toaw evolution (Full Version)

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



Message

kafka -> toaw evolution (10/7/2005 10:17:05 AM)

Any chance in evolving TOAW in the direction of WITP, so as to have a bigger campaign (ie war in the east) and to introduce an interface to partly control the production? [&o]

I already own Century of Warfare, but would absolutely be willing to buy a Matrix version provided I know in which direction the game evolves. [8D]

By the way I strongly recommend to include in the new edition, if possible, the fantastic user-made (I forgot the name) database editor used i.e. to make the 19th century mod.



Pippin -> RE: toaw evolution (10/7/2005 10:25:47 AM)

Im just having flashbacks now, when TOAW used to take a long time for things to happen. Such as switching from 2D to 3D mode (not that it was a true 3D mode to begin with), etc. Of course, it was still worth the waits though. Waiting patiently to get that thing running again now.




Bombur -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 3:15:21 AM)


quote:


By the way I strongly recommend to include in the new edition, if possible, the fantastic user-made (I forgot the name) database editor used i.e. to make the 19th century mod.


-BioEditor, from Biohazard (I donīt remember his real name) and Tim Mc Bride.



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 3:52:59 PM)

Production is my favorite wish as well. Don't know how practical it is (except perhaps for stand-alone scenarios), but it would complete the picture for me. For those interested in this and other additions that might not be feasible for the next version of TOAW, take a peek at the TOAW Clone thread at SZO. (Find it here).

Larry (the designer) has contacted the Powers-That-Be here at Matrix, and hopefully we'll hear more about the devlopment of both Matrix TOAW and the Clone in the near future.



*Lava* -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 8:03:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Production is my favorite wish as well.


Indeed, the problem being that the player is faced with a given OOB and thus is constrained in his operational decisions.

I have faced this problem in a bit of scenario designing I tried (just for me.. I always tinker with scenarios, but am not good enough nor have the resources to actually publish anything).

I came away thinking that the easiest way to allow the player "production" decisions would be to simply add a "disband" option. By doing this, the designer could give the player a production base and then use a variety of different units (with, for example, 1 tank of its 20 complement) from which the player could pick from. Those types of units he didn't want to pursue could be disbanded, and the remainder would be reinforced the next move.

It would also allow, for example, the use of "supply" units which one is awarded after conquering countries which could be disbanded, placed into your replacements inventory and then distributed to units which could use them. So, for example, after I conquer France, I get a non-movable supply unit which includes 100 Soma tanks, which when I disband it, are later distributed by the AI to my panzer divisions. To simulate production, at regular intervals, a new supply unit appears as long as the player owns that hex. Taken to the extreme, the replacements routine could be completely zeroed out and all production could done by supply units in various locations.

Just seemed to be the "simple" answer to a complex problem without having to screw up the engine.

Ray (alias Lava)



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 8:26:32 PM)

Mantis you're representative of the group that (as I see) tries to push TOAW in the direction this game NEVER meant to take. Scenario, that is apparently your personal favorite (Europe Aflame) is seen by some (like myself) like "raping" the engine, and forcing it to be what it was never meant to be.

TOAW was never meant to be engine for simulating the whole WW2 in Europe on divisional, corps or any other level, with various strategic, diplomatic and other issues. The fact that some inventive and stubborn people managed to do a scenario or two pushing the engine to its limits does not change this basic fact.

Since I think I "represent" (I don't really represent anything but myself, but bear with me [;)]) the opposite group, I feel I need to voice my opinion, seeing you're the moderator here and what not.

I'd want TOAW to *firmly* remain operational level game, as even it's name implies. The game, or some scenarios, may be monstrous or gigantic (I love Daniel's monster scenarios DNO and Gotterdaemmerung etc.), but lets keep in mind those scenarios are still *operational* games/scenarios, just very big ones. So, NO production, *please*. No diplomacy pretty please. No strategic options shoehorned in what is firmly operational level engine. I highly suspect you would never get the good results anyway.

In short, when talking about possible TOAW improvements, I think I could list at least two dozen items from various wish lists that should have precedence over "production system". (My personal favorite: I'd love to see PBEM security improved.)

O.



Siberian HEAT -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 8:45:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

In short, when talking about possible TOAW improvements, I think I could list at least two dozen items from various wish lists that should have precedence over "production system". (My personal favorite: I'd love to see PBEM security improved.)



