Any plans to improve the Editor?

Any plans to improve the Editor? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

Jeff Norton -> Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 7:19:26 PM)
Hi, Just asking, since the editor takes a while to get used to. Just figuring out how to modify the force deployment schedules (turns) was a learning experence. BTW - has anybody heard of a tool for TOAW called BioEd? I heard a ref about it on TDG, but was wondering what it did. Anybody? Best -Jeff

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 8:16:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Norton BTW - has anybody heard of a tool for TOAW called BioEd? I heard a ref about it on TDG, but was wondering what it did. Anybody? The BioEditor allows you to create modified executables. The main advantage of this is that it allows you to edit the equipment database, but it also allows various other changes, such as using alternate graphics. The utility's homepage is here; http://www.tdg.nu/download/bioed.htm Since the editor depends on the particular executable, it won't be possible to use it with the Matrix Edition immediately, but it could be adapted. Unfortunately the original programmer isn't really around the TOAW community at the moment.

Widell -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 8:34:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious The BioEditor allows you to create modified executables. The main advantage of this is that it allows you to edit the equipment database, but it also allows various other changes, such as using alternate graphics Since the editor depends on the particular executable, it won't be possible to use it with the Matrix Edition immediately, but it could be adapted One sure hopes that Matrix has it in their plans to separate the database from the executable. I doubt if the licence agreement will allow "us" to modify the exe and re-distribute it. On the other hand, the BioEd has probably prolonged the life of the product significantly, so the functionality is desperately needed in order to exploit the possibilities of the game

Dr. Foo -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 9:05:49 PM)
If the TOAW database has been updated with 2007+ equipment like Strykers and such there will be no need for BioEditor (at least for a few years).

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 9:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Widell One sure hopes that Matrix has it in their plans to separate the database from the executable. I doubt if the licence agreement will allow "us" to modify the exe and re-distribute it. The .exe without the rest of the game is pretty unuseable. Anyway, if Matrix were to make an in-built equipment editor, I would expect any changes in the database to be made part of the scenario file. quote: On the other hand, the BioEd has probably prolonged the life of the product significantly, so the functionality is desperately needed in order to exploit the possibilities of the game Yeah. And from Matrix's point of view, a lot of the better scenarios available right now rely on the BioEd. Not supporting makes switching over look less attractive.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 9:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo If the TOAW database has been updated with 2007+ equipment like Strykers and such there will be no need for BioEditor Sure. Assuming the Database also has sea gladiators, hypothetical 1940s French tank and aircraft designs, the 1945 German "Red Riding Hood" ATGM, the ground attack version of the FW-190, the "Black Prince" Super-heavy variant of the Churchill, etc, etc, etc. Don't forget duplicate rifle squads and so on for multiple replacement pools. And several versions of various equipment types which are appropriate for different situations. The BioEd is essential for very, very many situations.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 9:19:42 PM)
And for pre WWI scenarios!

macgregor -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 11:48:04 PM)
Hopefully, somewhere in the manual there will be an explanation of the squads and how they all got to be of a particular strength. # of riflemen,SMGs,LMGs,medics, etc.(even if they remain somewhat generic). Consider it 'brain candy'. Good to see you Inaki! You're a very good player. Perhaps we can do battle again in the new format.

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/11/2006 11:50:51 PM)
Hi, I'd like to see a new sub-screen in the editor that lets you assign lower HQs to higher level formation HQs... for example, using a tree system, I'd like to assign Corps HQs to their corresponding Army HQs, and Army HQs to any higher level HQ... the reason for this? When I click on any HQ during gameplay in a scenario, I'd like to see all units that serve that HQ highlighted on the screen...so say if you click on Army Group South HQ, all units belonging to AGS are highlighted....if you clicked on 18 Army HQ, only units belonging to 18 Army are highlighted... Is that clear as mud?[&:] and yes, I'm one of those organization freaks....[8D]

