Next version News (4.0)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Next version News (4.0)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Next version News (4.0)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 2:44:32 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

We're starting the initial planning for 4.0. I plan to start actively developing it after the 3.5 patch has been released. The plan right now is October 2014, but since we are still in the planning stages, that is very tentative, and is more of something to measure progress against than something realistic. It could easily slip either way.

I'm sure Bob has a complete list of engine changes he wants to do.

One thing I want to do is to rewrite the UI to allow for a more modern look and feel. The actual map look and operation will stay similar, but I want to be able to do things like pin dialogs on one side, resize the minimap, speed up everything. I also want to allow for smooth zooming or at least a much faster zooming between levels. Modern machines have a lot of memory, and some of that can be traded for speed.

Oh, yes, it's also going to need other changes to allow someone to actually play a huge scenario like Fire in the East in one lifetime! A lot of what I've done so far has been more of a let's see what I can do without a major rewrite and not breaking anything. For 4.0, I want to do a larger rewrite to make the UI more consistent and simpler to learn.

Ralph

Post #: 1

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 3:29:24 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

This makes my day!

quote:

I'm sure Bob has a complete list of engine changes he wants to do.

There cannot be enough

s

Though i think October 2014 is very veeery optimistic. Unless you're doing this full time now. Do you?

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 2

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 3:53:28 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
Though i think October 2014 is very veeery optimistic. Unless you're doing this full time now. Do you?

I actually am doing it full time for now. That may change in the future of course.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 3

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 4:47:39 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Good to see you're back in action and the news that 4.0 is on the list is just damned great!

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 4

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 5:48:39 PM

docgaun

Posts: 71
Joined: 1/26/2012
Status: offline

This is indeed great news. I guess that the code in the original TOAW is older than me;), but so far none have created a platform quite like it since it came out. War gaming at this level is not main stream but there are still allot of us around, and even if this is like.. 15 years old? Its still one of the best games that gives its users the ability to create something, and thereby contributing to its evolvement. I am a bit surprised that it has not been surpassed.
I can foretell that it will be in allot of dads Christmas socks in 2014 (Hopefully)
Looking forward to it very much, and let me know if there is something i can do to help. Especially if it involves drinking beers ;)

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 5

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 6:02:30 PM

josant

Posts: 538
Joined: 3/14/2007
From: Spain
Status: offline

Good News

(in reply to docgaun)

Post #: 6

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 6:12:20 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

You have done tremendous work with the AI (Elmer) and I hope you continue to do more of the same for both 3.5 and future v4.x

(in reply to josant)

Post #: 7

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 6:32:20 PM

Falcon1

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/30/2012
From: United States
Status: offline

Sweet! I was starting to think that I had come to this game only in it's dying years. Nice to see that it will live on.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 8

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 7:07:53 PM

shunwick

Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

Sweet! I was starting to think that I had come to this game only in it's dying years. Nice to see that it will live on.

Falcon1,

TOAW will never die.

Best wishes,
Steve

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Falcon1)

Post #: 9

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 7:09:22 PM

shunwick

Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

Ralph,

Best wishes,
Steve

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to shunwick)

Post #: 10

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/9/2013 9:09:09 PM

CapitanPiluso

Posts: 67
Joined: 1/23/2009
From: Buenos Aires
Status: offline

Good news

_____________________________

One cornerstone of maritimal warfare:
Keep yourself near the lifeboat.
(Capt.Piluso)

(in reply to shunwick)

Post #: 11

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 7:51:37 AM

Nemo69

Posts: 685
Joined: 2/18/2004
From: Nowhere to be seen
Status: offline

Excellent news, and glad to see you back!

_____________________________

Fais ce que dois

(in reply to CapitanPiluso)

Post #: 12

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 8:07:27 AM

InuharikoMu

Posts: 85
Joined: 10/27/2013
From: Duisburg, Germany
Status: offline

Great

(in reply to Nemo69)

Post #: 13

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 11:34:14 AM

LOK_32MK

Posts: 141
Joined: 6/14/2006
Status: offline

Excellent news! Thank you!
We are looking forward to 3.5 and 4.0 and some day...12.3 (if I am still around). Already thinking of new and improved scenarios for both.

