Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (Full Version)

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



Message

Shazman -> Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/16/2013 3:32:27 PM)

Okay, maybe that's not how the song goes.

It has been two years or more since the work began on 3.5. That has to be some kind of record for a Matrix patch. In the meantime 3.4 remains broken. No patch in the works to even fix that.

I understand people have life problems that may get in the way of doing things. I'm sorry Ralph has problems. I'm sorry I have problems. I'm sorry anyone has problems, really. But there comes a point where you have to either crap or get off the pot. It's far past time to get off the pot.

In the time we have been waiting for things to resume someone could have easily become familiar with the workings of TOAW 3.5 and resumed work on it. To allow this to go on as it has for an indefinite and seemingly infinite amount of time is irresponsible of the management of Matrix. Sure they should support their people in times of personal troubles. They also need to support the customer base that depends on them to fulfill their promises to that customer base.

Sorry to sound like an ass but after all this time it's time to move forward.



docgaun -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/16/2013 3:57:07 PM)

ill have to agree



Kuokkanen -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/16/2013 5:04:35 PM)

Game just crashed on me. Tooltip blocked a button, and when I clicked on it with mouse, game just "disappeared". That could need a fix...



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/16/2013 7:25:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

Okay, maybe that's not how the song goes.

It has been two years or more since the work began on 3.5. That has to be some kind of record for a Matrix patch.


3.2 came out in 9/24/2007, followed by 3.4 in 2/10/2011. That's a little over 3 1/2 years. So, not even a record for a TOAW patch.

quote:

In the meantime 3.4 remains broken. No patch in the works to even fix that.


The main issue in 3.4 is not yet fixed in 3.5. That issue was discovered after the start of Ralph's issues. So, releasing it would just add more bugs to the mix, I'm afraid. It's kind of like a disassembled car engine at the moment.

Till then some have suggested house rules against leaving defenders in Ignore Losses if dug-in. I've yet to hear if anyone has even tried that.

quote:

In the time we have been waiting for things to resume someone could have easily become familiar with the workings of TOAW 3.5 and resumed work on it.


That would only be possible for someone with the source code. To this point, I only know one person who has access to it. His name is Ralph. If there is another depository I'm unaware of it (but don't make too much of that - I don't have any official status, regardless of appearances).



sealclubber -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/16/2013 9:09:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Till then some have suggested house rules against leaving defenders in Ignore Losses if dug-in. I've yet to hear if anyone has even tried that.


I have played (hotseat) Governato's excellent Eastern Front 1941-1945 scenario to great lengths and the only way to give the Soviets any hope of actually being able to breakthrough and practice deep operations was to self-impose a house rule that no unit in Fortified status should be on IL. This does the trick for this scenario at least. At this level, with sufficiently strong attacking forces you can break the lines in a way that matches historical realities whereas previously trying to increase attacking odds further was counter-productive due to density penalties.

It could be extended to "E", but I didn't really test it since in hotseat play units continue entrenching on their own after turn end. So the trick question is whether or not an Entrenched unit in IL is superior defensively (from a retreat from combat point of view) to a Fortified unit in LL. Empirical testing of that situation would be a better way to figure out if this rule should be extended to Entrenched units as well. As a matter of playability, I'd say it should as it leads to a more historical outcome where breakthroughs were common and reserves had to be brought in to restore the situation.



Shazman -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/16/2013 9:43:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
3.2 came out in 9/24/2007, followed by 3.4 in 2/10/2011. That's a little over 3 1/2 years. So, not even a record for a TOAW patch.


You are saying the patch for 3.4 was being worked on from 9/24/2007 to 2/10/2011? So we only have about two more years and we get 3.5? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The main issue in 3.4 is not yet fixed in 3.5. That issue was discovered after the start of Ralph's issues. So, releasing it would just add more bugs to the mix, I'm afraid. It's kind of like a disassembled car engine at the moment.


Not saying release 3.5 as it is since it obviously isn't done. I mean fix the 3.4 bugs as an interim patch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That would only be possible for someone with the source code. To this point, I only know one person who has access to it. His name is Ralph. If there is another depository I'm unaware of it (but don't make too much of that - I don't have any official status, regardless of appearances).