*Lava* -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 2:01:02 AM)
Well... I'd like to see a couple things... Force editor: 1. Have the force editor save its page so that you can leave it and return to the same page later on. It should work like the Events editor. 2. The force editor should automatically reassign formation "numbers" (I don't how it actually works) such that if you move a formation, delete or modify the formation list in any way, both the formation editor and the deployment editor will always move to the "next" formation as it is found listed in the force editor. Confuse anybody there? [;)] For example: Let's say I add a new corps in the middle of the force. I use the 8th corps, copy its units and then make a new formation.. the 9th corps. When I make the new assignement, a prompt asks me if I want to make a new formation and then assigns a number or a deleted name as a place holder. Now if originally the 1st Armored brigade followed the 8th corps, and I go to the deploy troops, when I'm finished with the 8th corps, the "next" formation to be deployed will be the 1st Armored brigade and not the 9th Corps. Using the "next formation" button I then need to cycle like crazy or return to the force editor to identify the 9th Corps for deployment... WOW.. what a strain! Deployment Editor: When I do a scenario, I don't place all my units first and then give them objectives later. As a matter of fact, because many troops come into play based on events which requires you to first place an objective, it would seem to me that the two functions of placing units and objectives could be done better. Personally, when I finish placing all my units I then assign them objectives. As it is, once you finish placing all the units in the formation, you then move automatically to the next formation and have to "back up" if you want to assign them objectives. This can sometimes be a real hassle (see my discussion above about formation assignments) because when you hit the button to back up, you don't always back up to the formation you were working with.. Jeez.. So I wish I had some kind of mechanism, perhaps a prompt, asking me if I wanted to set objectives before moving to the next formation. Events Editor: I'd like to see some new events. People need to be creative here and brainstorm, but one which I would like to see is a "unit destroyed" event. A "unit destroyed" could be used to end a scenario for example. Also would like to see an "increase or decrease proficiency" event. Map Editor: The map editor is full of traps and requires constant saves lest you fill the whole map with railroads! I can live with that, but the one thing which seems to be unnecessarily difficult to figure out is handling "blacked out" hexes. The first time I accidently put a "blacked out" hex I freeked out because it would not allow me to place any other terrain feature over top of it. The trick, as most know, is to place a deep sea hex (the only one that works), which will take and then place "grass" over it. I believe "sand" also works quite weird as well. Just some thoughts from a novice scenario maker. Ray (alias Lava)

Chuck2 -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 5:04:10 AM)
Hi Inaki, Indeed. There have been lots of uses for the bio-editor in the last few years. It should be possible in the future to have another bio-editor built for use with TOAW 3 and creating 19th century scenarios.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 7:10:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor Hopefully, somewhere in the manual there will be an explanation of the squads and how they all got to be of a particular strength. # of riflemen,SMGs,LMGs, There's a section at the end of the equipment list document which explains what these squads represent.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 7:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo Hi, I'd like to see a new sub-screen in the editor that lets you assign lower HQs to higher level formation HQs... This'd be good if there was something actually behind it; for example if the destruction of the higher HQ had a negative effect on the subordinate formations.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 7:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava When I do a scenario, I don't place all my units first and then give them objectives later. As a matter of fact, because many troops come into play based on events which requires you to first place an objective, Huh? quote: because when you hit the button to back up, you don't always back up to the formation you were working with.. Jeez.. This is because the editor jumps to the first undeployed unit, which may be several formations away. You could just select the unit you just placed. That would do the job easily. quote: So I wish I had some kind of mechanism, perhaps a prompt, asking me if I wanted to set objectives before moving to the next formation. This would come up every single time you placed the final unit in a formation? Wouldn't this be incredibly tedious? quote: People need to be creative here and brainstorm, but one which I would like to see is a "unit destroyed" event. A "unit destroyed" could be used to end a scenario for example. There is already such an event trigger. I've used it quite a lot. However it might be one of those triggers which can only have a limited number of effects; in that case, you'll have to use an "event activated" event for the effect you want. quote: The map editor is full of traps and requires constant saves lest you fill the whole map with railroads! Yeah. This is a real pain and sometimes devours hours of work. Personally if I were working on the map editor, the first thing I'd do is change the "fill to border" function, possibly placing an "are you sure you want to screw up the whole map?" prompt after selecting it. This function is used so rarely that the delay won't be an issue. quote: The first time I accidently put a "blacked out" hex I freeked out because it would not allow me to place any other terrain feature over top of it. The trick, as most know, is to place a deep sea hex (the only one that works), which will take and then place "grass" over it. I believe "sand" also works quite weird as well. Or you could use the erase tool and remove the unplayable hex. That's what I do.

