RE: Critics on TOAW (Full Version)

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



Message

a white rabbit -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/17/2007 5:16:23 PM)

..NOOO ELEPHANTS*...

..*Elmer intervention..

..otherwise, no worries, wot e'said..




ralphtricky -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 4:10:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..NOOO ELEPHANTS*...

..*Elmer intervention..

..otherwise, no worries, wot e'said..



I'm not exactly working on 'Elephants'[sm=innocent0009.gif], but I am working on making creation of Objectives a little easier...

Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

Ralph


[image]local://upfiles/9602/69A752C81A734B0983C9E613F566B40F.jpg[/image]



rhinobones -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 5:01:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.


In the sample pretend that the entire formation consists of the lone company at the far left of the map. Will the formation advance from objective #1 to objectives #2 and #3 if objectives #2 and #3 are already under friendly control, or, will the formation instead advance directly toward enemy controlled objective #4?

Also, the text fonts are really nice, but I'm not sure the world is ready for red and yellow roads, and brown polluted rivers. Think we already have enough of those.

Regards, RhinoBones



ralphtricky -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 5:18:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.


In the sample pretend that the entire formation consists of the lone company at the far left of the map. Will the formation advance from objective #1 to objectives #2 and #3 if objectives #2 and #3 are already under friendly control, or, will the formation instead advance directly toward enemy controlled objective #4?

Also, the text fonts are really nice, but I'm not sure the world is ready for red and yellow roads, and brown polluted rivers. Think we already have enough of those.

Regards, RhinoBones

It will probably go straight towards 4. Elmer mainly cares about the highest enemy held objective.

Actually, the rivers are brigth blue[X(] The railroads are black.

Sometime soon, I probably should take the time to go though my graphics directory, and reinstall the ones I want. I've got two machines with different graphics on them. It hurts sometimes<g>





Veers -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 5:34:35 AM)

Objective lines=Badass. [8D]



Silvanski -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 7:22:28 AM)

ditto abt the objective track lines, btw the Obj# are white font... I get these in orange, not very readable ... is that something which can be changed in the 'opart 3 fonts' settings?



ralphtricky -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 5:27:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ditto abt the objective track lines, btw the Obj# are white font... I get these in orange, not very readable ... is that something which can be changed in the 'opart 3 fonts' settings?

No, it's hard-coded, I'm afraid. I changed the colors for the next release.



Silvanski -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 6:18:47 PM)

Sounds great Ralph, much better than yellow objective values (and therefor objective numbers in the editor)

[image]local://upfiles/15265/FA5E46E9091F4444909D345ACFCC63C8.gif[/image]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 6:58:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'm not exactly working on 'Elephants'[sm=innocent0009.gif], but I am working on making creation of Objectives a little easier...

Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

Ralph


That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.



JAMiAM -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 9:02:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

This would be good, as long as it was a toggle option. Even with the active formation being a different color than the others, it may sometimes get so "busy" over some stretches of the map, that focus might be better achieved by toggling off the full display.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

Or, perpendicular, star-shaped, criss-crossing, etc. Along with the option to display one, or all, of the formations, as detailed above, you should be able to pick any subset of formations and display them, to the exclusion of the others. That would help on fine tuning groups of formations for specific tasks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.

This would be sweet. Imagine the interface of TOAW III's editor coming into the 21st Century! It could be something like this...Select menu option to place objectives. Left click on map to initiate the objective placement and to place the first objective. As you mouse about the map the program will dynamically draw the lines from last defined objective out to the mouse cursor, keeping the previous ones from objective to objective, while further clicks place a new objective in the sequence. A right click on any objective would remove it, dynamically renumbering the sequence and redrawing the lines. If a hex contains more than one numbered objective for the formation, then the right click would bring up a list of numbers to choose the deletion(s) from with the numbers listed as well as an "all" choice. Again, all changes implemented immediately on the lined visual display.

If anyone has what they believe to be a more seamless UI that that in mind, please feel free to chime in with your suggestions.