Not to fear. Production is nowhere near the top of any list. This is not to say it's not worth investigating at some point in the future, possibly as some sort of expansion code.

For a compiled list of bug fixes, see here.

For a compiled list of feature suggestions, see here.

Note these are both unordered lists, and some points on each list are clearly beyond the scope of what we are doing here. Basically these are unfiltered lists aggregating everything and anything the community has suggested over the years. These gross lists are NOT what we are going to give to Norm. There is a beta test team set up to analyze these lists, pare them down, prioritize them, and so forth. We are very sensitive to the fact that we cannot just throw a big list of junk at Norm. [:-]



steveh11Matrix -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 8:53:15 PM)

I'm with Oleg here, I'm afraid (So I guess you could be representing me? [sm=00001746.gif]) in that I want this to remain an operational level game, as defined. There's a difference though: The biggest scenario I ever want to play would be the port of Campaign for North Africa that I once had a go at, and even that was a stretch: I prefer smaller scenarios with (many) fewer units on a side. But somewhere around 5 to 10 km per hex, about 50 or so counters per side - or, if playing the AI, he can have as many more as he wants provided I still have a chance! - and for me this then hits the sweet spot.

So, what do I want out of the game's evolution? Let's see:

  • Get the principle bugs out,
  • Give me a Scenario Editor that's not a nightmare to use,
  • Include in that a unit database editor (if one's not there already - it's been a while, I forget [8|]).


That'll do for starters. I'm guessing that UI improvements, at least in any major way, would mean a near-total revamp rather than a tweak (although the database will stay the same... [;)]).

Edit: Ooh, I forgot to mention that I never play MP so PBEM (or TC/IP or other similar systems) fixes are of no concern or priority to me whatsoever.

Steve.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 9:14:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Siberian HEAT

There is a beta test team set up to analyze these lists, pare them down, prioritize them, and so forth. We are very sensitive to the fact that we cannot just throw a big list of junk at Norm. [:-]



Who is in the beta team and who's the beta lead? Just so we see if the guys need to be pushed in the right direction, or are they already going in the right direction [:D]

O.



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 10:23:45 PM)

No fears - I'm not trying to remake TOAW in my dream image. [:D] (Note my caveat that it isn't likely to be practical). My 'perfect' game is strategic in nature, with operational level representing the actual combat. (Something akin to High Command on steroids). But no worries - I'm not here 'pushing' for the inclusion of production - I realize that's pie-in-the-sky dreaming. But as that type of thing doesn't really exist in a fashion that works for me, it explains why I am so hooked on TOAW. It might not have been created with that in mind, but it *still* does a better job of it than any other system I've yet played. :)

Rest assured that I am deeply versed in the TOAW universe, and I want to see TOAW perfect the system it is trying to be, before even giving a thought to the inclusion of new systems to find bugs in. So in that light, I'm solidly in your camp as well.

The only reason you see a quote from me period about production was Larry's desire to create the ultimate wargame package - which in my mind would include such things as production and diplomacy.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 10:39:49 PM)

Mantis you should try the game in my sig to get your "production fix" [;)]



Terminus -> RE: toaw evolution (10/11/2005 11:51:43 PM)

Gotta say, if any sort of production system is introduced to TOAW: Matrix, that's a dealbreaker for me. That's why it's called The OPERATIONAL Art of War, and not The Military-Industrial Complex Art of War...



Tankerace -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 1:15:13 AM)

I agree 100% with Terminus. With TOAW I want to be an army or theater commander, not commander in chief. If I want production, I'll play WitP, WaW, Axis and Allies, etc. What I like about TOAW is the fact that I am NOT at the top of the food chain. (Though I am not exactly at the bottom.... that would be the campaign series).



kafka -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 1:21:04 AM)

I dont know why the addition of some limited production interface would pervert the operational character of the game. Some limited production control as has been implemented in witp would not break the game concept.
The game has already a simulation of this in the way it deals with replacement rates. It does it statically. I would like to have some control of this much in the way it works in witp. Dynamically change the production rate and control the upgrades of your equipment and, to a limited extent, its setup as in witp. Such a very limited feature would not make a strategy game out of TOAW.
If it were feasable at all, it could be an option the player can toggle on or off.



