Hexes, when you think of it, are ridicolous too, and no professional military man will ever use hexes on real battlefield. But you see that's how TOAW works. It relies on hexes, and Norm's database, and "turn ending dice" and other methods many could find ridicolous (if only they try hard enough). "Turn ending dice" is the method designer chose to implement need for operational planning as he (game designer) saw fit.

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

O.