Silvanski -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 9:53:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.


Until then the old fashioned method will do...

I just posted this in the scenario design forum[:D]

I'm ready to set up the PO's. Armed with lots of large copies of the N.American map and markers I'll start with the on-map formations first. [sm=Crazy-1271.gif]




golden delicious -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/18/2007 11:19:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Wow. Have these guys even played the game for more than five minutes? It looks like they haven't.


It does seem that way. A lot of uninformed remarks. The second post on the thread is perhaps accurate enough- but not unique to TOAW.



golden delicious -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 12:12:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar.


You're no fun at all.



Veers -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 2:15:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar.


You're no fun at all.

[:D]



SMK-at-work -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 2:35:25 AM)

Hey I'm on both forums - and inter-forum falme war would see me burning myself!![:'(]



m5000.2006 -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 2:39:31 AM)

i don't think there will be a war, no one is so crazy as to start a war these days...

wisdom and common sense will prevail [:D]



Telumar -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 3:41:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar.


You're no fun at all.


The golden one already has some experience in this one.. [:D] Nevertheless it would be damn stupid.



hank -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 6:50:16 PM)

Those were some interesting thoughts at the BF site.  ... or not.  

TOAW is very playable even though there are some things I dislike ... but not enough to trash the game.  Every wargame I have has something I don't like about it so ... everything's copesetic.  I jump from TOAW to PzC to BiN to HttR to IL2 to Steelbeasts ... then back again ... and have fun in all of them ... plus I'm on the edge of buying Battlefront (the game).

But the one thing that caugh my eye in one of the critics post at the BF site was that he got the same feel with HttR that he got with ToaW in that each unit has all the weapons/ammo/ etc. listed.  After I read that I could see what he meant. 
My main complaints on TOAW is the presentation of information.  The way HttR/CotA displays this data is better IMHO.  There's bar charts and lists and other graphics that tell you the status of a unit, its combat power, fatigue, etc etc.  This is where I wish TOAW would get a major face lift.  I get tired looking at the small font serifs lettering and the center justification, etc. that comprise ToaW's user interface.   ... However, it appears they're working on at least using a better font ... based on some other posts here.

I have fun with all those games I listed that I own.  I've played them for years.  I even bought TOAW twice, once when Win98 was king and the new release, TOAW III.

Thats all folks 

Oh, and Veers, I was looking for a patch when I saw this.  Hope that's why my last move didn't work.

later.



Veers -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 9:52:12 PM)

quote:

Oh, and Veers, I was looking for a patch when I saw this.  Hope that's why my last move didn't work.

Probably is, as I stated in my email. :D



Shawkhan -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 10:00:36 PM)

...I think TOAW could benefit from the use of more tooltips and more functionality for HQs. I liked the way some of the old boardgames HQs had a radius of command/control  giving full/additional movement and augmented combat performance up to their command limit. This gave different leaders a distinct 'personality' lacking in TOAW scenarios featuring such otherwise outstanding leaders as Napoleon, Rommel or Patton, just to name a few.
...The graphics in TOAW I think are remarkable, although I do wish we could have a larger size to accomodate my older eyes. (Is that a '5' or a '6' I see for movement, is a typical problem I encounter.)
...One of the few things that I know about Battlefront is that the graphics don't seem to match those of TOAWIII from what I see in screenshots. 



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/19/2007 11:39:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

i don't think there will be a war, no one is so crazy as to start a war these days...


This is why it is not called "flamewar" but "liberating innocent people from an evil tyrant" [:D]



ralphtricky -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 12:46:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...I think TOAW could benefit from the use of more tooltips and more functionality for HQs. I liked the way some of the old boardgames HQs had a radius of command/control  giving full/additional movement and augmented combat performance up to their command limit. This gave different leaders a distinct 'personality' lacking in TOAW scenarios featuring such otherwise outstanding leaders as Napoleon, Rommel or Patton, just to name a few.
...The graphics in TOAW I think are remarkable, although I do wish we could have a larger size to accomodate my older eyes. (Is that a '5' or a '6' I see for movement, is a typical problem I encounter.)
...One of the few things that I know about Battlefront is that the graphics don't seem to match those of TOAWIII from what I see in screenshots. 

