RE: Two questions on the new version (Full Version)

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



Message

macgregor -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/21/2011 8:45:22 PM)

 E's comment has finally found redemption.

I must say, the TOAW demographic seems to have taken on a new look since when I first visited. 



E -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/21/2011 9:30:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
 E's comment has found redemption.

I must first and foremost (in retrospect), apologize for the missing "*grin*" from the "Rubber Ducky" portion of my post (I thought I put it in there *ack*). Second of all, I can (sort of) identify with your feeling of betrayal... I bought "Advanced Tactics" last year during the sale, only to find after the fact, that it required (dot)NET... a system that not only do I refuse to install, but _cannot_ install. So I have a game I cannot even try, even though (dot)NET was not on the list of "requirements." So, while your feelings of betrayal may be open to interpretation, I can still identify with them. And yet, we both need to... let go, take our lumps, and be much more careful in the future (as if that would've helped either of us... sometimes you win and sometimes you don't.



Nova538 -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 3:58:34 PM)

Folks,
As one of the original "bitchers" about the naval combat in the game I can see some inprovment in the current version. I've been looking at my South Pacific scenario recently. The air and naval forces seem to be more involved with each other than previously. They also don't seem as reckless. As for the need for good naval modeling in an operational level game, I still think it is important. The results of a sea battle can effect the results of the land campaign. I can see no real need for units such as Tenders, or Oilers, except as chum for the DBs, and surface ships, in this game. Subs would be an improvement, primarily as scouts and supply breakers.
Thanks,
NoVa



larryfulkerson -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 4:19:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nova538
I've been looking at my South Pacific scenario recently....

So um..........hey Nova538......would you be so kind as to send me a copy of your South Pacific scenario. I'd very much like to look that bad boy over and play it some. I'm at fullkersonlarry60(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks so muchly.



Nova538 -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 4:26:12 PM)

Larry,
No problem. it will be comming to you shortly.
Nova



larryfulkerson -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 5:29:48 PM)

Got it.  I'll playtest this bad boy for you.  Hey maybe an AAR is in order here !   Fairfax, VA.  huh?  I used to live there when I worked in DC.  Small world.

Thanks again.



berto -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 8:08:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nova538

... I've been looking at my South Pacific scenario recently ...

Do you anticipate publicly releasing an updated 3.4-compatible version? If not, might I get a private copy, too? [:)]

robert(dot)osterlund(at)comcast(dot)net



larryfulkerson -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 9:12:00 PM)

Funny thing......I open the scenario and look at the losses screen first thing and there's losses listed already for certain types of equipment.  Happens with 3.4.202 and 3.5.0.7 both.  



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/24/2011 9:20:40 PM)

3.5.0.7? Uncle Larry already got the next Beta? Maybe the losses already reflect the anicipated naval improvements, convoy system,... fully designed AO, AP, APD, SS, CS, CVE, CVL all there and done'in at the Iron Bottom Sound? *snickers*

But yeah, I'd like to have a look at the SouPac scenario as well Nova, bitte.

kLiNk, Oberst



Iron Stringbean -> RE: Two questions on the new version (2/28/2011 7:27:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
... As some know, I enjoy posting ...

And on occasion I enjoy clicking the little green block button.

Begone, macgregor!


Ah! Thank you for pointing this out!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125