(in reply to InuharikoMu)

Post #: 14

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 3:07:15 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
You have done tremendous work with the AI (Elmer) and I hope you continue to do more of the same for both 3.5 and future v4.x

3.5 may be a little better, and I hope to add more designer options for 4.0. I'll always be tinkering with it, but it's probably going to be post 4.0 that I can try to add the strategic layer that it really needs. Laying out and dynamically modifying objective tracks is something I want to do, but analyzing a scenario is a tough thing to do, and humans have the advantage of being able to play and remember multiple play throughs. While computers can do this for some fields, it usually requires a lot of repetitions and doing that without human assistance for something like TOAW would be difficult.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 15

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 3:21:32 PM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: docgaun
This is indeed great news. I guess that the code in the original TOAW is older than me;), but so far none have created a platform quite like it since it came out. War gaming at this level is not main stream but there are still allot of us around, and even if this is like.. 15 years old? Its still one of the best games that gives its users the ability to create something, and thereby contributing to its evolvement. I am a bit surprised that it has not been surpassed.
I can foretell that it will be in allot of dads Christmas socks in 2014 (Hopefully)
Looking forward to it very much, and let me know if there is something i can do to help. Especially if it involves drinking beers ;)

It's a lot older, I suspect it's a highly modified core from Red Lightning (1989)

I'm not that surprised there aren't more like it. There is a bigger market now for games that can be played in 15 minutes to an hour chunk.

I still like the way that TOAW plays. Games with similar mechanics have always seemed to play more like Chess where you try to analyze moves and countermoves X moves ahead while TOAW has always reminded me more of Go where it's more about positioning. I don't know if it's the addition of supply, or because of the larger unit counts in many scenarios or something else.

_____________________________

(in reply to docgaun)

Post #: 16

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 6:02:28 PM

rjcme

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/15/2011
Status: offline

Tough I know TOAW III can never use a simultaneous turn system, I would love that the new patches featured something that downplayed the "all army stands still" effect of the IGOUGO system.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 17

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/10/2013 7:23:25 PM

PRUSSIAN TOM

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline

Hard to believe it....the may not make 'em like they used to, but they can sure update a classic.

_____________________________

There is no difference in ideology between the (American) Democrat & Republican Parties...only different special interest groups. They have one thing in common...self interest.

(in reply to rjcme)

Post #: 18

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/12/2013 2:17:28 PM

Cfant

Posts: 473
Joined: 12/12/2010
Status: offline

GRRRREEAAAT NEWS! Will there be some kind of kickstarte-campaign or something? Would be the first game I buy before release. :)

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)

Post #: 19

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/12/2013 5:43:37 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I still like the way that TOAW plays. Games with similar mechanics have always seemed to play more like Chess where you try to analyze moves and countermoves X moves ahead while TOAW has always reminded me more of Go where it's more about positioning. I don't know if it's the addition of supply, or because of the larger unit counts in many scenarios or something else.

In TOAW, like the real world, there are so many variables that there's no way for even the most dedicated player to be able to work out odds in their head. What's more, the figures on the counter are only an approximation of what's going on under the hood.

In CRT-based games, you can sit there and scientifically work out how your attack is going to play out and make a straightforward evaluation of whether it has good or bad odds, even across multiple individual attacks. In TOAW, one has to get a feel for what one's units capabilities are, and how they will perform. In a well-designed scenario, you can say to yourself "well, I'm pretty sure this well-rested Panzer division should be able to cut through this screen and hook around to the enemy's rear before they can react" in the same way as a real commander could.

That's the value of the game for me: that I get the best results when I go with my gut, rather than when I try an analyse the game like a data system.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 20

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/18/2013 10:33:10 AM

Rodia

Posts: 123
Joined: 9/19/2012
Status: offline

Hi.

