RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (Full Version)

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



Message

golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 1:06:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

LOL what naivete....


Thanks, Oleg. You're such a swell guy.

quote:

I would agree with you - hell why not... why not have both options? Lets have both options, sing Kumbaya and throw rose petals in the air...

But unfortunatelly there is a fine line between rhetoric on the board and actual game development. Thus, to have it your way, or both ways, you first have to find an individual capable of understanding and improving TOAW code.


Mm. If Norm, as you indicate, is such a super-genius, then he will have properly commented the source code. So it'll be possible to see how it works.

quote:

Then you need to spend many many months to actually introduce "formation by formation" turn ending (I still can't imagine how would this work in actual game... you'd get message "Turn ended for SS LAH"? while other formations will still have their phases?).


Yeah. One could use the 'garrison' status for that formation, since Norm already wrote that bit of code. That seems fine to me.

Anyway, since you've stated that you will be happy with just a patch, I don't see why you object to the programmers spending months on this. If, as you say, no other programmer could ever understand Norm's holy writ, what is the point in even having this forum? Why are you bothering to argue with me? Fundamentally, nothing bad can come from what I'm advocating. A great deal of good can.

quote:

BTW Norm is not "god", he is simply the designer of this game. This game is product of his method of thinking, brilliance, genius, and faults, misconceptions, warts and all. That's all there is to it. With him at drivers seat, you may have somewhat imperfect, but consistent product.


Norm thinks that it's just fine for other people to add to his code. So it's a bit much for you to come out and demand that it be left untouched. If you love TOAW as it is so goddamned much, then don't buy the 'Matrix Edition'. There's no-one forcing you to do so.

quote:

With "wargaming democracy" in drivers seat you will have simply - nothing. Nothing but endless flame wars. That was my point.


The interesting thing is that, absent you trying to make this extremely dubious point, there wouldn't really be any disagreement at all. We'd have a virtually unanimous agreement that formation-by-formation early turn ending would be a great idea for a future version of TOAW.

btw, If you think this constitutes a 'flame war', you haven't lived.



Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 1:14:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

(Turn based tactical games also make life for the attacker too easy, EVEN if they are not IGO/UGO, but since discussion about tac wargames is beyond the scope of this thread I won't expant this further here.)

The changes being proposed here don't make it easier for the attacker involved in any specific attack. If the formation suddenly stops and its out of position then thats the way its going to be in this sector of the front. Attacker - here - is still punished. It however does not neccisarly mean that all attacks everywhere else are punished as well.
quote:


Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK? [;)]

Simply because of the manner in which the turn ending is handled. Without this rather gamy restriction TOAW would be better able to handle both the small operational ones - sonmething it already does well. But it would be also capable of simualting larger more complex scenarios as well. Its not like one would loose out one teh smaller operational scenarios. They'd still work fine - its simply that it could handle all of France as well and we would not have to argue that people that make scenarios covering larger operations like whole campaigns are bad scenario designers.
quote:


If you chose to make such scenario anyway, and play it, you accept any weird result that may come out of any such scenario. Still, good scenario designers like Daniel McBride, found a way around many of the problems and quirks inherent to such schemes.

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

I doubt that 60% of the code would have to be rewritten. The tactical rounds must be on some kind of a loop - here the mechanism that abruptly stops the loop and activates a new turn is halted and instead some kind of freezing mechanism is placed on formations that have lost the rest of their turn.
quote:


2. TOAW development plans are clearly outlined in some "official" posts in recent days, and I highly doubt you'll see any substantial changes, so, again, this makes this whole discussion moot.

And you may be right - no significant expansion to the TOAW engine will take place. I'd personally be pretty unhappy if it simply went back to being static after a small upgrade but its possible.
quote:


3. I will restate again what I consider to be very important point, ignored by many: IGO/UGO simplifies attacker's problems greaty, so anything that will make attacker's life harder is welcome.

Oleg

However the mechanism being proposed still means that the attackers plans can get screwed up. Their formations can suddenly stop part way through an operation and be very vulnerable to counter attack. That aspect has not changed. Its simply whether one attack effects another unrelated one that is changing.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 1:20:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
btw, If you think this constitutes a 'flame war', you haven't lived.