David Heath would not allow someone to walk off with the game source code and not have a copy. That just isn't how he would do it. Perhaps you mean Ralph has the code for 3.5 and no one else does. This would be okay. Give someone the 3.4 code and get them working on it. Seems it would be quicker than the endless wait we are having now.

Please understand. I am appreciative of the work Ralph has done. He has brought the game a long way on his own. However it would seem he isn't able to complete 3.5. If there is progress being made I would hope someone would have said something by now. We are going on six months since Erik said anything and no progress that any of us anxiously awaiting news know of.

Thanks for the reply.

On a side note. Perhaps this thing should have or should be done in stages instead of all at once.



Catch21 -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 12:03:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

Give someone the 3.4 code and get them working on it. Seems it would be quicker than the endless wait we are having now.
This gets my vote too. And Ralph's a TOAW fan too, so I'd imagine if he was around with the information we have, I'm sure this would be his vote too.

I wish MG would come clean with status and what they know and plan. There have been some clever folks associated with TOAW in the past- I wish MG wouldn't further insult the intelligence of the 'diehard' stupid by not keeping us informed.

If TOAW is not going anywhere in the near future, please can MG just let us know so we can waste whatever talents and $s remain to us elsewhere?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 1:36:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

You are saying the patch for 3.4 was being worked on from 9/24/2007 to 2/10/2011?


Correct.

quote:

So we only have about two more years and we get 3.5? [&:]


I don't know about that. But we have more than a year to go before the wait for 3.5 is the record.

quote:

Not saying release 3.5 as it is since it obviously isn't done. I mean fix the 3.4 bugs as an interim patch.


That depends on Ralph getting back to work on it. And I don't know if diverting him to a 3.4 patch is the best path forward even then. It might take longer to do that than finish 3.5 - and however long it took is how long 3.5 would be further delayed.

quote:

David Heath would not allow someone to walk off with the game source code and not have a copy. That just isn't how he would do it. Perhaps you mean Ralph has the code for 3.5 and no one else does. This would be okay. Give someone the 3.4 code and get them working on it. Seems it would be quicker than the endless wait we are having now.


I meant that Ralph is the only one with the TOAW III source code to my knowledge. Clearly, Matrix must have the ACOW code, since that's what Ralph started from. But who wants to start over from that point?

You can theorize about what David Heath or Matrix would or wouldn't have done contractually with their programmers. But it wouldn't surprise me if the programmers have exclusive control of the source. How else could you get someone to code for nothing other that a piece of the sales if they knew Matrix could replace them at any time on a whim? And if Matrix has the source, they can.

And the sad history of "Combined Arms" seems to tell me that whoever that coder is, he isn't sharing the source with anyone. Surely he would have been replaced years ago if he had.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 1:50:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sealclubber


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Till then some have suggested house rules against leaving defenders in Ignore Losses if dug-in. I've yet to hear if anyone has even tried that.


I have played (hotseat) Governato's excellent Eastern Front 1941-1945 scenario to great lengths and the only way to give the Soviets any hope of actually being able to breakthrough and practice deep operations was to self-impose a house rule that no unit in Fortified status should be on IL. This does the trick for this scenario at least. At this level, with sufficiently strong attacking forces you can break the lines in a way that matches historical realities whereas previously trying to increase attacking odds further was counter-productive due to density penalties.

It could be extended to "E", but I didn't really test it since in hotseat play units continue entrenching on their own after turn end. So the trick question is whether or not an Entrenched unit in IL is superior defensively (from a retreat from combat point of view) to a Fortified unit in LL. Empirical testing of that situation would be a better way to figure out if this rule should be extended to Entrenched units as well. As a matter of playability, I'd say it should as it leads to a more historical outcome where breakthroughs were common and reserves had to be brought in to restore the situation.


Sounds like a work-around to me.



Shazman -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 4:02:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

You are saying the patch for 3.4 was being worked on from 9/24/2007 to 2/10/2011?


Correct.

quote:

So we only have about two more years and we get 3.5? [&:]


I don't know about that. But we have more than a year to go before the wait for 3.5 is the record.

quote:

Not saying release 3.5 as it is since it obviously isn't done. I mean fix the 3.4 bugs as an interim patch.