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 3:38:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Mantis you should try the game in my sig to get your "production fix" [;)]


Oleg - thanks for the tip! Can I replay the favor by pointing you towards a little writing I did not too long ago? (Yes, my real name is Shane... [;)] )

Check this out.

[:D]

Tell me what you think!



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 3:42:44 AM)

Well, this production bit seems to be an all-or-nothing deal. People seem to love it, or hate it. For everyone that likes it, someone doesn't. But that's all beside the point! I'm virtually certain (in an unofficial capacity, I have no 'inside track' on this) that there will not be any thought given to such a change. It would take so much effort as to warrant instead an inclusion in a completely separate game.




danst31 -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 5:07:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis
Well, this production bit seems to be an all-or-nothing deal. People seem to love it, or hate it. For everyone that likes it, someone doesn't. But that's all beside the point! I'm virtually certain (in an unofficial capacity, I have no 'inside track' on this) that there will not be any thought given to such a change. It would take so much effort as to warrant instead an inclusion in a completely separate game.


You're not the only agnostic on the issue. While I do think it would be a nice feature, that's only if it's a suppliment to the existing system, not a replacement. It only makes sense at the largest levels of scenarios that can be made, one of Pattons brigade commanders shouldn't be able to choose only to take pershings in replacement and completely eschew the sherman.



Bombur -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 5:44:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I agree 100% with Terminus. With TOAW I want to be an army or theater commander, not commander in chief. If I want production, I'll play WitP, WaW, Axis and Allies, etc. What I like about TOAW is the fact that I am NOT at the top of the food chain. (Though I am not exactly at the bottom.... that would be the campaign series).



-But we could have a production option to be on/off depending on the scenario, even if the main objective of the game is an operational simulation. Limited production would help a lot in scenarios like Barbarossa, where the evacuation of factories was very important, or in late war scenarios involving Germany, which were under serious productions constraints. Of course, TOAW could simulate the effects of strategic bombing in the Editor, but itīs not as funny as using your B-17īs to blast those wonderful Fw190 factories.



L`zard -> RE: toaw evolution (10/12/2005 7:07:24 AM)

Just a thought, here, folks.........

Seems to me the only .sce that would benefit from any sort of production mod to the game would me the 'monster' scenario designers works. FiTe, etc; Not to mention that even some of the 'monster' scenario production decisions are based on the desinger's understanding of the situation and intent to model same.

As mentioned befor, the game name is 'Operational'.

Pls forgive my ignorance, I'm not a .sce designer, eh?

LOL, of course I'd like to see Toaw worked up to a full-strategic micro-management life-taking game, eh?

It should also be noted that if given the chance, I'd vollunteer for 'brain-implant' i/o jacks just so I could understand the source code![:D] and/or play the game while sleeping.......or online, eh?



Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 2:06:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Well, this production bit seems to be an all-or-nothing deal. People seem to love it, or hate it. For everyone that likes it, someone doesn't. But that's all beside the point! I'm virtually certain (in an unofficial capacity, I have no 'inside track' on this) that there will not be any thought given to such a change. It would take so much effort as to warrant instead an inclusion in a completely separate game.

I'm not sure I agree on the idea that its unfeasable from a progarming perspective. What I suggest is making a unit (call it a 'factory' unit) that disbands its contents to the replacement pool every turn. The programing is in place for unit disbands so the idea that a unit could be designed that simply automatically disbands every turn but does not vanish itself is not that far fetched.

The designer controls the contents of what the 'factory' makes in scenario creation and of course it does not replace what we have in the replacement system (in fact it works with the current replacement system since disbands go to replacements). Most smaller scenarios would not bother with such units at all but you can add them if you want to simulate the fact that Stalingrad made T-34's or that B-52's were made in Colarado (presuming that Colarado is on your map). They could also be added (just like reinfrocements) or disbanded to represent something like the Russians moving their factories during Barbarossa.

With such a system one actually has the capability of simulating the fact that Russia had huge production of infantry right after it was invaded (because they called millions of young men to the colours) but that their infantry production fell off after mobalization got well under way, while at the same time, tank production skyrocketed. In essence one could simply have 'factories' that make lots of infatry at start and withdraw them with the editor as the mobilization pool was tapped out.

At the same time one can either add 'factories' that make tanks and artillery or just keep upping the basic info in the replacement editor, presuming here that the standard replacement editor has no infantry units to be doubled and doubled again) by production increases, and all induction of new young men is handled with 'factories' in the scenario).



Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 4:10:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur


quote:


By the way I strongly recommend to include in the new edition, if possible, the fantastic user-made (I forgot the name) database editor used i.e. to make the 19th century mod.

BioEditor, from Biohazard (I donīt remember his real name) and Tim Mc Bride.

In the interests of insuring credit goes were it is due I'll note that while Tim worked on many things in TOAW the Bioeditor was not one of them



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 4:49:57 AM)

Jeremy - in response to your post about production, I mean something a little bit more than just equipment. I want to add to the OOB. As an example, let's take a generic 5 year war. A Red vs Blue type thing. I want the players to be able to decide to be tank heavy, and have several extra armored corps by the end of the scenario. The other player went for infantry, and has spent all his production on that (or whatever). I know that disbands can simulate production in the fashion that you mention, and events could even simulate giving the player a choice of what to build. But I want the player to actually form new units in scenarios where that would be reasonable, such as R vs B above, etc. I know that even this could be simulated with a chart to weigh production times, and a horde of events, but I was thinking something more along the lines of production ala Hearts of Iron or GG's World at War.



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 4:53:22 AM)

(Truth be told, I really do hope that Norm can just make events unlimited. Hopefully there is no programming reason why this is not feasible. If we *do* have those kind of events available, then production (either method; units or equipment) becomes just another exercise using evil ed).



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 5:01:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis
As an example, let's take a generic 5 year war.


"Generic 5 year war" - ROFL [:D]

TOAW was originally never meant to portray any campaign lasting more than 8-10 weeks, in fact probably much less than that. And with good reason.

Some very inventive and stubborn people found a way to make scenarios last for couple months, and still play out very realistically, but anything longer than a year is just raping the system - pure and simple.

Yes I know gigantic projects like Europe Aflame and Fire in the East have their own following (and I expect to get some flak from their fans [;)]) but lets not get side tracked, at least not too much. EA and FITE do not produce results as good as your normal TOAW campaign.

Seriously guys, think twice before you make decisions that will alienate 80% of old TOAW crowd, just to be able to accomodate some ridicolous monster scenarios spanning 5 years and covering whole continents (something this game was NEVER meant to cover).

Edit: I noticed your WAW review just now and deleted my last, now irrelevant, paragraph. Missed your WAW post before, sorry.

O.



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 5:38:13 AM)

Oleg - it doesn't matter that TOAW was not *intended* for scenarios like that. (I would agree with you!) What does matters is that it is being *used* for scenarios like that. The scenario development manager is famous for making the ultimate monster scenarios ever designed for TOAW. And as he was hand-picked for his postition, I'd say that speaks volumes about the fact that the monsters scenarios are quite relevant.

And no, I was thinking in my example above something more like the medium-small scenario Blitzkrieg. A limited production that allows you to customize your force with a few select units over the course of the game sounds like something I would be interested in playing. I can give the scenario oodles more replayability, simply because last game, I created 2 tank units which made me strong in the land battles; this game I want to make 4 infantry units during the course of the game so I can extend my front easier; next game I will create a new para unit with my production, and see how that changes things up...

Oleg, I am not positing anything that will affect people that do not like these changes at all - all the options I support can be toggled. Just like the current Air Staff Assistant. I don't like it, so I don't use it. Heck, I forget it's there unless I actually see it to remind myself. Anything that can be turned on or off, yet gives players and designers more flexibility, is a good thing. We want TOAW to appeal to more people, not a very specialized little slice of an already too-tiny genre. And you may find it interesting to note that many of the changes I support are ones that will not change the game for me one bit - I won't use them , but see the utility in the change. (The 'fixed combat rounds', for an example).

No problem with the WaW bit - what did you think of the review, if I might ask?



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 5:51:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Oleg - it doesn't matter that TOAW was not *intended* for scenarios like that. (I would agree with you!) What does matters is that it is being *used* for scenarios like that. The scenario development manager is famous for making the ultimate monster scenarios ever designed for TOAW. And as he was hand-picked for his postition, I'd say that speaks volumes about the fact that the monsters scenarios are quite relevant.


You mean Daniel McBride? I beg to differ. I absolutely love Daniels scenarios. They - at least the ones I love - present stretching the limits of TOAW engine but not raping it to cover 5 years of conflict. Daniel scenarios - for me - are still firmly in the "operational" segment, they are just very very big operational level scenarios. These are scenarios that are still too short to make much sense of, say, raising the production of some tank model or somesuch.

