Where is Nomonhan scenario?

[henri511]

Years ago, I posted a usenet AAR claiming that Nomonham-A bridge too poor (Soviet Japanese battle) was my favorite TOAW scenario, because it allowed maneuver warfare.

There are a few Nomonham scenarios on some download sites (you can easily find them with Google), but I cannot find this one by Peter D'Amato anywhere. I have changed my computer a few times since I downloaded this scenario from the Wargamer site, and it got lost in the shuffle, and the Wargamer does not seem to have it any more.

Does anyone know where this scenario can be found?

Henri

[Oleg Mastruko]

Sadly, yet another excellent scenario, and one of my personal favorites, missing from the TOAW 3 distribution. I think I have it somewhere, will browse thru my old TOAW archives and let you know if I find it.

Pre-emptying the possible explanation that this scenario wasn't included becuase author's address could not be found, I'll draw everyone's attention to the interesting fact that author of this scenario is world famous figure, dr. Peter d'Adamo (not Amato), author of the bestselling book about 4 blood types and optimal nutrition for each type (ask your wives/girlfriends, they certainly heard of it [:D])

http://www.dadamo.com/ (he even had his scenarios on his website, but I can't find them now)

There were two Nomonhan scenarios - deling with two Nomonhan incidents. He also did one solid scenario about Spanish Civil War.

O.

[JMS2]

Cannot expect that you engage brain before posting, can we?
 
Had you bothered to check Rugged Defence you would have noted that:
 
a) It's not there.
b) All scenarios made by Dr. D'Adamo are for TOAW-I and the timing constraints meant that no scenarios not meant for COW were evaluated.
 
You could have asked, but why bother?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: JMS2

....the timing constraints....

[:D][:D][:D]

Losing your temper mate?

Translation: untested crap was included, because no timing contraints were invloved (no need to test crap anyway, it wasn't tested before, and it won't be tested now, or ever). Good stuff that needed some work (conversion, playtesting, contacting the author, etc etc....) wasn't included because of "time contraints".

Oleg

[JMS2]

No, once again engage brain before posting and read what I actually posted.
 
I did not post that we did not test the scenarios, what I did post was that we cut down the number of scenarios that would need modification inevitably (which would have meant contacting the designer, explaining the situation and waiting until he had the scenario ready again, and that if he owned ACOW) and restricted ourselves to those scenarios made for ACOW.
 
Translation: you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: JMS2

No, once again engage brain before posting and read what I actually posted.

I did not post that we did not test the scenarios, what I did post was that we cut down the number of scenarios that would need modification inevitably (which would have meant contacting the designer, explaining the situation and waiting until he had the scenario ready again, and that if he owned ACOW) and restricted ourselves to those scenarios made for ACOW.

Translation: you have no clue what you are talking about.

Translation: you took the easy way out, including whetever Rugged Defence search engine spewed out for ya.

BTW I will wait to see whether Erik will be true to his criteria, warining you and removing your personal insulting posts, before I respond in kind. Which I'd like very much to do [:D] But I don't want to make Erik's job harder.

BTW who are you anyway? JMS whats that? I use my real full name. If we are going to trade insults - be my guest, but first introduce yourself.

Oleg

[JMS2]

No, we took only way we could have sorted the 300+ scenarios within the couple of months allowed, and even extending the period, it was a tight run.
 
What the selection group couldn't do was picking up scenarios that would have needed extensive rework to first work under ACOW and then evaluate them for TOAW-3.
 
As for insults, sorry, there are none, I was being descriptive. You lack any knowledge of what was done or not done in selecting scenarios, nor of the methods, nor of the scenarios initally selected, in short, you don't have a clue about what was done. But sure, be my guest and invite Erik to decide.
 

[henri511]

ORIGINAL: JMS2

Cannot expect that you engage brain before posting, can we?

Had you bothered to check Rugged Defence you would have noted that:

a) It's not there.
b) All scenarios made by Dr. D'Adamo are for TOAW-I and the timing constraints meant that no scenarios not meant for COW were evaluated.

You could have asked, but why bother?

Do you have a burr in your shorts? I simply asked if the scenario was available somewhere, not if it was COW3 or anything else, and I did not complain because it was not in the scenarios that come with the game. If I want to play around with a scenario that has possibly not been optimized for TOAW3, what is that to you? And I did check with Rugged defense (now called something else), that's how I found the 2 other Nomonhan scenarios by a japanese guy. I haven't tried them, so I can't comment on them.

Whatsamatter with you anyway? and who the hell are you to tell posters what they can say?

Henri

[JAMiAM]

Gents,

Let's keep the gloves on, here.

If anyone find their favorite scenarios missing from TOAW III, then they simply need to make sure that the scenario has already been converted to run on CoW. Then they load that scenario into the TOAW III editor, and save it under TOAW III. Done.