Not top priority, obviously, but I would love to see the TOAW calendar on news and right on the screen working with BC years.

Glad to see TOAW development alive and kicking!

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 21

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/18/2013 3:25:24 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Some suggestions regarding supply, replacement and reconstituion (mainly valid for bigger and longer scens):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3423013

(in reply to Rodia)

Post #: 22

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/22/2013 2:11:51 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I still like the way that TOAW plays. Games with similar mechanics have always seemed to play more like Chess where you try to analyze moves and countermoves X moves ahead while TOAW has always reminded me more of Go where it's more about positioning. I don't know if it's the addition of supply, or because of the larger unit counts in many scenarios or something else.

TOAW is great. Only thing that irks me is the way transport is abstracted. In a half week, ten km per hex game one halftrack can move an entire infantry division 100 km. That's because transport is abstracted. But in combat that same halftrack is just one halftrack. Same with armed trucks. One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times. Throw out the abstractions with land units in 4.x.

(in reply to ralphtricky)

Post #: 23

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/22/2013 4:09:36 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

I will certainly buy 4.0 whenever it comes out, Defenately on of the best games I have ever played

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 24

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/24/2013 11:05:23 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 25

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/25/2013 7:10:40 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And don't forget the importance for the supply network i.e. Transport Asset Sharing.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 26

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 1:44:22 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

Entirely untrue and you contradict yourself in the next sentence to prove that it is untrue. You can adjust it the same as now. Don't really see a problem. No one forces you to make a unit TOE exactly as it was historically and in fact the game forces you to leave out the transport except that which is needed to make the movement somewhat reasonable. You would end up doing the exact same thing except now one truck for 36 240mm guns is not going to move them ten hexes.

What is really laughable is one infantry squad can move those same guns one hex. I don't give a hoot what distance one hex is. Ten guys won't get it done unless they are all the Hulk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And what if the division didn't have enough trucks to move their artillery? Historically they would have to leave some of it behind as happened time and time again. But not in TOAW. That one truck can move everything. For a group who wants realism I am perplexed that you would accept this. And then there's the ten man squad of Hulks that tows multi ton guns as if they were weightless.

Really, for 4.x moving guns needs to be looked at. Transport needs some loving. Just like naval. Just like air.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 11/27/2013 2:48:19 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 27

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 1:50:25 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And don't forget the importance for the supply network i.e. Transport Asset Sharing.

Klink, Oberst

Exactly how would asset sharing be a problem? It would work the same no?

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 28

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 2:00:41 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And don't forget the importance for the supply network i.e. Transport Asset Sharing.

Klink, Oberst

Exactly how would asset sharing be a problem? It would work the same no?

TSA is influenced by the amount of... transport :) Hence if you only put 1 truck in an Inf.Div. it won't count as much as 10-100 trucks for moving around supplies and enhancing the network.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 29

RE: Next version News (4.0) - 11/27/2013 2:21:15 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

TSA is influenced by the amount of... transport :) Hence if you only put 1 truck in an Inf.Div. it won't count as much as 10-100 trucks for moving around supplies and enhancing the network.

Klink, Oberst

So, as it stands right now how many trucks is one truck? Is it 10? Is it 100? Is it 1000? Also, at a certain point Transport Asset Sharing stops having an effect. If I recall correctly it maxes out at 3. Or was it 5? After it reaches that point or whatever point is the maximum one million trucks will not make a difference. Besides, the only way it works is if a unit does not move at all. It would still function but would be more realistic. Isn't that what we are striving for, realism?

The biggest problem I have with the truck/transport abstraction is with towed guns. Once again, how is that ten man squad going to pull multi ton guns any distance at all? Who will carry the ammunition? Because someone has to carry it. And most importantly, who has the chow?

< Message edited by Lobster -- 11/27/2013 3:22:02 PM >

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 30