RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (Full Version)

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



Message

Oberst_Klink -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 12:10:26 PM)

Steve,

the 'ignoree losses' issue can be handled with proper AD and MRPB settings. Though, even I am still sceptical about it, sometimes. So far, in my ongoing revision of Kharkov '43 it works as designed; or shall I say historically. Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile), be prepared to be on the list of play-testers, aye?

Klink, Oberst



Panama -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 1:15:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Steve,

the 'ignoree losses' issue can be handled with proper AD and MRPB settings. Though, even I am still sceptical about it, sometimes. So far, in my ongoing revision of Kharkov '43 it works as designed; or shall I say historically. Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile), be prepared to be on the list of play-testers, aye?

Klink, Oberst


The ignore losses issue is not working as it should. It should work as it was before the 3.4 patch. Before 3.4 is the default for the game engine and that is how working as designed should be. In other words, ignore losses shouldn't cause the serious problems it does. It is broken. It needs to be fixed. Work arounds to make something work properly makes this obvious.

The magnitude of the problem becomes apparent with the huge number of scenarios that no longer function properly. It's impossible for the regular TOAW player to fix these because they are not all scenario designers nor is there time to play test hundreds of scenarios.

So Shunwick is correct, there is still the fortified and ignore losses problem and yes, they are most certainly biggies.

Ever been in a spot where you really needed support and was told nothing is available, you are on your own for now? Well, I'm beginning to feel that way with TOAW. [:D]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 1:39:47 PM)

No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages :(

Klink, Oberst



secadegas -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 7:00:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

That's a biggy.



100% right. It's the biggest.



secadegas -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 7:13:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The ignore losses issue is not working as it should.



Ignore losses don't have nothing to do with this matter. They work as they always worked.

The problem is the "fortified" status which was clearly overrated (on combat results) and this has effect only on present version.

If a defender unit is on ignore losses but mobile or even dig-in (not fortified) the results from combat are sound as they ever were. However if fortified the defender is almost invincible creating unrealistic combat simulations.

Adjusting AD and MRPB make things a bit more realistic but the vast majority of scenarios aren't designed considering those settings.









Oberst_Klink -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 7:59:35 PM)

Well Gentleman,

we all agree that: It's time for 3.5 to be made accessible for the majority of us, the dedicated players and scenario developers. Surely the issues reported by Telumar should have been fixed by now, uh? What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved. Anyway, patience they say is a virtue... though it's been 2 years by now since 3.4 was released and I feel I have little 'virtue' left...

Klink, Oberst



secadegas -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/6/2012 10:15:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved.



Not only humble but logical and most reasonable opinion.





Telumar -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/7/2012 4:38:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages :(

Klink, Oberst


Ralph and Bob have the bug on the radar. See also Bob's posts in http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3056061.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/7/2012 8:26:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved.


That would have required a time machine, since the Ignore Losses issue wasn't brought to our attention till long after work on 3.5 was under way. That's the one 3.4 issue that hasn't been addressed yet.



Panama -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/8/2012 1:48:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events.Klink, Oberst


The cause of the 'hold-up' is already stated in this thread. See post #11 and post #15.




shunwick -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/10/2012 10:45:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Steve,

Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile)...

Klink, Oberst


Unfortunately, I am back to using the library for my internet needs. So not really back in any meaningful way but I am working on the problem.

Best wishes,
Steve



BigDuke66 -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (11/10/2012 4:33:50 PM)

Well the AA problem seems to be the worst, at least it looks like, as part of the combat process taking playe all over the map it can surely have great impact if one side as air superiority and constantly hammers the other side with ground attacks and doesn't have to pay a price because AA doesn't work.

I really would like to see a hotfix for this, TOAWIII is not playable in this state, at least not in a serious way.



Panama -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/6/2012 4:25:58 AM)

Well, any word? Xmas release for 3.5 right? [8|]

Has any further progress been made?
Are we S.O.L.?
Has the programmer lost all interest?
Can anyone give any information on 3.5 at all? Anything would be appreciated.

Thanks [&o]



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 2:31:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Well, any word? Xmas release for 3.5 right? [8|]

Has any further progress been made?
Are we S.O.L.?
Has the programmer lost all interest?
Can anyone give any information on 3.5 at all? Anything would be appreciated.