I never said this thread constitutes a flame war, in fact I said exactly the opposite. I think this thread is very civil and timid.

O.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 1:40:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I never said this thread constitutes a flame war,


Right. So if this, initial discussion of the question doesn't produce a flame war, when will it occur? Where are the screaming hordes for both sides?

The fact is that the bulk of people who actually care agree that this part of the game needs to be reviewed. Your main objection is that it won't get reviewed regardless of what we think. I just don't see how anyone's going to get any more worked up over this than you have- and you've only gone so far as to call me naive.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 1:54:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

(Turn based tactical games also make life for the attacker too easy, EVEN if they are not IGO/UGO, but since discussion about tac wargames is beyond the scope of this thread I won't expant this further here.)

The changes being proposed here don't make it easier for the attacker involved in any specific attack. If the formation suddenly stops and its out of position then thats the way its going to be in this sector of the front. Attacker - here - is still punished. It however does not neccisarly mean that all attacks everywhere else are punished as well.
quote:


Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK? [;)]

Simply because of the manner in which the turn ending is handled. Without this rather gamy restriction TOAW would be better able to handle both the small operational ones - sonmething it already does well. But it would be also capable of simualting larger more complex scenarios as well. Its not like one would loose out one teh smaller operational scenarios. They'd still work fine - its simply that it could handle all of France as well and we would not have to argue that people that make scenarios covering larger operations like whole campaigns are bad scenario designers.
quote:


If you chose to make such scenario anyway, and play it, you accept any weird result that may come out of any such scenario. Still, good scenario designers like Daniel McBride, found a way around many of the problems and quirks inherent to such schemes.

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

I doubt that 60% of the code would have to be rewritten. The tactical rounds must be on some kind of a loop - here the mechanism that abruptly stops the loop and activates a new turn is halted and instead some kind of freezing mechanism is placed on formations that have lost the rest of their turn.
quote:


2. TOAW development plans are clearly outlined in some "official" posts in recent days, and I highly doubt you'll see any substantial changes, so, again, this makes this whole discussion moot.

And you may be right - no significant expansion to the TOAW engine will take place. I'd personally be pretty unhappy if it simply went back to being static after a small upgrade but its possible.
quote:


3. I will restate again what I consider to be very important point, ignored by many: IGO/UGO simplifies attacker's problems greaty, so anything that will make attacker's life harder is welcome.

Oleg

However the mechanism being proposed still means that the attackers plans can get screwed up. Their formations can suddenly stop part way through an operation and be very vulnerable to counter attack. That aspect has not changed. Its simply whether one attack effects another unrelated one that is changing.


Add that formations frequently go into reorg anyway. I doubt if the coding challenge would be all that great.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 2:27:23 AM)

Let's take a situation I'm looking at right now in a playtest of Seelowe. It's the second turn of the German landing. Quite a few German units are still offshore, and the Royal Navy is moving down from the north.

Now, I'm going to dispatch most of the Royal navy with my airforce -- but the Kriegsmarine is going to mop up. It'll be able to attack with about sixty percent of the turn left. Hopefully it'll be able to finish the job and have a third round left to scuttle back south. At the same time, I'd like those units still stuck offshore in the South to be able to batter their way ashore.

Will these units offshore attack? Not at all. My air attacks and the attacks of units already ashore shouldn't burn too many rounds -- but attack with those units still offshore? No way -- that'll burn at least 50% of the turn. I need to do everything I can to keep the Kriegsmarine from conferring with Mssrs Swordfish and Albacore about whether it should stay afloat.

So, the units offshore don't attack. Why not? Bad design? Mustn't try to simulate Sealion? Mysterious rays penetrate from the barges forcing their way onto the beaches in Sussex to the battlecruisers in the North Sea, bringing them to a halt?

Obviously, the current mechanism is unsatisfactory. Obviously, alternatives should be explored.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 2:42:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The fact is that the bulk of people who actually care agree that this part of the game needs to be reviewed. Your main objection is that it won't get reviewed regardless of what we think. I just don't see how anyone's going to get any more worked up over this than you have- and you've only gone so far as to call me naive.


