RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (Full Version)

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



Message

macgregor -> RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (1/29/2010 2:00:35 PM)

I really, and I'm sure there are many who would agree with me on this, need to leave this forum alone. It's killing my desire to play the game, and apart from some alienation, my posts have had no impact on the outcome of this game development. Perhaps if someone would offer to inform me when a patch or TOAW4 comes out, I could delete this forum from my bookmarks. I've given up cigarettes and coffee. I can surely give up posting here.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (1/29/2010 6:38:36 PM)

I'll just relate that I waited 12 years for the changes I needed to make CFNA work right. There needs to be some recognition of how difficult all changes are to make. And recognition of just how many demands for changes that there are out there - it's enormous.

A full-blown naval model is very non-trivial. And it's not a universal need. It can't have priority over needs that affect every scenario. Before you add a new room to your house you first fix the leaking roof and broken windows. But I do hope it will be addressed eventually.

Nevertheless, note that 3.4 will have two naval improvements to it: Naval stacks will now take group orders, and adjacent naval units now bombard instead of assault.



berto -> RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (1/29/2010 6:55:52 PM)

Is Ralph alone working on the patch? And would matters improve if it were a team effort, not a one-man job? (Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes with software projects, too many cooks spoil the soup.)



macgregor -> RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (1/30/2010 1:49:46 PM)

I don't know from universal, but as long as wars are to be fought on a globe, naval warfare is indeed a very global necessity. The difficulty in simulating naval combat arises from the pbem experience. Read my lips;'I DON"T WANT A NAVAL SIMULATOR'.
Look, we have Engineers with an engineering '%' capability that works for repairing bridges and other things. A NAVINT value would solve everything. Based on this percentage, naval and air units would spend their remaining movement to attack moving enemy unite in the hex they are detected. It's figuring out what percentage that requires factoring in speed, radar, all-weather, etc. sensibly, the variable would affect stacks, not units, allowing player to have interception fleets. If weather can affect ground combat, why can't it have an effect on naval interception? Is that a whole new simulator?

The dev team seems to want to make this into some monster. Am I missing something? The changes I'm seeing Ralph implement require easily as much work, if not more.



damezzi -> RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (1/31/2010 6:18:00 PM)

In fact, from the contact I had with Ralph while implementing the graphics mod, I could infer that he is pretty independent in what concerns his thoughts on Toaw future, while being very receptive to ideas. I’m far from being an eastern front addict – I’m not even a WWII addict, like most here – and I may agree that eastern front sometimes seem to monopolize the energy of some good designers, while the true potential of Toaw (reproducing multiple conflicts) is let aside. This is so that Boonierat extraordinary work on the Vietnam war feels really like an exception to the rule. But Ralph has really nothing to do with it and designers working for free will do what fits their tastes better.
Trying to find developers for Matrix won’t help. Good promotion of the game may help, though, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern for people here as it is in forums of games not half as valuable as Toaw. Toaw has it’s flaws and it’s easy to point them; the challenging thing is to point the alternative game… the one that does what Toaw does without Toaw’s flaws.
In what concerns naval warfare, even those who like eastern front on this forum seem to agree that a better naval model would be desirable. It may take long, but so what. Better have a slow and continuous support than nothing at all… and most games of the type, after selling their share, just come to a halt. What we have to lose by playing the game in it’s actual state? It’s an excellent game after all and if some substitute shows up, then we’ll be happy to have an alternative. Toaw just can’t be the game that each and everyone, individually, wants it to be. “I don’t care for that!”… well, others will care; “I would like to see that implemented!”… well, it’s the right of anyone, but wait in the line… just see the size of the wish list.
Toaw is one of the most important references in computer wargaming, a lot of players here just can’t let it aside and find a substitute and yet, the most common sentence on this forum is: “The problem with Toaw is…”. It’s a kind of whining realm.



macgregor -> RE: Yet Another Wishlist... (2/3/2010 8:11:27 PM)

Let me apologize to those who are fascinated with Eastern front scenarios. I have nothing against you. and if you dominate these forums because you are the most active, then so be it. Perhaps my frustration would be better directed at those want to see the game develop as I do, for I think I have fallen on the sword enough, unsolicitedly as it seems. The game will take the direction the majority of gamers prefer based on the perception of the Matrix and the dev team. If I look at these forums, I see the majority are about Eastern front scenarios. I may not be happy about it, but that's just the way I am.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375