Chance of Norm Koger doing a sequel?

[marcusm]

Would love to see a new Age of Rifles now that you mention it.
Yet another under-appreciated wargaming period.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
...
And in this case.... 3D and continously zoomable... are not applicable to the situation at hand here, and given that, why do a rewrite when there are real customers out there with real needs??

Sounds to me that the team here picked the wrong Norm Koger game to upgrade. There are people ASKING for a redo of Age of Rifles in the General forums and Ralph's ideas would be perfect for a game like that and.... was a most popular game and and an upgrade would sell for sure.
...
P.S.2. Yeah, I can only wonder if I am gonna pay for my posts with the loss of my ID <g>.

There are several reason to rewrite TOAW. One is that it was written 10 years ago in C. It was very well written, but difficult to maintain, adding things like multiple sides, would be impossible right now. Also, to get reasonable bahavior of the dialog boxes, etc. TOAW IV will need a total rewrite of the UI. If I'm doing that, then making it 3D isn't that hard. When I say 3D, I fully expect most people to play the game using the same settings they do now, and they won't notice any difference. The Top Down 2D model is a very good model for TOAW and my play style, so I'm not about to break that[;)]. That's part of why I never took to Combat Mission, it doesn't really offer that view.

While pretty graphics are nice and may attract more people, the real reason that I want 3D is for more functional/usable graphics. I'm not talking about adding in Shader support, multiple light sources, flickering candles, etc. The initial 3D models will be of the counters.[:D]

At a technical level, the current 2D graphics make the CPU do all the work. By going 3D, I can offload more of the work to the Graphcis processor. With the large scale maps, performance is starting to get too laggy for my tastes. Right now, zooming in/out involves a noticeable delay, going 3D should let me eliminate that for most people.

3D is going to be a small part of the work involved with TOAW IV. All I can say is wait and see, if it doesn't offer enough other improvements, then stick with TOAW III, or switch to another system.

On a different note, for the near future, we'll be putting out at least a couple more 'patches/updates' to TOAW III.

P.S.
Naw, I like healthy discussion. That would only happen if you started name calling and wouldn't stop[:-]

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
3D is going to be a small part of the work involved with TOAW IV. All I can say is wait and see, if it doesn't offer enough other improvements, then stick with TOAW III, or switch to another system.
...

Interesting. There certainly seem to exist ambitious goals for TOAW4 , between your's and Jamian's hints... Very ambitious I would say, a completely new game it seems...

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
'Cavalier'???? U must be kidding me.

In my reading of the posting “Cavalier” was used in the last sentence as an after thought, mostly as a way to cap off a thought and the posting. Think you can look past the comment and instead look at the number of improvements he documented. Now, I am probably not known as a big Lemay fan, but in this case I believe he has accurately stated the volume and quality of change incorporated into the original TOAW III release. Credit is due to Ralph and Matrix for this continuing effort. Credit is also due to all of the advisors/testers/analysts who give their time to make the product better for all.

As for my own personal wish list items, except for alternate graphics and equipment files, little has appeared in the updates. However, I have no reason to feel slighted. In fact there are substantial visible and behind the scene improvements which, I never contemplated, but none the less have enabled TOAW III to evolve into a more powerful, and enjoyable military gaming/simulation system.

Actually I would like to think that TOAW III has (is) evolved a larger “fun” factor, but I can also appreciate the historical fidelity/simulation point of view. Bottom line, support for the system appears to strong, is responsive to the communities suggestions, has an inside appreciation of additional improvements and is dedicated to TOAW. Sounds like a good deal to me!!

P.S.2. Yeah, I can only wonder if I am gonna pay for my posts with the loss of my ID.

Not to worry. After all, I’m still here and I’ve ticked off quite a few people.

Regards, RhinoBones

[a white rabbit]

...from reading the above, i wonder if we should have an "Elmer only" wishlist. It looks like a complete overhaul is on the cards, and given that the programming, playtesting and result checking will be quite a chore, maybe we can help by getting together a prioritised list of Elmer's abilities so that nothing gets forgotten during the rebuild..
&nbsp;
..i'll start..
&nbsp;
..Elmer should have:
&nbsp;
..1/ A scen specific memory , maybe using the movie screen-shots at formation level , and the means to compare with the current turn and run&nbsp;possible futures and act on the most-likely by changing formation objective tracks . Chess and iGo games do it..
&nbsp;
..2/ In-built battle-plans on a tactical level, refuse right, refuse left etc..
&nbsp;
..3/ Ability to change formation attack priorities based on actual situations, primarily formation losses/readiness/supply and tactical situation
&nbsp;
..4/ Ability to arrange the supply&nbsp;chain to prioritise formations..