Hey if you want me to use harsher language it can be arranged [:D]

I see no reason though. Several times in this thread I stated this discussion is most probably moot, cause we'll never see substantial changes to the engine. Difference between me and you is: I am OK with that, you most probably aren't. I may be wrong though. If I am wrong, and we *DO* see substantial changes to the engine, then I am very very very sceptical as to how will it work out.

I have nothing against your beloved "per formation" change being experimented with down the road. You didn't convince me this change is really needed at all, but if it will make some people happy - you may have a go at it for all I care.

BUT if Norm does not work on this and other big changes personally (and he said he won't), I remain highly doubtful it will work, both from technical (programming, bugs..) standpoint, practicability standpoint, gameplay standpoint, scenario balance standpoint et cetera et cetera et cetera.

So in short I belong to "change the game as little as possible" club, while you belong to "some things are blatantly wrong and need substantial changes" club. I also belong to "don't change the game without Norm" club.

This is yet another point in this thread where we can shake hands and close the discussion in civilised manner, or again go down the "fun and amusement" road [:D] (Colin would say "violence and abuse" road [:D][:D]) I am swell guy and I'm OK either way. [8D]

Oleg



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 4:40:22 AM)

Hi!

Pardon me from interfering in your feuding, but, with all due respect I think there is a lot of "we" stuff being spouted about that boils down to very few people.

Hopefully Matrix will understand that while satisfying your demands may get them a few hundred sales (at best), such things do not make for a profitable company. Speeking from the single player side, what I want to see is lots of new scenarios.

You guys start from a faulty premise, that all players have a certain knowledge level. That level includes stuff like finding and downloading scenarios or simplying understanding game mechanics. I believe that is not the case. If you want to expand the community, you must reach out to a younger crowd who may have absolutely no idea how to play TOAW.

You want to expand the community, design and include a tutorial. You want to expand the community, rate scenarios by level of difficulty and double the quantity of scenarios included in the game. You want to expand the community, stop acting like freeking "experts" and stop with the threads bashing TOAW.

Any young casual gamer will look at this thread and say "quark this, I ain't buying a game that complicated."

Personally I believe you are doing a disservice to the game and it is highly probable that you are turning off a lot of young people who have never experienced TOAW right off. Well done.

You may now continue with your rather innane conversation.

Ray (alias Lava)



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 8:29:47 AM)

Well, 'inane conversation' was gratuitious.

Sure, Matrix could focus on what will sell most. If I was them, that's what I would do. However, that doesn't impose any obligation on me to want that.

I want changes that will make the game a better simulation. Period, basically.

I'll let Matrix fret about the profitability -- notta my problem. They don't fret about how my moving company does -- I don't fret about how their gaming company does. Seems fair.

It does nothing for me if Matrix releases a 'fun' game that doesn't improve the quality of the simulation -- nor do I feel any need to join a community of people who don't give a damn about how good a simulation the game is. For that, I've got Age of Empires.



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 8:41:36 AM)

ahhhh, another thread gone astray.

The fact is that I doubt Norm is going to have any significant input (if any) down the road. Matrix owns the rights to the game now. They will do what is needed to finalize any patches and use whatever data or engine to make the game most stable. Personally, I can't see anyone buying a game that is so old in terms of looks, graphics, etc. Then again, if all Matrix does is patch up the existing game there's no money in that either.

So I see it like this:

1. Patch the existing game so current gamers can get a more stable game, perhaps doing away with the need for the CD. Sort of what Matrix did with SP.

2. Re-do the game with new graphics, interface, and engine some time down the road.

One must not forget that Matrix is in business to do business, not give away free stuff. But re-hashing old games seems to me as a non-profit making venture.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 10:04:37 AM)

quote:

For those who fight for it, life has a flavour the sheltered never know - USMC

Yet as a purely rational proposition since one will inevitably lose ones life. Maybe it's better not to think to highly of it in the first place;^)



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 11:55:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

ahhhh, another thread gone astray.

