Many questions!! (Full Version)

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



Message

Capitaine -> Many questions!! (10/6/2005 4:52:38 PM)

Wow, this is an amazing development.

Does this impact development of Matrix's "Combined Arms" game, since they are so similar in style and scope?

Is Norm Koger going to be involved in this rebirth? (I hope so.)

What is the initial plan for this game? Release as is, or modify/enhance the game in certain areas?

More details please. [8D]



JJKettunen -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 6:37:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Does this impact development of Matrix's "Combined Arms" game, since they are so similar in style and scope?


They are not similar in style and scope.



David Heath -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 6:53:26 PM)

Hello Everyone

No not in any way. We 100% commited to release Combined Arms. This game is on a different scale and system.

David




Don Maddox -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 7:02:08 PM)

For more in-depth details on exactly what is happening, see SZO's interview with Matrix president David Heath.

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/articles.php?p=571&page=1&cat=52



Fidel_Helms -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 7:51:51 PM)

This is great news. Do you have any ideas on what sorts of code or feature updates will be implemented for TOAW? Norm used to reference having a massive "tinker list" of things that he would liked to have added, but didn't because it was no longer worth it.



Pippin -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 8:25:30 PM)

I do remember hearing years ago that Koger was wanting to do some fixes and a few things with TOAW, but Talonsoft refused and kept the code locked up in the safe.




Trigger Happy -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 9:23:27 PM)

I bought COW recently (had woty...), I hope I won't have to buy the game once again. Or else you could just make a press release asking me to just **** myself.



JJKettunen -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 9:28:47 PM)

It depends on what you mean by ****. [;)]

I'm afraid on this niche market new investors should get some profit for their efforts...



sprior -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 9:38:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trigger Happy

I bought COW recently (had woty...), I hope I won't have to buy the game once again. Or else you could just make a press release asking me to just **** myself.


Of course you don't HAVE to, you may just choose to because it's better. Or choose not to to avoid the pain of insertion [;)]



Trigger Happy -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 10:02:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

Of course you don't HAVE to, you may just choose to because it's better. Or choose not to to avoid the pain of insertion [;)]

It will hurt any ways. Some options more than the others, I agree. [:D]

It's a good thing for the sure, just don't make it a 50$ game.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Many questions!! (10/6/2005 10:20:29 PM)

Well, frankly, Norm is a designer who can have my 40 $ if he just asks, he deserved it *already*.

(40$, not 50$ is planned price for TOAW-Matrix).

If 40 bucks per year is the price to have TOAW engine maintained and updated, I am all for it dude. [&o]

(Same goes for Panther Games HTTR engine, WITP or any other wargame with lasting effect.)

O.




Praepositus -> RE: Many questions!! (10/7/2005 1:22:08 AM)

Thanks! I have been waiting for this for years. I have only a couple of suggestions:

1. TOAW:COW's scen editor will only allow so many location names ( I think the number is around 800, but when I design some games this # is not enough)- can you change it so that location names are not limited?

2. Same thing with forces- maybe a limit of 3000 per side instead of 2000?

3. Will you solicit for new scenarios before you re-release?

I hope you will do a new game with the same scope as TOAW:COW, and I would gladly pay for a new game to get it (even if an insertion is necessary). I think it's a wonderful platform but it could have so much more now that technology has advanced.

Again guys, thanks. It's nice to see someone cares about the traditional wargamer. Just please finish it in six weeks so I can have it for Christmas. :-) (just kidding)

Praepositus




coralsaw -> RE: Many questions!! (10/7/2005 6:03:47 PM)

What Oleg said! Norm is up there.

Good news Matrix!



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Many questions!! (10/8/2005 12:18:48 AM)

I'm with Oleg $40.00 - 50.00 a year is not much to pay to keep a game improving. I bought all of the TOAW's except WOTY and did not feel shafted in the least. If I compare it to the Hundreds (Thousands?) of dollars worth of board games I have bought to open up a couple of times and go WOW COOL then close back up because I am to lazy to read the rules. Compared to that the play value of TOAW is outstanding per dollar. Another way to look at it is I'm willing occasionally to pay up to $30.00 for some obscure VHS tape or DVD that will not show up at Hollywood video to rent, then I might watch that once every couple of years. Why are computer gamers (as apposed to us old hands (gaming since the 60's) so freaking cheap;^) )



Vincenzo_Beretta -> RE: Many questions!! (10/8/2005 12:55:16 AM)

Very true. I remember seeing the original TOAW box in a shop just after learning that I had to spend a month in the hospital (1998), and I bought it, installed it on my laptop, and that game was my best companion during the aliment. So, maybe I'm biased, but I only have fond memories [:)]

I bought TOAW 2 and COW, and I played the latter until the CD almost worn out. Actually, I played Bob Cross' "Campaign for North Africa 40-43" scenario just this summer, while reading a book on the real campaign.