Just remember, that there was a bug from earlier versions of TOAW that caused scenarios created with the Opart 100 executable to not include the unit information data for force 2, unit destroyed events, when converted to Opart 300, and that TOAW III is derived from the Opart 300 executable. You will need to manually re-enter that data in, if there were any events calling for destroyed units, being an event trigger.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: JMS2
As for insults, sorry, there are none, I was being descriptive.

I'd love to be equally "descriptive" about your mental abilities "JMS" [:D] But I'll restrain, only to make Erik's life easier. If he lets go your "descriptive-ness" I will respond in kind.

in short, you don't have a clue about what was done.

I have a clue about the results of your work, and unfortunatelly that's what matters.

O.

[JMS2]

See, once again you are not reading:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: JMS2
As for insults, sorry, there are none, I was being descriptive.

I'd love to be equally "descriptive" about your mental abilities "JMS" [:D] But I'll restrain, only to make Erik's life easier. If he lets go your "descriptive-ness" I will respond in kind.

I have not evaluated your mental abilities, "Oleg". I have just pointed out that you are blithely yapping about a something you know nothing about.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I have a clue about the results of your work, and unfortunatelly that's what matters.

You have evaluated the 130 scenarios included in TOAW-3 in 5 days?

I suspect no, you haven't...

So why are you badmouthing it?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: JMS2
You have evaluated the 130 scenarios included in TOAW-3 in 5 days?

I suspect no, you haven't...

Actually, I mostly did. In two days.

I organised my scenario folder into several sub-folders to suit my taste. One of them is named "Garbage" - there are 60+ scenarios there already, and I haven't even started evaluating all the WW2 scenarios. And I am also very "forgiving", keeping some borderline scenarios out of the Garbage folder even though they perhaps deserve to end up there (but I am giving their designer's benefit of the doubt for now, till I find more time to test them fiurther).

90% of the scenarios are the same, unchanged, untweaked, and unoptimised (and I would assume untested) versions I have already thoroughly "evaluated" in CoW era. I do not need "5 days" for that - I have already seen them.

60% of scenarios that eventually end up in "Garbage" folder end up there in less than a minute after I open them.

'nuff said. [8D]

So why are you badmouthing it?

I am badmouthing the results of scenario "selection" in TOAW 3 because I truely believe the results of the selection are shamefully bad. I explained this in some length in other threads - go read if you're interested dude.

Oleg (that's my real name so no need to put it into quote marks)

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Translation: you took the easy way out, including whetever Rugged Defence search engine spewed out for ya.

BTW who are you anyway? JMS whats that? I use my real full name. If we are going to trade insults - be my guest, but first introduce yourself.

Oleg

Oleg,
Click on his name on the left, and Jose' real name will show up. Lots of people use more obscure pseudonyms.

I'd suggest that you apply as a beta tester next time. These guys put in 5-10+ hours a week for about 6 months because they love the game. At the end because of burn-out, they were down to only a few people, and most of them were also on the Beta team. We aren't going to talk about why Jose's name are red in the credits, BTW.[:-]

Please tone it down a little, these guys have worked their tails off, and have done their absolute best for free.

If you want to help instead of carping, can you please try to work on the older TOAW 1 and 2 scenarios that you have, bring them up to speed and put them on Rugged Defense for others to play?

Thanks,
Ralph

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: JMS2
You have evaluated the 130 scenarios included in TOAW-3 in 5 days?

I suspect no, you haven't...

Actually, I mostly did. In two days.

I organised my scenario folder into several sub-folders to suit my taste. One of them is named "Garbage" - there are 60+ scenarios there already, and I haven't even started evaluating all the WW2 scenarios. And I am also very "forgiving", keeping some borderline scenarios out of the Garbage folder even though they perhaps deserve to end up there (but I am giving their designer's benefit of the doubt for now, till I find more time to test them fiurther).

90% of the scenarios are the same, unchanged, untweaked, and unoptimised (and I would assume untested) versions I have already thoroughly "evaluated" in CoW era. I do not need "5 days" for that - I have already seen them.

60% of scenarios that eventually end up in "Garbage" folder end up there in less than a minute after I open them.

'nuff said. [8D]

Oh, so in 2 days you did the work of 20 people during 3 months?

Certainly that helps to put some perspective on your opinion.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


I am badmouthing the results of scenario "selection" in TOAW 3 because I truely believe the results of the selection are shamefully bad. I explained this in some length in other threads - go read if you're interested dude.

Oleg (that's my real name so no need to put it into quote marks)

I don't doubt the sincerity of your opinion, dude, but you have singularly failed to support it with facts beyond the mere badmouthing of an effort in which you weren't involved and of which you are not particularly knowledgeable.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Please tone it down a little, these guys have worked their tails off, and have done their absolute best for free.