The fact is that I doubt Norm is going to have any significant input (if any) down the road. Matrix owns the rights to the game now. They will do what is needed to finalize any patches and use whatever data or engine to make the game most stable. Personally, I can't see anyone buying a game that is so old in terms of looks, graphics, etc. Then again, if all Matrix does is patch up the existing game there's no money in that either.

So I see it like this:

1. Patch the existing game so current gamers can get a more stable game, perhaps doing away with the need for the CD. Sort of what Matrix did with SP.

2. Re-do the game with new graphics, interface, and engine some time down the road.

One must not forget that Matrix is in business to do business, not give away free stuff. But re-hashing old games seems to me as a non-profit making venture.


The thing to do would be to ascertain why the people that bought it and stopped playing it did so. Did they want 'Medal of Honor' and not get it? Or were they frustrated by bizarre turn endings and nonsensical naval warfare?

Evidently Matrix thinks the game has potential -- else they wouldn't have bought it. While flashy graphics and an slicker interface wouldn't actually hurt anyone, whether that's all we'll get depends on Matrix's ideas about who their market is.

Personally, I tend to see the game more as a kit for designing scenarios than anything else. I have to force myself to hotseat matches when I'm playtesting, and I actually play a PBEM game about once a month -- and then generally of a scenario either someone else or I am developing. So naturally what I want is a kit that is as flexible as possible and that lets me change as many of the parameters as possible. Whether that's what Matrix wants to give me is another matter entirely.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 12:10:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I see no reason though. Several times in this thread I stated this discussion is most probably moot, cause we'll never see substantial changes to the engine. Difference between me and you is: I am OK with that, you most probably aren't. I may be wrong though.


Well if TOAW doesn't get a serious revamp I will be disappointed- but I'll continue to play the game as it stands.

quote:

I have nothing against your beloved "per formation" change being experimented with down the road. You didn't convince me this change is really needed at all,


Several examples have been given- and dozens more could be. See Colin's post. If you can't understand how this is a problem then I don't know what more to say. You're out on your own here.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 12:18:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

You guys start from a faulty premise, that all players have a certain knowledge level. That level includes stuff like finding and downloading scenarios or simplying understanding game mechanics.


Right. And if players don't understand game dynamics, the current early turn ending system will infuriate them and they won't play any more.

quote:

If you want to expand the community, you must reach out to a younger crowd who may have absolutely no idea how to play TOAW.

You want to expand the community, design and include a tutorial.


I dunno. I was fifteen when I got the TOAW demo. I knew right away that THIS was what I had been looking for. Figured it out without too much trouble. Got pretty good at playing those first ten turns of 'Korea' before the full version arrived for Christmas.

Admittedly, I'm hardly what you'd call your average gamer. But I don't think we (you're going to object to me using that word, aren't you?) want to appeal to the average gamer. I like Unreal Tournament, I really do. That doesn't mean I want TOAW to be more like it.

quote:

You want to expand the community, stop acting like freeking "experts" and stop with the threads bashing TOAW.

Any young casual gamer will look at this thread and say "quark this, I ain't buying a game that complicated."


What casual gamer is going to be reading a thread about a game seven years old on the forum of a serious wargaming website? Anyone on here who doesn't know TOAW already will be an intelligent adult who will appreciate the high level of discussion of game mechanics and start to think that maybe- just maybe- this is going to be a bloody fantastic wargame.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 12:19:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

1. Patch the existing game so current gamers can get a more stable game, perhaps doing away with the need for the CD. Sort of what Matrix did with SP.

2. Re-do the game with new graphics, interface, and engine some time down the road.


Probably. But if this is all that happens, what's the harm in this discussion?



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 12:21:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So naturally what I want is a kit that is as flexible as possible and that lets me change as many of the parameters as possible. Whether that's what Matrix wants to give me is another matter entirely.


Likewise. I'm probably more into actually playing the game than Colin, but I basically agree with the above.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 1:36:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So naturally what I want is a kit that is as flexible as possible and that lets me change as many of the parameters as possible. Whether that's what Matrix wants to give me is another matter entirely.


Likewise. I'm probably more into actually playing the game than Colin, but I basically agree with the above.