I'm working on part of that. There's an 'Alpha' version of the Huge map on the View/Options/Map View/2D Huge. I know it's got problems, but it's there. I'm also working on larger fonts as an option down the road, but that's going to be lot of work to make the dialogs resize.

Ralph



m5000.2006 -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 1:48:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...I think TOAW could benefit from the use of more tooltips and more functionality for HQs. I liked the way some of the old boardgames HQs had a radius of command/control giving full/additional movement and augmented combat performance up to their command limit. This gave different leaders a distinct 'personality' lacking in TOAW scenarios featuring such otherwise outstanding leaders as Napoleon, Rommel or Patton, just to name a few.
...The graphics in TOAW I think are remarkable, although I do wish we could have a larger size to accomodate my older eyes. (Is that a '5' or a '6' I see for movement, is a typical problem I encounter.)
...One of the few things that I know about Battlefront is that the graphics don't seem to match those of TOAWIII from what I see in screenshots.

I'm working on part of that. There's an 'Alpha' version of the Huge map on the View/Options/Map View/2D Huge. I know it's got problems, but it's there. I'm also working on larger fonts as an option down the road, but that's going to be lot of work to make the dialogs resize.

Ralph



if you're working on 'huge' display, why not add 'very small' display too (call it 'very small' or 'tiny' or whatever) so that we have the oposite part of the spectrum as well

i think 'very small' could be useful to quickly look at a large area of the battlefield to see where the frontline is and to see a kind of 'global situation'

the minimap is so small that it's rather hard to use it this way




m5000.2006 -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 2:22:04 AM)

also, what do you think about the 3d view that's in the game?

personally, i'm not a fan of 3D super graphics in wargames, i mean, i don't mind it as long as the game is good, but i don't think it's necessary

for me, TOAW's 3D display mode is not terribly functional, i was wondering if people ever use it

why not change it a bit and do something that hps panzer campaigns have - i mean a kind of 3D display mode but still with flat 2D counters, not 3D unit models, in my opinion it works pretty well in panzer campaigns - the flat 2D units have a lot of useful information on them


i mean something like this --> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/3d_1.html


it shouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish

what do you think?



JMass -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 2:42:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006
i mean something like this --> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/3d_1.html


Or something like this:

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/20885/DC62AA70536F4B9B854192F4378BC163.gif[/image]

We are waiting for a patch to exchange 3d models for NATO symbols.



m5000.2006 -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 2:48:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass


quote:

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006
i mean something like this --> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/3d_1.html


Or something like this:

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/20885/DC62AA70536F4B9B854192F4378BC163.gif[/image]

We are waiting for a patch to exchange 3d models for NATO symbols.



not bad [:)]

is it officialy approved and scheduled for the next patch?



golden delicious -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 9:10:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

The golden one already has some experience in this one.. [:D] Nevertheless it would be damn stupid.


I just don't have the time.



golden delicious -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 9:12:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

The way HttR/CotA displays this data is better IMHO.  There's bar charts and lists and other graphics that tell you the status of a unit, its combat power, fatigue, etc etc.  This is where I wish TOAW would get a major face lift.  I get tired looking at the small font serifs lettering and the center justification, etc. that comprise ToaW's user interface.


The reality, though, is that it isn't useful to repeatedly refer to this information. I don't think the way it's displayed is all that important.



golden delicious -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/20/2007 9:13:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass

Or something like this:

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/20885/DC62AA70536F4B9B854192F4378BC163.gif[/image]

We are waiting for a patch to exchange 3d models for NATO symbols.


It looks like those units had a few too many cheeseburgers.



freeboy -> RE: Critics on TOAW (3/21/2007 12:23:18 AM)

that hurts



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375