*Lava* -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 8:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: So I wish I had some kind of mechanism, perhaps a prompt, asking me if I wanted to set objectives before moving to the next formation. This would come up every single time you placed the final unit in a formation? Wouldn't this be incredibly tedious? Why? How many times do you place the final unit of the formation.. once right? quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: The first time I accidently put a "blacked out" hex I freeked out because it would not allow me to place any other terrain feature over top of it. The trick, as most know, is to place a deep sea hex (the only one that works), which will take and then place "grass" over it. I believe "sand" also works quite weird as well. Or you could use the erase tool and remove the unplayable hex. That's what I do. Actually, on my game at least, the erase tool doesn't always work. I've found that placing the deep sea hex followed by the grass hex always works. quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: People need to be creative here and brainstorm, but one which I would like to see is a "unit destroyed" event. A "unit destroyed" could be used to end a scenario for example. There is already such an event trigger. There is? What is it called? I'm not referring to a "withdraw unit" type of thing, I'm referring to an event which occurs when a unit is destroyed by enemy action. Thus, for example, one could penalize a player who loses his army headquarters. Ray (alias Lava)

*Lava* -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 8:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Lava When I do a scenario, I don't place all my units first and then give them objectives later. As a matter of fact, because many troops come into play based on events which requires you to first place an objective, Huh? Could you rephrase the question? I'm not sure what you are wondering about. Ray (alias Lava)

Raindem -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 8:56:40 PM)
quote: There is? What is it called? I'm not referring to a "withdraw unit" type of thing, I'm referring to an event which occurs when a unit is destroyed by enemy action. Thus, for example, one could penalize a player who loses his army headquarters. Ray (alias Lava) Ben is correct. It is called "Unit Destroyed" and it comes in quite handy.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 10:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Why? How many times do you place the final unit of the formation.. once right? Once per formation. So that could be two hundred times for a scenario. quote: Actually, on my game at least, the erase tool doesn't always work. Really? That's a bit of a blow. Does it just sometimes work and sometimes not work, or does it fail to remove specific terrain types, or what? Obviously if there's a bug here Matrix should know about it. quote: There is? What is it called? I'm not referring to a "withdraw unit" type of thing, I'm referring to an event which occurs when a unit is destroyed by enemy action. Thus, for example, one could penalize a player who loses his army headquarters. It's an event trigger (withdraw unit is an effect). It's called "unit destroyed". If you can't find it you're probably looking at the wrong list.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 10:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava [Could you rephrase the question? I'm not sure what you are wondering about. Sorry. It's not really important.

*Lava* -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 11:15:24 PM)
Hi! Okay, as I said, I'm an amateur. I did find the "unit destroyed" trigger.. thanks. As far as the "erase" tool, it may just be my game. It is editing maps where I usually run into the problem, not in making them. And lastly for the objectives, does it really matter how many formations there are, you still have to define the objectives for each of them or the scenario won't run. Probably this is just a matter of taste here, and now that I know about clicking on that last unit I placed to return me to the formation, it will make life easier for me. Thanks for the tips and info ya'll. Ray (alias Lava)