Lump me in here too, with a proviso: I enjoy playing the game as it is at 1.04 now that I've had my attention re-drawn to it, and I'm really looking forward to playing 1.07, straight out of the box fresh from Norm. But yes, I look at TOAW as a toolkit that lets me play, not a straight re-telling of history. Well, not just that, anyway. [;)]

Steve.



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 3:05:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll let Matrix fret about the profitability


Yep, couldn't care less could ya?

It's attitudes like this that have driven wargaming close to extinction.

Ray (alias Lava)



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 3:23:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Yep, couldn't care less could ya?

It's attitudes like this that have driven wargaming close to extinction.


Right.... so when you were playing Avalon Hill games, you were lobbying them to give them wider appeal so that the company would have a bigger profit margin?

I doubt it.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 4:03:58 PM)

Shall we try to be less personal, Guys?

Steve.



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 4:32:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Right.... so when you were playing Avalon Hill games, you were lobbying them to give them wider appeal so that the company would have a bigger profit margin?



I am a miniatures player, not a board gamer.

So let me give you my experience from a miniatures player viewpoint.

When I first started painting miniatures, it was historical all the way. I painted Roman armies, ACW armies and of course, the most glorious of all.. Napoleonic armies. That hobby, unfortunately, also got hit by "grogidous" and went into a very steep decline. Then a company known as "Games Workshop" appeared. I remember painting their first boxed set of plastic pointy nosed space marines and thinking, these seem weird, but at the same time, kinda liked them. The next thing I know, GW had sprouted into an international company with some of the best scuptled figures on the market. I loved them. I painted a space marine army and an eldar army, and had great fun. But more importantly, when I walked into a GW store I found young people inside. And that is when it struck me, that my once solid belief that if it wasn't historical it wasn't "wargaming" was wrong, and that I had contributed to the decline of my hobby. Today, miniatures wargaming is doing much better, it is in a revival of sorts I believe. I am presently painting Flames of War World War II miniatures.

But there is a difference in my attitude today. I saw a hobby that I dearly loved almost slip into oblivion, and I will not be a party to that again. I am an ardent supporter of any miniatures company, whatever their subject matter, if it means bringing in young people who want to pick up a brush and start painting, and I go to great pains to whack people with their arrogant attitudes about what miniatures gaming should or shouldn't be.

And that scenario is replaying itself today, but this time it is in the computer wargaming hobby. And yes, I am concerned with profitablity for those who make the games, because I have seen this before and I personally will not let it happen again by staying silent.

If you guys really love this hobby, you better start thinking hard about its future and start being a little more open minded and concerned that producers have their backs against the wall, because we have put them there.

Ray (alias Lava)



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 6:57:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I am a miniatures player, not a board gamer.


Ah- there you go. I didn't care about Games Workshop's profit margin. I knew it was perfectly healthy.

quote:

When I first started painting miniatures, it was historical all the way. I painted Roman armies, ACW armies and of course, the most glorious of all.. Napoleonic armies. That hobby, unfortunately, also got hit by "grogidous" and went into a very steep decline. Then a company known as "Games Workshop" appeared. I remember painting their first boxed set of plastic pointy nosed space marines and thinking, these seem weird, but at the same time, kinda liked them.


Yeah- so did a lot of people. It's only when I quit buying Games Workshop stuff because it was so goddamned expensive, so goddamned impractical and so goddamned worse than it was originally, that I got into serious wargaming. Maybe I would have earlier if GW wasn't so seductive.

quote:

The next thing I know, GW had sprouted into an international company


Yeah. One which no longer cares about making games as much as it does about making money.

There is a difference in my attitude today. I saw a hobby that I dearly loved decay into a means for a company to collect the pocket money of tens of thousands of eager teenagers worldwide, and I will not be party to that again. TOAW must remain true to its origins; it must be capable of rigorous historical simulation. If it's also capable of things like this; http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=106
then so much the better. There are, however, other priorities.

Better to die on our feet than live on our knees, etc. I don't want to see computer wargaming slide into mediocrity like Games Workshop did.