ME tone down a little? Go check again who started with personal insults first (and who managed to restrain responding in kind).

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: JMS2
Oh, so in 2 days you did the work of 20 people during 3 months?

Certainly that helps to put some perspective on your opinion.

..... or on your "work" [:D]

As I said - some of the crappy scenarios are so obviously crappy I can only laugh if you say you "worked" for "months" analysing them. What's there to analyse? If you indeed worked for months and missed some sub-standard work that is SO obvious, then it's even worse than I thought.

60 seconds. That's all it takes to eliminate most of scenarios that eventually end up in Garbage folder.

I don't doubt the sincerity of your opinion, dude, but you have singularly failed to support it with facts beyond the mere badmouthing of an effort in which you weren't involved and of which you are not particularly knowledgeable.

One thing I will NOT do, is badmouth *individual* scenario designers on the public forum, and point out why I think this scenario form that particular guy, sucks. I may give examples of good, or playable scenarios, but I will NOT list scenarios I consider Garbage on the public forum. I do appreciate every designer's effort enough not to do that - even though I'd fight tooth and nail to have their scenarios excluded from selection.

I will say that there are many Garbage scenarios, but will not name them, nor provide arguments why those scenarios stink publicly. I think that is, in fact, fair.

But I do have tons of arguments and could write a book containing nicely listed arguments about every single scenario I ever opened.

O.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Please tone it down a little, these guys have worked their tails off, and have done their absolute best for free.

ME tone down a little? Go check again who started with personal insults first (and who managed to restrain responding in kind).

O.

Oleg,
I read your first post. It seemed to me to be full of sarcasm, implied criticism, and itching for a fight. A simple 'What happened to these excellent scenarios' would have worked much better without the sarcasm.

If you find them, please post them to Rugged Defense for all to enjoy.

Remember that emotions don't show up well when positng, please emote![:-]

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: JMS2
Oh, so in 2 days you did the work of 20 people during 3 months?

Certainly that helps to put some perspective on your opinion.

..... or on your "work" [:D]

As I said - some of the crappy scenarios are so obviously crappy I can only laugh if you say you "worked" for "months" analysing them. What's there to analyse? If you indeed worked for months and missed some sub-standard work that is SO obvious, then it's even worse than I thought.

60 seconds. That's all it takes to eliminate most of scenarios that eventually end up in Garbage folder.

I don't doubt the sincerity of your opinion, dude, but you have singularly failed to support it with facts beyond the mere badmouthing of an effort in which you weren't involved and of which you are not particularly knowledgeable.

One thing I will NOT do, is badmouth *individual* scenario designers on the public forum, and point out why I think this scenario form that particular guy, sucks. I may give examples of good, or playable scenarios, but I will NOT list scenarios I consider Garbage on the public forum. I do appreciate every designer's effort enough not to do that - even though I'd fight tooth and nail to have their scenarios excluded from selection.

I will say that there are many Garbage scenarios, but will not name them, nor provide arguments why those scenarios stink publicly. I think that is, in fact, fair.

But I do have tons of arguments and could write a book containing nicely listed arguments about every single scenario I ever opened.

O.

But then you lack the courage to either post/mail the criticism in private or in public and instead prefer to slander the designers and those who selected the designs, and then, when called on it, start complaining about non-existent personal insults.

Sure, it's very "fair".

[henri511]

[/quote]
Oleg,
I read your first post. It seemed to me to be full of sarcasm, implied criticism, and itching for a fight. A simple 'What happened to these excellent scenarios' would have worked much better without the sarcasm.

If you find them, please post them to Rugged Defense for all to enjoy.

Remember that emotions don't show up well when positng, please emote![:-]
[/quote]

FWIW, I did not sense any criticism in Oleg's post, I thought that he was just being helpful in agreeing with me that it was a good scenario, regretting that it is not available, and correcting my misspelling of the author's name.[:'(]

I do appreciate the hard work of the beta testers, but perhaps they should realize that not everyone has spent the last year horsing around with TOAW - in fact I had not touched the game for so many years that I have forgotten almost everything I knew.[:'(]

I saw a message somewhere that I can't find that old TOAW scenarios can be input to TOAW3 simply by opening them in the editor then saving them, which I did for some scenarios such as the excellent Drang Nach Osten . But I don't remember seeing that only COW scenarios would play OK[X(].(I have 4 versions of TOAW, but not COW - at least I don't think so...[&:]. A problem with this forum is that there are so many postings that after one day most messages have scrolled to page 3 [8|]

I suggest that this information be put in a thread that stays at the top, because I am sure that I will not be the only one not to understand that this is the case.

BTW, in reading the file with scenario descriptions, I saw that there is a Nomonhon scenario with the game, by Norm Kroger. I wonder how it compares with the one by Adamo?

Henri

[JJKettunen]

nevermind the bollocks