Should an improved TOAW (not only bugfixes and changes, but a radical work on the source code) cost $100, I would pay them - it would only be a fraction of the gaming hours this game gave to me anyway. Just imagine that for Max Payne 2 (which I liked) I shelled $39 only to finish it in 15 hours.



JJKettunen -> RE: Many questions!! (10/8/2005 1:30:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
Why are computer gamers (as apposed to us old hands (gaming since the 60's) so freaking cheap;^) )


That's a good question.



Pippin -> RE: Many questions!! (10/8/2005 1:50:15 PM)

quote:



It's highly unlikely there'll be a major rewrite for several months at a minimum.


Now I am curious, who at MG is going to do the actual re-write.



Mantis -> RE: Many questions!! (10/8/2005 4:49:47 PM)

I'm certain more information should be forthcoming soon.



Bombur -> RE: Many questions!! (10/11/2005 3:18:01 AM)

quote:


Naval simulation, the event limit, the supply limit, and half a dozen other things ARE serious problems.


-Good point, and the air engine please!!!!!!



Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Many questions!! (10/16/2005 2:28:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Well, frankly, Norm is a designer who can have my 40 $ if he just asks, he deserved it *already*.

(40$, not 50$ is planned price for TOAW-Matrix).

If 40 bucks per year is the price to have TOAW engine maintained and updated, I am all for it dude. [&o]

(Same goes for Panther Games HTTR engine, WITP or any other wargame with lasting effect.)

O.

Oh I agree - just put me on the subscriber list...in fact you can do a direct withdrawal from my account every year when you send me the updated version.



Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Many questions!! (10/16/2005 4:06:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

quote:


Naval simulation, the event limit, the supply limit, and half a dozen other things ARE serious problems.


-Good point, and the air engine please!!!!!!

What do yiou mean by an air engine? It already has a passable one as far as I am concerned. What would you like to see?



golden delicious -> RE: Many questions!! (10/16/2005 10:17:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
What do yiou mean by an air engine? It already has a passable one as far as I am concerned. What would you like to see?


One could set areas of operations for each air unit. For example in Colin's Seelowe you could base aircraft in Wales to cover the fleet in the Irish Sea without having them fly off to the Home Counties to get shot down by the Luftwaffe's single-engined fighters.



macgregor -> RE: Many questions!! (10/16/2005 11:09:52 PM)

quote:

One could set areas of operations for each air unit. For example in Colin's Seelowe you could base aircraft in Wales to cover the fleet in the Irish Sea without having them fly off to the Home Counties to get shot down by the Luftwaffe's single-engined fighters.


Would a simpler solution not be to set a range umbrella for each air unit. Perhaps even have a global range for all units as well. The nice thing about the air operations is that they don't take up too much focus. There's a school of thought that operating areas would work for naval units as well. I'm inclined to think the better idea would be for a naval reserve movement that could move and support other units.




Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Many questions!! (10/17/2005 12:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
What do yiou mean by an air engine? It already has a passable one as far as I am concerned. What would you like to see?


One could set areas of operations for each air unit. For example in Colin's Seelowe you could base aircraft in Wales to cover the fleet in the Irish Sea without having them fly off to the Home Counties to get shot down by the Luftwaffe's single-engined fighters.

Seems ood to argue with you here but anyway...

Thats to complex IMO, you'd have to have some way of inputting parimiters. Maybe I could see something where you tell a plane not to go beyond a certian range in performing its duties but that would be as far as I would want to take the planes in terms of operational orders.



golden delicious -> RE: Many questions!! (10/17/2005 1:31:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Would a simpler solution not be to set a range umbrella for each air unit. Perhaps even have a global range for all units as well.


This wouldn't cut it. I want that squadron of Spitfires to patrol sixty hexes west, into the Irish Sea, and zero hexes east, in the direction of German air superiority.

I'm envisioning a simple tool whereby one gets a large view and drags an elipse over the intended area of operations. You could do this for multiple units at once- or you could ignore the tool altogether and stick with the existing system.

I appreciate that there is beauty in simplicity, but there is a genuine need for this in some scenarios.



golden delicious -> RE: Many questions!! (10/17/2005 1:33:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
Seems ood to argue with you here but anyway...


I'd be more than happy to take this discussion back over to TDG.



Mantis -> RE: Many questions!! (10/17/2005 5:07:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I'm envisioning a simple tool whereby one gets a large view and drags an elipse over the intended area of operations. You could do this for multiple units at once- or you could ignore the tool altogether and stick with the existing system.



That's exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking. You could also set the area of the elipse, with a smaller elipse having a more concentrated cover.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7148438