That depends on Ralph getting back to work on it. And I don't know if diverting him to a 3.4 patch is the best path forward even then. It might take longer to do that than finish 3.5 - and however long it took is how long 3.5 would be further delayed.

quote:

David Heath would not allow someone to walk off with the game source code and not have a copy. That just isn't how he would do it. Perhaps you mean Ralph has the code for 3.5 and no one else does. This would be okay. Give someone the 3.4 code and get them working on it. Seems it would be quicker than the endless wait we are having now.


I meant that Ralph is the only one with the TOAW III source code to my knowledge. Clearly, Matrix must have the ACOW code, since that's what Ralph started from. But who wants to start over from that point?

You can theorize about what David Heath or Matrix would or wouldn't have done contractually with their programmers. But it wouldn't surprise me if the programmers have exclusive control of the source. How else could you get someone to code for nothing other that a piece of the sales if they knew Matrix could replace them at any time on a whim? And if Matrix has the source, they can.

And the sad history of "Combined Arms" seems to tell me that whoever that coder is, he isn't sharing the source with anyone. Surely he would have been replaced years ago if he had.



So, from what you say there is probably no hope for a 3.5 at any time in the foreseeable future. Ralph has a strangle hold on it and we, the TOAW community, are fairly screwed with a 3.4 version that only works properly with house rules and work around solutions. Maybe in three or four more years it might be done. Maybe.

Thanks for your answers.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 4:19:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

So, from what you say there is probably no hope for a 3.5 at any time in the foreseeable future. Ralph has a strangle hold on it and we, the TOAW community, are fairly screwed with a 3.4 version that only works properly with house rules and work around solutions. Maybe in three or four more years it might be done. Maybe.


Whatever the future of 3.5 is it is currently up to Ralph. We can't predict what his future commitment may be and I haven't and wouldn't put any numbers on it - high or low.



Catch21 -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 9:07:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Whatever the future of 3.5 is it is currently up to Ralph. We can't predict what his future commitment may be and I haven't and wouldn't put any numbers on it - high or low.
Last I looked MG operated in corporate America, where nobody- repeat nobody- is indispensable, even customers.

I'd find it difficult to imagine that MG, even if Ralph in creating 3.5 from 3.4 has the only copy of 3.5, doesn't have a copy of 3.4 which we can start anew with. Whatever ails Ralph and MG, IMO it's unfair to a remaining loyal fan base- by one or both of them- to keep us in the dark as to what is possible going forward.

If that's no Ralph, no 3.5 so be it, but again, it would seem only common courtesy on the part of MG at least to be told what's up in order for us to be able to make informed decisions for ourselves going forward. Some of us have acquaintances- even friends- among the TOAW community and if the product is due a funeral, we've all got to move on somewhere, somehow.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 1:18:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

So, from what you say there is probably no hope for a 3.5 at any time in the foreseeable future. Ralph has a strangle hold on it and we, the TOAW community, are fairly screwed with a 3.4 version that only works properly with house rules and work around solutions. Maybe in three or four more years it might be done. Maybe.


Whatever the future of 3.5 is it is currently up to Ralph. We can't predict what his future commitment may be and I haven't and wouldn't put any numbers on it - high or low.



Do you have news about him?



Alpha77 -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 4:10:50 PM)

So guys I read a bit here too, I dont have TOAW3 (it seems it has serious issues judging your posts)... I own all TOAW games before that however. I guess my "newest" one is COW. I havent played it at all the last years but became interested in WW3 style scenarios again (check the Harpoon scen forum why), and wanted to ask if the WW3 scens are playable in the version I have (=COW). If this newest version is bugged I dont need to upgrade to it I supose *THANX* [:)]

EDit: I guess the scens for download were made with older versions anyways.... can you recommend me some good ones (central front) for COW? I have a bunch already but dont know which might be the best. I prefer at least medium size scens (better larger [:D]) A bit OT here, so a MOD can move my post :)



sealclubber -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 4:32:19 PM)

I can't speak for how good or bad they are as I don't really play NATO vs WP scenarios, but there are a lot of them from grand-scale to specific battles.