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/12/2006 11:46:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo Hi, I'd like to see a new sub-screen in the editor that lets you assign lower HQs to higher level formation HQs... This'd be good if there was something actually behind it; for example if the destruction of the higher HQ had a negative effect on the subordinate formations. Well like I said, I'd only like to have something like that implemented so I could keep track of which units belong to which HQ... I suffer from some kind of disorder that causes me to not enjoy the game at all if units from different orgs get mixed.....[sm=dizzy.gif] But you're right, HQs should represent something more to the game than just supply bonuses.... Hell, even the HQ units in WF/EF had Command and Control functions....minimal though they were.... ChadG

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/13/2006 2:23:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava And lastly for the objectives, does it really matter how many formations there are, you still have to define the objectives for each of them or the scenario won't run. Actually the scenario will run, but only in hotseat or PBM mode. Anyway, I find it more convenient to define objectives all at once, otherwise you can forget what you've done. It's been a while since I've specified full objective tracks, though. I don't really design for the PO I'm afraid. That may change if Matrix has really boosted its capabilities.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (4/13/2006 2:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo Well like I said, I'd only like to have something like that implemented so I could keep track of which units belong to which HQ... I suffer from some kind of disorder that causes me to not enjoy the game at all if units from different orgs get mixed.....[sm=dizzy.gif] Well, in the real world divisions and corps get transfered between commands all the time. That, of course, would also be a great feature in TOAW. Ideally, one could replace the current formation co-operation system with one which depends on having a common parent HQ and perhaps also a co-operation setting for the entire block of formations (army group or whatever).

a white rabbit -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/8/2006 9:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo If the TOAW database has been updated with 2007+ equipment like Strykers and such there will be no need for BioEditor (at least for a few years). ..wot no spiders ????.. ....wahhhhhhh

a white rabbit -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/8/2006 9:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo If the TOAW database has been updated with 2007+ equipment like Strykers and such there will be no need for BioEditor Sure. Assuming the Database also has sea gladiators, hypothetical 1940s French tank and aircraft designs, the 1945 German "Red Riding Hood" ATGM, the ground attack version of the FW-190, the "Black Prince" Super-heavy variant of the Churchill, etc, etc, etc. Don't forget duplicate rifle squads and so on for multiple replacement pools. And several versions of various equipment types which are appropriate for different situations. The BioEd is essential for very, very many situations. ..and elephants..

Widell -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/8/2006 9:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Widell One sure hopes that Matrix has it in their plans to separate the database from the executable. I doubt if the licence agreement will allow "us" to modify the exe and re-distribute it. The .exe without the rest of the game is pretty unuseable. Anyway, if Matrix were to make an in-built equipment editor, I would expect any changes in the database to be made part of the scenario file. I´d still say make separate database(s) so you can edit the db outside of both the game exe and the scenario. Of course a scenario needs to be tied to a certain db, or use the entries in the db to create units in the scenario. These units would then "live and die" regardless of the originating db This the way we had it figured out in OTWG, so I may of course be biased [;)], plus my knowledge about the BioEd is limited to what I said about it prolonging the life of the product and increasing the quality of the game/scenarios Just my 2 cents......

BillLottJr -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/8/2006 11:41:50 PM)
>>..and elephants.. << Didn't the Thai army use elephants at some point in the 20th Century? Also elephants would be needed for Hypothetical scenarios involving a Neo-Carthaginian campaign to oust the French & Italians from Noth Africa.

golden delicious -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/9/2006 12:31:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill II >>..and elephants.. << Didn't the Thai army use elephants at some point in the 20th Century? As pack animals, I believe.

DanNeely -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/9/2006 4:38:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill II >>..and elephants.. << Didn't the Thai army use elephants at some point in the 20th Century? Also elephants would be needed for Hypothetical scenarios involving a Neo-Carthaginian campaign to oust the French & Italians from Noth Africa. Someone did punic war scens for acow. He used pz2's for the elephants. Looked wierd but worked fairly well.

*Lava* -> RE: Any plans to improve the Editor? (5/9/2006 12:06:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanNeely Someone did punic war scens for acow. He used pz2's for the elephants. Looked wierd but worked fairly well. Indeed, Shows that with a little imagination, just about anything is possible. Ray (alias Lava)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625