3.4 ETA (Full Version)

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



Message

Shazman -> 3.4 ETA (4/6/2009 2:59:17 AM)

Anyone know approximately when this will be available. What quarter would be good. What month would be better. [;)]

Also, is there a list of likely changes/fixes?



Silvanski -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/6/2009 3:03:16 AM)

 
Ralph keeps a journal on issues being addressed

http://www.operationalwarfare.com/



Shazman -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/6/2009 3:08:02 AM)

Yeah. I read it from time to time but nothing about an ETA.

cheers [:)]



ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 3:29:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

Yeah. I read it from time to time but nothing about an ETA.

cheers [:)]

That's because I've been programming for too many years [:D]. It will be released when it's ready.

It IS getting closer, the issue list is pretty small by now, and we need to figure out which of the remaining 'big' features that are left are going to be tackled for this. I'm very tempted to stop soon and put it out there for feedback, and put anything else in the next patch (along with the patches to this patch.) This patch has been far too ambitious, even if there is some really good stuff in there from the wishlist.

Then there's the packaging and polish. Also translating the release notes from Ralphish to English. That took way longer than I expected last time, I think it took over a month just for that piece.

Ralph



L`zard -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 3:47:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Yeah. I read it from time to time but nothing about an ETA.
cheers [:)]


Also translating the release notes from Ralphish to English. That took way longer than I expected last time, I think it took over a month just for that piece.
Ralph


Kinda like learning to 'write' in 'Elvish' from the Lord of the Rings, eh?

No Doubt!

[:D][:D][:D]





ColinWright -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 3:51:33 AM)

What major changes are there going to be? It would be nice to be able to design accordingly.



ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 4:06:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What major changes are there going to be? It would be nice to be able to design accordingly.

Colin,
I've just posted some of the preliminary rules changes to the Blog.

These are in addition to the Supply Rule changes and the New Turn order.

I forgot these, they aren't exactly rules changes.

Weather bug fixed. The original intent was that the area around a weather boundary (3 hexes either side) could be from either zone, providing a mix. Unfortunatley, the way this was done didn't properly freeze the water. I've fixed it in .12, but it's deterministic.
Another problem is that the code was supposed to make the middle of the weather zone more overcast when it was warming or cooling. This is going to become more pronouced. It's very hard to determine exactly what the effect is going to be, but warm/code fronts should be cloudier along the boundaries in .12. This will become more pronounced if a zone is narrow.



ColinWright -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 8:19:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What major changes are there going to be? It would be nice to be able to design accordingly.

Colin,
I've just posted some of the preliminary rules changes to the Blog.

These are in addition to the Supply Rule changes and the New Turn order.

I forgot these, they aren't exactly rules changes.

Weather bug fixed. The original intent was that the area around a weather boundary (3 hexes either side) could be from either zone, providing a mix. Unfortunatley, the way this was done didn't properly freeze the water. I've fixed it in .12, but it's deterministic.
Another problem is that the code was supposed to make the middle of the weather zone more overcast when it was warming or cooling. This is going to become more pronouced. It's very hard to determine exactly what the effect is going to be, but warm/code fronts should be cloudier along the boundaries in .12. This will become more pronounced if a zone is narrow.



Thanks. I take it there's a more detailed description of the supply changes on the blog somewhere -- those sound really useful.



ColinWright -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 8:31:04 AM)

I poked around but didn't find much. The user-set values for supply points I get. What are the other changes to supply?

Incidentally, that 700x700 size sounds like it'll come -- someday. Care to hazard a guess as to when? Six months? Four years?



Shazman -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 12:25:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What major changes are there going to be? It would be nice to be able to design accordingly.


Thanks for the update. It's like Colin said, if someone has something in the pipeline a release time will make a difference. And thanks for all the work. [&o]




ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 5:44:41 PM)

Supply changes

http://www.operationalwarfare.com/post/2009/02/22/More-readme-portions.aspx




ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 5:53:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I poked around but didn't find much. The user-set values for supply points I get. What are the other changes to supply?

Incidentally, that 700x700 size sounds like it'll come -- someday. Care to hazard a guess as to when? Six months? Four years?

Somewhere between those figures, I'm hoping. It all depends on how smoothly everything goes.

I'm planning two more patches for TOAW III, the major one, and a smaller one after that to clean up bugs and catch the items that didn't make it.

After that, I need to work on the next game, which I'm planning to make backward compatible with TOAW III so it will be able to load all the scenarios, but can deall with 700x700, etc. I'll post more once I've got the plans for that more finalized, but I would like to put out a separate editor as an early step that can edit TOAW III scenarios, but will also be able to edit up to 700x700 although they won't be playable in TOAW III.

I suspect that creating a 700x700, 10K/side 'mega-monster' is going to take at least a couple of weekends.

Ralph



ColinWright -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 5:59:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I suspect that creating a 700x700, 10K/side 'mega-monster' is going to take at least a couple of weekends.

Ralph



More or less my thinking. I'm working on a 300x300 map, and am thinking that it really would be nice to incorporate some areas that are stilljust off the edge of the map.

Now, I could contort things -- but it's going to be years before the scenario actually has to have the areas added.