Thanks [&o]


I hope also for a Xmas 2012 release for 3.5. And that somebody give info about it?

And then i have a question. what means S.O.L.





newtigersqn -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 4:12:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


And then i have a question. what means S.O.L.




Sh*t Out of Luck



Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 9:37:09 PM)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone check Ralph's Profile and get this info:

Last Post 9/3
Last Login 12/7 (today)
Currently Online

That's as much info as anyone on the DT has, by the way.

[image]local://upfiles/14086/D79F77CA35764B84A7ECE7FAA0B75063.gif[/image]



Panama -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 10:00:48 PM)

Consider yourself corrected [;)]



[image]local://upfiles/33191/DDBB0B84019B41F397B5E3EF71AAF769.jpg[/image]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 10:20:33 PM)

Hmm. Ok, so you can't see the posts on the development board (I guess that makes sense), but you can, at least, see his last login date (today).



Panama -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 11:07:13 PM)

Yes, I see his last login date. From the screenshot you posted his last beta post was in August. Looked like he was working on 3.5 fairly regularly and then nothing. But he is still active on the forum. I guess.

None of this tells us what we can expect. Sorry to have bothered. [:(]



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/7/2012 11:47:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Hmm. Ok, so you can't see the posts on the development board (I guess that makes sense), but you can, at least, see his last login date (today).


Development board [&:]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 12:18:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yes, I see his last login date. From the screenshot you posted his last beta post was in August. Looked like he was working on 3.5 fairly regularly and then nothing. But he is still active on the forum. I guess.


September.

quote:

None of this tells us what we can expect. Sorry to have bothered. [:(]


And here I thought "Anything would be appreciated".

It tells me that:

Further progress has been made.
We are not S.O.L.
The programmer has not lost all interest.



BigDuke66 -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 2:50:26 AM)

Still a SITREP for Christmas would be appreciated by I guess all TOAW fans.



fogger -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 5:36:17 AM)

Thank you for the update Bob. I like most members here to do not have access to the DB and was becoming a little dis-hearted by the lack of feed back. I was checking Ralph’s profile regularity and could see that he was logging in every day or so but with no posts I assumed like most other members that he had lost interest. I also understand that Larry Fulkerson was a beta tester and he appears to have abandon TOAW gone over to WiTP AE.

So as a former Intel officer I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.

I think (know) that everybody would love a 3.5 as a Christmas present but if we have to wait then we have to wait.

To Ralph and all the other faceless people who are involved with 3.5, thank you for your efforts to date. [&o]

But please keep us in the loop. As my former OC was always telling me “nothing to report is a report”

Cheers
John



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 8:19:09 AM)

quote:

I also understand that Larry Fulkerson was a beta tester and he appears to have abandon TOAW gone over to WiTP AE.


Mr. Fulkerson converted to Island Hopping ? What is the world coming to [X(]



berto -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 12:40:00 PM)


Larry Fulkerson has two ongoing WITP:AE AARs (one PBEM, the other vs. the AI) to which he posts in great profusion almost each and every day. (So I doubt he has any time for TOAW now.) Very good reads. [8D]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 5:43:10 PM)

quote:

I doubt he has any time for TOAW now.


Another sign of the coming apocalypse.



fogger -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/8/2012 10:54:50 PM)

Our PM has said it is on the 21st of this month. http://www.theweek.co.uk/asia-pacific/50489/australian-pm-julia-gillard-confirms-end-world-video.

With my luck 3.5 comes out at 23.55 hrs and the world ends at 24.00 hrs just as the download ends.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/15/2012 10:30:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Well, any word? Xmas release for 3.5 right? [8|]



It's now 10 days for Xmass. i am a little excited.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/15/2012 10:50:24 AM)

Remain calm ... any feeling of excitement will soon pass. [:'(]



desert -> RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ? (12/15/2012 7:54:32 PM)

I've been on TOAW rather sporadically the past two years; there were changes to the fortified status in 3.4? I thought it was just the introduction of stacking of terrain effects on top of D-E-F, and a reduction in likelihood of RBC based on it.

Is that the root of the "fortified problem"? I take it any "Ignore Losses problem" is related or equivalent.

Ralph Trickey, now, my recollection is that he has been working on TOAW pro bono for years. Is that true? If so, we shouldn't get overly emotional with long waits. Though I realize some of you are rather old...[:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.611328