[marcusm]

Would WEGO be out of the question?

[rhinobones]

I'll add a few wish list Elmer capabilities . . .

1 - Elmer needs more than 3 Objective Tracks and needs to be able to determine which track is the best tactical/operational/strategic choice based on the current deployment conditions. This should be fluid throughout the match.
2 - Elmer needs to be able to make a choice of whether to use, or not use, Theater Options without the need of Events.
3 - Elmer needs to be able to direct replacements to specific formations.
4 - Elmer needs to have more balls when on the offensive.

Regards, RhinoBones

[DeadInThrench]

"You can wait if you want."

"I'll be baack."

Uh, if you are gonna do a total rewrite then it is gonna be a long, long time before you even get up to where things are now, and I am still not convinced there won't be so much emphasis on the 3D aspect, and things like continous zoom, that the game won't progress to any significant extent from where it is now, as least as far as I am concerned as well as what other peope are asking for (e.g. good production model, better naval combat, etc).

So, I choose not to bother to wait, and to instead go with TOAW3 as it is now, or other games until someone else puts out a product worthy of my attention.

In any case, like with HnM, not worth my time to waste my suggestions of possible improvement here. Yeah, I can only wonder why I was not wise enough to realize this was gonna happen, just like with HnM, and not waste my time with suggestions for improvement here in the first place.

Bye,

DiT

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
until someone else puts out a product worthy of my attention.

Hmmm, would you care to describe to us what a worthy product might be? After all, it is a bit difficult for the game developers to read your mind and develop products specific to your personal specifications. Can you do this for us please?

In any case, like with HnM, not worth my time to waste my suggestions of possible improvement here.

You sound bitter that your personal favorites were not included in the last patch. Don’t feel alone. Neither were my favorite fixes.

Yeah, I can only wonder why I was not wise enough to realize this was gonna happen . . .

Well, some people are just a too stupid to see it coming. Just not wise enough to see the obvious future.

However, don’t feel bad about not being wise enough to see the future. No one I know has perfect future vision. Most have really good backward vision, which is what I am thinking you are experiencing.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

"You can wait if you want."

"I'll be baack."

Uh, if you are gonna do a total rewrite then it is gonna be a long, long time before you even get up to where things are now, and I am still not convinced there won't be so much emphasis on the 3D aspect, and things like continous zoom, that the game won't progress to any significant extent from where it is now, as least as far as I am concerned as well as what other peope are asking for (e.g. good production model, better naval combat, etc).

So, I choose not to bother to wait, and to instead go with TOAW3 as it is now, or other games until someone else puts out a product worthy of my attention.

In any case, like with HnM, not worth my time to waste my suggestions of possible improvement here. Yeah, I can only wonder why I was not wise enough to realize this was gonna happen, just like with HnM, and not waste my time with suggestions for improvement here in the first place.

Bye,

DiT

Bye for now.

Absolutely, it's going to take a while, although not quite as long as you think. (I hope.) Adding in 3D will probably only take a month or two, I've got some 3D backgound from way back when and a stack of books/web sites.

Doing the rewrite will actually speed things up, since I'll be able to make the entire thing object oriented and separate out the UI from the working code. I have some ideas on how it's going to be expanded, so that will help shape it.

You might take the time to skim the wishlist that's posted around here and see if anything missing that you absolutely have to have. It's pretty comprehensive.

Better Naval combat is planned for at the moment, and the production model will hopefully be handled by a complete rewrite of the event engine to allow scripting.

Ralph

[L`zard]

GET SOME, RALPH!

[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[macgregor]

That's music to my ears. [&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

On a different note, for the near future, we'll be putting out at least a couple more 'patches/updates' to TOAW III.

Sorry for my curiousity and impatience. What do you mean with near future?
A day, a week or a month?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
Sorry for my curiousity and impatience. What do you mean with near future?
A day, a week or a month?

We're planning a small patch very soon. It depends on when people trickle back from vacations, etc. It should cut down on the jumping to the next unit issue, and a few other items.