JMS2 -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 7:04:19 PM)

Lava,

Unfortunately it's not in the hands of the wargamers, but that of the Software companies. Because TOAW represented the next step from the board to the computer, it was taken up by ex-boardgamers, but note that it had no competence at all. There wasn't any other comparable game at the time nor it is now. In contrast I can think of at least 2 other games that do what Norm Kroger is going to do with his next game, and probably there are more than 10 that put the player in first person landing in Normandy.

Wargaming as we know it today (or rather, boardgaming) was born in the 60s out of enthusiast that had heard of the war their father had fought, and after a few glorious years in the 70s, entered a decline until it hit a bottom-line in the 80s and has remained there ever since. Those who are attracted to the hobby are attracted by history, not by simplicity, because for simple games there are other who do the same more attractively; now, enters Matrix, who, in contrast to Talonsoft, already knows there's a base out there that is likely to buy its product - but only if it delivers.
Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 7:48:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll let Matrix fret about the profitability


Yep, couldn't care less could ya?

It's attitudes like this that have driven wargaming close to extinction.

Ray (alias Lava)


What nonsense. Do you fret about Ford's profitability as you decide between buying a Ford and a Chevy? Decide that you really can't want that winch on the front -- it'd wreck Ford's market if they gave it to you?

Matrix is a big boy. They can look at what people want and figure out what they choose to do about it. It's my job to tell them what I want -- not try to decide what 'wants' I should have that they would find most convenient. The end point there would be what I 'want' is to mail them checks in exchange for absolutely nothing.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 7:53:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Right.... so when you were playing Avalon Hill games, you were lobbying them to give them wider appeal so that the company would have a bigger profit margin?



I am a miniatures player, not a board gamer.

So let me give you my experience from a miniatures player viewpoint.

When I first started painting miniatures, it was historical all the way. I painted Roman armies, ACW armies and of course, the most glorious of all.. Napoleonic armies. That hobby, unfortunately, also got hit by "grogidous" and went into a very steep decline. Then a company known as "Games Workshop" appeared. I remember painting their first boxed set of plastic pointy nosed space marines and thinking, these seem weird, but at the same time, kinda liked them. The next thing I know, GW had sprouted into an international company with some of the best scuptled figures on the market. I loved them. I painted a space marine army and an eldar army, and had great fun. But more importantly, when I walked into a GW store I found young people inside. And that is when it struck me, that my once solid belief that if it wasn't historical it wasn't "wargaming" was wrong, and that I had contributed to the decline of my hobby. Today, miniatures wargaming is doing much better, it is in a revival of sorts I believe. I am presently painting Flames of War World War II miniatures.

But there is a difference in my attitude today. I saw a hobby that I dearly loved almost slip into oblivion, and I will not be a party to that again. I am an ardent supporter of any miniatures company, whatever their subject matter, if it means bringing in young people who want to pick up a brush and start painting, and I go to great pains to whack people with their arrogant attitudes about what miniatures gaming should or shouldn't be.

And that scenario is replaying itself today, but this time it is in the computer wargaming hobby. And yes, I am concerned with profitablity for those who make the games, because I have seen this before and I personally will not let it happen again by staying silent.

If you guys really love this hobby, you better start thinking hard about its future and start being a little more open minded and concerned that producers have their backs against the wall, because we have put them there.

Ray (alias Lava)


Up against the wall, Matrix! The power!

Actually, I think Matrix will put itself wherever it puts itself. Certainly Talonsoft did -- and it wasn't by pandering to grognards.

Another point. The changes we are discussing wouldn't increase complexity. So what are you objecting to in the first place?



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 7:58:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

Lava,

Unfortunately it's not in the hands of the wargamers, but that of the Software companies. Because TOAW represented the next step from the board to the computer, it was taken up by ex-boardgamers, but note that it had no competence at all. There wasn't any other comparable game at the time nor it is now. In contrast I can think of at least 2 other games that do what Norm Kroger is going to do with his next game, and probably there are more than 10 that put the player in first person landing in Normandy.