Hence my question. If the increase is indeed sitting on the ways, then I might as well just proceed on the assumption that you are likely to work faster than I.



rhinobones -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/10/2009 11:41:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I suspect that creating a 700x700, 10K/side 'mega-monster' is going to take at least a couple of weekends.
Ralph


For the current 300X300, or the expanded 700X700, can you raise the maximum number of Supply Points to around 100?

The number and placement of supply points becomes critical when Supply Points are not coaxial with rail roads, or are in historical periods prior to the rail road system.

Also, Happy Easter

Regards, RhinoBones



ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/11/2009 1:35:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I suspect that creating a 700x700, 10K/side 'mega-monster' is going to take at least a couple of weekends.

Ralph



More or less my thinking. I'm working on a 300x300 map, and am thinking that it really would be nice to incorporate some areas that are stilljust off the edge of the map.

Now, I could contort things -- but it's going to be years before the scenario actually has to have the areas added.

Hence my question. If the increase is indeed sitting on the ways, then I might as well just proceed on the assumption that you are likely to work faster than I.


That should be a safe assumption. Absolute worst case, we can work something out. The current and the new editor should be able stitch 300x300 maps together.



ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/11/2009 1:47:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I suspect that creating a 700x700, 10K/side 'mega-monster' is going to take at least a couple of weekends.
Ralph


For the current 300X300, or the expanded 700X700, can you raise the maximum number of Supply Points to around 100?

The number and placement of supply points becomes critical when Supply Points are not coaxial with rail roads, or are in historical periods prior to the rail road system.

Also, Happy Easter

Regards, RhinoBones

Actually, it's probably going to have to be a lot higher than that for the 700x700. In 3.4, You can turn on and off supply points and adjust the supply level from the event editor for pockets, beach landings, etc. I'll see if I can fit in increasing the supply points for 3.4.



ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/11/2009 1:52:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Also, Happy Easter

Makes me wonder how white rabbit's been doing.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/11/2009 1:10:37 PM)

As Mr. Bones suggested more supply points, 700 x 700 maybe should also include more place names and exclusion zones?

And for Elmers sake, 39 objectives and 3 tracks might not be enough.



BillLottJr -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/11/2009 10:07:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I poked around but didn't find much. The user-set values for supply points I get. What are the other changes to supply?

Incidentally, that 700x700 size sounds like it'll come -- someday. Care to hazard a guess as to when? Six months? Four years?

Somewhere between those figures, I'm hoping. It all depends on how smoothly everything goes.

I'm planning two more patches for TOAW III, the major one, and a smaller one after that to clean up bugs and catch the items that didn't make it.

After that, I need to work on the next game, which I'm planning to make backward compatible with TOAW III so it will be able to load all the scenarios, but can deall with 700x700, etc. I'll post more once I've got the plans for that more finalized, but I would like to put out a separate editor as an early step that can edit TOAW III scenarios, but will also be able to edit up to 700x700 although they won't be playable in TOAW III.

I suspect that creating a 700x700, 10K/side 'mega-monster' is going to take at least a couple of weekends.

Ralph



Ralph,
Will the 700x700 map include an increase in available place-names?
Also, if you need someone to give the separate editor a once over to look for bugs, oddities etc., I'd really be interested.
Bill



ralphtricky -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/12/2009 4:39:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill II
Ralph,
Will the 700x700 map include an increase in available place-names?
Also, if you need someone to give the separate editor a once over to look for bugs, oddities etc., I'd really be interested.
Bill

Bill,
There's a whole list of things that were increased from the 100 to the 300 version. I also don't have the memory constraints that used to exist, so there aren't any major reasons not to increase many of the structures, except to worry about execution times, and presentation.

I'm still working on just how I'm going to do the editor. Since I want to rewrite it from scratch, there's a chance I'll be able to put the code (not assets) up on CodePlex as an open source project. I'm not sure what the con's might be except for some potential legal issues.

Ralph



ColinWright -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/12/2009 5:07:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


...I'm still working on just how I'm going to do the editor. Since I want to rewrite it from scratch, there's a chance I'll be able to put the code (not assets) up on CodePlex as an open source project. I'm not sure what the con's might be except for some potential legal issues.

Ralph



That would be GREAT!!! The more time I spend with this game, the more I tend to see each scenario as calling for rules and routines and such unique to itself.

The notion of a single universally applicable engine really is invalid. What we want are the wheels and the old lawnmower engine and such so that we can build our own go-cart for exactly what we're trying to do with each scenario.

...and some way, some day, we need volume-based supply. One division does not consume as much supply as ten divisions! I mention this because the shift required seems deeper than will ever be available through the editor -- but it's essential.



golden delicious -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/12/2009 10:52:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Makes me wonder how white rabbit's been doing.


Probably not well. It's been some time since we last heard, and I believe he had terminal cancer. At least, he was taking preparations for his Will very seriously.



golden delicious -> RE: 3.4 ETA (4/12/2009 10:56:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The notion of a single universally applicable engine really is invalid.


This is the opposite of the design philosophy behind TOAW. Naturally you have a point, but I think we need to have an engine which users can run with and make 80% of scenarios without having to get a degree first. Then there'd be extra flexibility for the crazies like you and me who need to change the core variables.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.34375