The patch after that is going to take a bit longer. We want to revamp the turn order to fix the P1/P2 differences, and that's going to take a while to code and to test since there's a lot of potential for disaster. I am sure that we will throw in some other things too.

Ralph

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

It should cut down on the jumping to the next unit issue, and a few other items.

This is the prof God exists...


Thanks guys [&o]

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
Sorry for my curiousity and impatience. What do you mean with near future?
A day, a week or a month?

We're planning a small patch very soon. It depends on when people trickle back from vacations, etc. It should cut down on the jumping to the next unit issue, and a few other items.

The patch after that is going to take a bit longer. We want to revamp the turn order to fix the P1/P2 differences, and that's going to take a while to code and to test since there's a lot of potential for disaster. I am sure that we will throw in some other things too.

Ralph

..just curiousity, but how can you revamp the P1/P2 differences ? 2 housekeeping phases rather than the current 1 ?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..just curiousity, but how can you revamp the P1/P2 differences ? 2 housekeeping phases rather than the current 1 ?

Yes. Actually, I want to split it into beginning of turn, end of turn, beginning of side, end of side, beginning of combat, end of combat, etc. It's tougher than it should be because of the way the code is structured right now, but once it's rewritten, it should be much more flexible, and I should be able to also allow the 'old' style as well.

I've got the design now, and I want to start testing the states soon to make sure that they're going to work. After that, it's going to be a matter of figuring out where things go and spitting some things up into two sides , and making sure that they work. It's the making sure that they work, and that I haven't made things to slow that's going to take a while.

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: marcusm
Would WEGO be out of the question?

I'm not sure yet.

I see it as much more useful when doing head to head play, and what I was seeing on the newgroups from a couple of experienced game designers was that they regretted spending the time on network play.

It also doesn't play well with the 'rounds' system that TOAW has.

I'll probably try adding the hooks I'd need to record where the units are coming from/going to, and the combats planned for the first round, so that the opponent can plan their moves for the next turn, that' would help to enhance the reporting and replay capabilities.

I suspect that adding in the full network and WeGo capabilities with all the bells and whistles is going to be either a TOAW V or a TOAW H2H game, depending on what the interest is in that and all the other possibilities.

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

...from reading the above, i wonder if we should have an "Elmer only" wishlist. It looks like a complete overhaul is on the cards, and given that the programming, playtesting and result checking will be quite a chore, maybe we can help by getting together a prioritised list of Elmer's abilities so that nothing gets forgotten during the rebuild..

..i'll start..

..Elmer should have:

..1/ A scen specific memory , maybe using the movie screen-shots at formation level , and the means to compare with the current turn and run possible futures and act on the most-likely by changing formation objective tracks . Chess and iGo games do it..

..2/ In-built battle-plans on a tactical level, refuse right, refuse left etc..

..3/ Ability to change formation attack priorities based on actual situations, primarily formation losses/readiness/supply and tactical situation

..4/ Ability to arrange the supply chain to prioritise formations..

You might split this into a separate thread.

Looking ahead as in chess/go isn't practical, the number of possible moves is almost infinite. TOAW is more like Go, and the computer can't play a really good game there yet. It is possible to have Elmer look at the situation and pick which objective track to follow, or even to pick his own depending on chokepoints, relative strengths and other criteria. It's also possible to save the history of past rounds and games and compare them to the current situation.

I've got a lot of thoughts about what I want to do with Elmer, we'll see what time I have, and what ideas work out in real life.<g>

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I'll add a few wish list Elmer capabilities . . .

1 - Elmer needs more than 3 Objective Tracks and needs to be able to determine which track is the best tactical/operational/strategic choice based on the current deployment conditions. This should be fluid throughout the match.
2 - Elmer needs to be able to make a choice of whether to use, or not use, Theater Options without the need of Events.
3 - Elmer needs to be able to direct replacements to specific formations.
4 - Elmer needs to have more balls when on the offensive.

Regards, RhinoBones

1 - Possible, there's also a request for formation level objective tracks that may help if it's implemented.
2 - If I successfully do a scripted event engine, that should be possible.
4 - What do you mean? Do you have an example or an example scenario? I think that what I need to do for TOAW IV is to expand the options that the designer has in settings for Elmer.

Ralph