BTW my favorite TOAW scenarios by Daniel are Tobruk 41 - firmly within the operational level, DNO - again, for me, an operational level scenario, just exetremely big one, Gotterdammerung (ditto), and El Alamein - again one scenario firmly anchored within confines of the operational art.

quote:

And no, I was thinking in my example above something more like the medium-small scenario Blitzkrieg. A limited production that allows you to customize your force with a few select units over the course of the game sounds like something I would be interested in playing.


That sounds more like Panzer General to me [;)]

quote:


No problem with the WaW bit - what did you think of the review, if I might ask?


Good review [8D] Should have been even more favorable if you ask me. [:D] What amazes me with WAW is that with very limited, and very playable, and very addictive I might add, set of tools, you manage to play the game ("wargame lite") that usually ends up very very true to history. All major aspects of WW2 on strategic level are covered, from Arctic conwoys and importance of Lend Lease, to China, to marginality of North Africa theatre, and industrial behemoth thats is US - it's all there.

O.



Mantis -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 5:58:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You mean Daniel McBride? I beg to differ. I absolutely love Daniels scenarios. They - at least the ones I love - present stretching the limits of TOAW engine but not raping it to cover 5 years of conflict.


Check out The Great War.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 6:01:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You mean Daniel McBride? I beg to differ. I absolutely love Daniels scenarios. They - at least the ones I love - present stretching the limits of TOAW engine but not raping it to cover 5 years of conflict.


Check out The Great War.


That one is an exception. I wanted to check it out merely to get some interesting historical OOB info, but I don't think I will ever play it. It is not operational in nature and I don't think it would play well in this engine.

O.



*Lava* -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 12:43:00 PM)

Hi!

I also believe that the first step is updating TOAW and putting it out on the street.

After that... everything is fair game, and hopefully, some creative people will take this engine and broaden horizons. So for me, the evolution of this game should be:

1. Update and publish.
2. Begin a stream of Battle Packs with new (well tested) scenarios/bug fixes (if required).
3. Take the engine forward with a new concept (hopefully on a strategic level) which uses the engine embedded in the heart of the game.

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: toaw evolution (10/16/2005 1:09:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

I'm not sure I agree on the idea that its unfeasable from a progarming perspective. What I suggest is making a unit (call it a 'factory' unit) that disbands its contents to the replacement pool every turn. The programing is in place for unit disbands so the idea that a unit could be designed that simply automatically disbands every turn but does not vanish itself is not that far fetched.

The designer controls the contents of what the 'factory' makes in scenario creation and of course it does not replace what we have in the replacement system (in fact it works with the current replacement system since disbands go to replacements). Most smaller scenarios would not bother with such units at all but you can add them if you want to simulate the fact that Stalingrad made T-34's or that B-52's were made in Colarado (presuming that Colarado is on your map). They could also be added (just like reinfrocements) or disbanded to represent something like the Russians moving their factories during Barbarossa.

With such a system one actually has the capability of simulating the fact that Russia had huge production of infantry right after it was invaded (because they called millions of young men to the colours) but that their infantry production fell off after mobalization got well under way, while at the same time, tank production skyrocketed. In essence one could simply have 'factories' that make lots of infatry at start and withdraw them with the editor as the mobilization pool was tapped out.

At the same time one can either add 'factories' that make tanks and artillery or just keep upping the basic info in the replacement editor, presuming here that the standard replacement editor has no infantry units to be doubled and doubled again) by production increases, and all induction of new young men is handled with 'factories' in the scenario).


Agreed, this is totally feasible.

On the production side, the designer then merely needs to provide the player with gobs of different units whose TO&E is not filled out (having perhaps 1 squad present and that's it). This gives the player the "what-if" option to design his own OOB, knowing that he must select only a portion of the available units as he does not have the quantity of replacements to fill out all the units.

The whole down side to this is that the player is not able to merge different units or combine units together to build brigades, divisions or corps.

Thus you really need something which allows the player to determine his own production and unit building desires.

Nevertheless, the engine has immense possiblities, but I think this really needs to be explored in a whole new game. On a strategic level I think it is possible to make a game which would blow the likes of HOI right out of the water.

Ray (alias Lava)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375