Wargaming as we know it today (or rather, boardgaming) was born in the 60s out of enthusiast that had heard of the war their father had fought, and after a few glorious years in the 70s, entered a decline until it hit a bottom-line in the 80s and has remained there ever since. Those who are attracted to the hobby are attracted by history, not by simplicity, because for simple games there are other who do the same more attractively; now, enters Matrix, who, in contrast to Talonsoft, already knows there's a base out there that is likely to buy its product - but only if it delivers.
Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.


Bingo. The imaginary player lava has in mind is probably like my rather non-intellectual ten-year old, who had a go at TOAW.

He abandoned it. Why? Because he didn't want to think (his words). He could understand it all right -- just preferred his first person shooters.

Matrix trying to make TOAW over into something that will appeal to this crowd is a lost cause. What's the point? It's like if I try to take my moving van and try to make it into a formula racer. All I get is a formula one racer that can't compete and a ruined moving van.



Hellen_slith -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 10:11:51 PM)

Interesting thread. The 10-rounds of combat per turn thingy has long been a matter of confusion for new players, and frustration for oldies.

I look at it as part of rolling the dice for your turns......on any given Sunday, your turn is going to end "early".

It doesn't matter if it was because you wanted to blast through a unit up north, and didn't, and thus you held up the whole shebang, or if you planned everything perfectly on a perfectly level playing field with perfectly matched units in a perfect scenario.

Sure, I've had those times when one stinkin' tank held up a battalion.....but it happens, in war and on the gameing field.

You just have to live with it, and counter as best you can.

Life's not fair. Neither is war.

[8|]






golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 10:23:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hellen

Sure, I've had those times when one stinkin' tank held up a battalion.....but it happens, in war and on the gameing field.

You just have to live with it, and counter as best you can.

Life's not fair. Neither is war.


You're right. The objection is when one tank holds up a battalion- which is 300 miles away doing something completely different.

It is critical to have unexpected (or indeed unfair) factors in the game. Hence the idea of formation-by-formation early turn ending. It's obviously not a perfect system, but I think there's a consensus that it's an improvement on what we have already. Especially if the player gets to choose between the two systems.

Heck, maybe if enough formations have their turn end, the player should have global early turn ending anyway? Sometimes things just do go to hell.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 10:39:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You're right. The objection is when one tank holds up a battalion- which is 300 miles away doing something completely different.


Here we go again... this argument is downright laughable.

To say that some unit was held up by some enemy unit 300 miles away is gross exaggeration, or malice, or failure to understand basic principles of this game. It's like saying my car stopped because some mammoth didn't care to die and turn into fossil oil many hundereds of thousands of years ago.

No, the car stopped because I was stupid enough to forgot to fill the tank on gas station.

That's how the game works. Basic mechanism of the game. Hexes, when you think of it, are ridicolous too, and no professional military man will ever use hexes on real battlefield. But you see that's how TOAW works. It relies on hexes, and Norm's database, and "turn ending dice" and other methods many could find ridicolous (if only they try hard enough). "Turn ending dice" is the method designer chose to implement need for operational planning as he (game designer) saw fit.

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

O.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/24/2005 11:26:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You're right. The objection is when one tank holds up a battalion- which is 300 miles away doing something completely different.


Here we go again... this argument is downright laughable.

To say that some unit was held up by some enemy unit 300 miles away is gross exaggeration, or malice, or failure to understand basic principles of this game. It's like saying my car stopped because some mammoth didn't care to die and turn into fossil oil many hundereds of thousands of years ago.

No, the car stopped because I was stupid enough to forgot to fill the tank on gas station.

That's how the game works. Basic mechanism of the game. Hexes, when you think of it, are ridicolous too, and no professional military man will ever use hexes on real battlefield. But you see that's how TOAW works. It relies on hexes, and Norm's database, and "turn ending dice" and other methods many could find ridicolous (if only they try hard enough). "Turn ending dice" is the method designer chose to implement need for operational planning as he (game designer) saw fit.

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

O.


This simply ignores reality -- and the specific cases that have been offered. The argument boils down to saying early turn ending is always justified, the contortions players go through to avoid it are perfectly realistic, and that there is no problem because Norm designed the game this way and all must be for the best in this best of all possible games.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.266113