The bug in 3.4 that I think is most troublesome can be worked around with house rules in PBEM play - it of course requires both players to honour the house rule.

If you're interested in playing against the programmed opponent, you don't need to worry. It doesn't dig in its units so the bug won't really affect you ;).



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 7:17:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Do you have news about him?


I don't. He doesn't reply to inquiries regardless of venue, and I've stopped trying.

Erik, in his post, said he had contacted Ralph. If so, he's a better man than me.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 7:29:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Last I looked MG operated in corporate America, where nobody- repeat nobody- is indispensable, even customers.

I'd find it difficult to imagine that MG, even if Ralph in creating 3.5 from 3.4 has the only copy of 3.5, doesn't have a copy of 3.4 which we can start anew with. Whatever ails Ralph and MG, IMO it's unfair to a remaining loyal fan base- by one or both of them- to keep us in the dark as to what is possible going forward.

If that's no Ralph, no 3.5 so be it, but again, it would seem only common courtesy on the part of MG at least to be told what's up in order for us to be able to make informed decisions for ourselves going forward. Some of us have acquaintances- even friends- among the TOAW community and if the product is due a funeral, we've all got to move on somewhere, somehow.


Go try this post out on the "Combined Arms" Forum. [X(]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 7:42:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

So guys I read a bit here too, I dont have TOAW3 (it seems it has serious issues judging your posts)... I own all TOAW games before that however. I guess my "newest" one is COW. I havent played it at all the last years but became interested in WW3 style scenarios again (check the Harpoon scen forum why), and wanted to ask if the WW3 scens are playable in the version I have (=COW). If this newest version is bugged I dont need to upgrade to it I supose *THANX* [:)]

EDit: I guess the scens for download were made with older versions anyways.... can you recommend me some good ones (central front) for COW? I have a bunch already but dont know which might be the best. I prefer at least medium size scens (better larger [:D]) A bit OT here, so a MOD can move my post :)


Here's a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact AAR that might give you some idea about them:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2626891



shunwick -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/17/2013 8:46:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

So guys I read a bit here too, I dont have TOAW3 (it seems it has serious issues judging your posts)... I own all TOAW games before that however. I guess my "newest" one is COW. I havent played it at all the last years but became interested in WW3 style scenarios again (check the Harpoon scen forum why), and wanted to ask if the WW3 scens are playable in the version I have (=COW). If this newest version is bugged I dont need to upgrade to it I supose *THANX* [:)]

EDit: I guess the scens for download were made with older versions anyways.... can you recommend me some good ones (central front) for COW? I have a bunch already but dont know which might be the best. I prefer at least medium size scens (better larger [:D]) A bit OT here, so a MOD can move my post :)


Here's a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact AAR that might give you some idea about them:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2626891


Alpha77,

And that AAR would be from 3.2. The options are upgrade only to 3.2 or upgrade to 3.4 and use a house rule banning Ignore Losses on fortified units for PBEM games or do both by upgrading to 3.2, renaming the exe and then upgrading to 3.4. You can then run whichever version is more suitable for the scenario in question.

3.4 was an excellent patch. Unfortunately, it highlighted an old COW bug that was never noticed before. It is not the end of the world, however. And it does not make 3.4 unplayable.

Best wishes,
Steve

PS: I do find it somewhat ironic that it came as a surprise that an Ignore Losses order actually means Ignore Losses. Who would have guessed?



LOK_32MK -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/18/2013 12:18:27 PM)

I have been playtesting a large WWIII scenario under 3.4
It's a new, expanded version of this scenario:
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/browse_scenario.php

and I'd be happy to send you a copy if you are interested



Alpha77 -> RE: Please Release It Let It Go (3.5) (5/18/2013 1:04:47 PM)

@ LOK_32MK: YES I am interested, I wrote a PM to you...

@ Curtis Lemay: Cool AAR, thank you.

@ shunwick: Thank you for the info... seems there are some good scens in the direction i am looking for.

If some also plays Harpoon gold, you can grab my scen soon. I also wrote a storyline about "my" WW3: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3325616&mpage=1&key=�

[8D]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.608887