anybody in here???

[macgregor]

When ten people tell you you're drunk....




Try 'Countdown to Infamy' or 'War in Europe' Curtis.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It seems the game was taken over by niche players

It's a niche game and will always be a niche game because of the subject matter.

This is the reason why we haven't seen fantastic leaps-and-bounds developments. Ralph is the one and only (part time) developer working on the game, and I'm not sure he even receives a salary for his trouble. I don't love Matrix, but I don't imagine they owe me anything. However this may be because I got the game for free.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It's a niche game and will always be a niche game because of the subject matter.

This is the reason why we haven't seen fantastic leaps-and-bounds developments. Ralph is the one and only (part time) developer working on the game, and I'm not sure he even receives a salary for his trouble. I don't love Matrix, but I don't imagine they owe me anything. However this may be because I got the game for free.

I suppose you're right GD. It wasn't taken over perhaps so much as it was always in the control of niche players. Perhaps better than saying 'niche' I could say 'content' players. The game never shipped with scenarios such as 'War in Europe' or 'Countdown to Infamy', it was players that created this level of interest in the game. Perhaps it is I who is the niche player. I am the one who has been arguing for the right of this niche to be represented, though it was this niche that had all the reason to spend money on TOAW3(for a game they already had) and invest time at Matrix, who has consistently told us everything we've wanted to hear. I suppose you could give me the 'buyer beware' argument though it says not much for Matrix.
I've seen nobody jumping to take Ralph's job. I'm pretty sure he would surrender it willingly. Perhaps therein lies the problem.

[rhinobones]

You might want to read the developer's blog for the planned changes.

Regards, RhinoBones

http://operationalwarfare.com/

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

When ten people tell you you're drunk....

Then perhaps you should listen to them.

Try 'Countdown to Infamy' or 'War in Europe' Curtis.

I can't sort through huge scenarios for unspecified complaints. Have you sent saved turns to Ralph that contain the problem? Is the problem repeatable? Have you considered that you may have had a file with bit-rot? If you provide actual evidence of a real problem we'll try to deal with it. Without that, we can't.

[Zaratoughda]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
The graphics do kinda hurt the eyes. Little sprites with figures of soldiers and vehicles like they use in the Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory would be a huge improvement. And the interface, yeah, very tedious and clunky.

Sprites are for kids!

Eisenhower wasn't looking at sprites and neither was Rommel. Rather, looking at maps with MILITARY SYMBOLS representing the units.

Sprites are appropriate for tactical level games like Steel Panthers and the like but,
otherwise they are... childish!

Zaratoughda

[Anthropoid]

Child eh? [:D] What did Neil Young sing? "I am a child . . . I last a while. You can't conceive of the pleasure in my smile . . . You hold my hand, rough up my hair. Its lots of fun to have you there . . ."
 
[:D][:D] . . . *rubs tears of laughter out of eyes*  . . . Yeah, their so much more "adult" with tedious diagramatic graphics [:'(]

[Zaratoughda]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

WiTP has always been a good game, not perfect by any means, but a damn good game.

While I may join in the joking about AE being a delusion of vapourware, I actually believe they _will_ eventually release it, and that it will be a good game.

I made this point before...... WiTP was developed by an independent developer... NOT MATRIX.

As far as AE is concerned...... I believe that is being developed by Matrix and so, other than the graphics enhancements, I would not expect much. In fact, my best guess is that those that get it will ultimately be disapointed to the point of feeling they wasted their money.

Again, IMO you gotta take games 'being developed' by Matrix for what they are and not expect any improvements. If you want something that gets improved or is an improvement over what is otherwise available, you gotta look to the independant developers.

Zaratoughda

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I can't sort through huge scenarios for unspecified complaints. Have you sent saved turns to Ralph that contain the problem? Is the problem repeatable? Have you considered that you may have had a file with bit-rot? If you provide actual evidence of a real problem we'll try to deal with it. Without that, we can't.

I get your emotion Curtis. Well I can tell you right off the bat that if you attempt a Pearl harbor attack using 'Countdown to Infamy' with TOAW3 you see an amazing thing -the IJN planes actually attack their own ships! I'll have to check 'War in Europe' again but I believe the entire German army doesn't show up. I'll check again. Bit rot? Am I really the only one who has posted problems using COW scenarios with TOAW3? Because everyone I've ever played pbem with seems to accept this as common knowledge.

[Zaratoughda]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Child eh? [:D] What did Neil Young sing? "I am a child . . . I last a while. You can't conceive of the pleasure in my smile . . . You hold my hand, rough up my hair. Its lots of fun to have you there . . ."

I remember that song! <g>

Was when he was with Buffalo Springfield... yeah, LONG time ago.

Actually, never got the lines 'You hold my hand, rough up my hair.' so, learned something new today.

But still.... in situations where a commander could see the battle... like Robert E. at Gettysburg... as well as various tactical situations.... figurines are most appropriate, IMO, but otherwise... military symbols. Sprites... are for kids.

Zaratoughda

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It's a niche game and will always be a niche game because of the subject matter.

This is the reason why we haven't seen fantastic leaps-and-bounds developments. Ralph is the one and only (part time) developer working on the game, and I'm not sure he even receives a salary for his trouble. I don't love Matrix, but I don't imagine they owe me anything. However this may be because I got the game for free.

I suppose you're right GD. It wasn't taken over perhaps so much as it was always in the control of niche players. Perhaps better than saying 'niche' I could say 'content' players. The game never shipped with scenarios such as 'War in Europe' or 'Countdown to Infamy', it was players that created this level of interest in the game. Perhaps it is I who is the niche player. I am the one who has been arguing for the right of this niche to be represented, though it was this niche that had all the reason to spend money on TOAW3(for a game they already had) and invest time at Matrix, who has consistently told us everything we've wanted to hear. I suppose you could give me the 'buyer beware' argument though it says not much for Matrix.
I've seen nobody jumping to take Ralph's job. I'm pretty sure he would surrender it willingly. Perhaps therein lies the problem.

I'm being paid a percentage of the sales, but I'd be a lot richer with a second job.

I don't think Matrix has 'programmers' they basically have independent companies that do the games. They did pay money to acquire the rights to the game, and for some graphics and audio files, as well as packaging, etc. On my part, it's a labor of love that I've got to sandwich in with my professional and personal life. I think you'd have a hard time convincing me to give it up, but I definitely am looking at doing things differently for the next game. It's possible that I'll be able to do something like make the editor open source, and that will at least allow the possibility that someone else will help.

Recently, I've been changing duties at work, moving into an Architect position instead of a team lead, which means working long hours doing my duties as well as to train the two people that are replacing me and trying to learn some new skills. I'm still doing that, but I'm now at a point where they are starting to do most of the work, so I'm back down to 40 hours a week, and I'm planning to do some work this weekend.

If I get specific reports of problems, I do my best to fix them. This patch has been delayed far too long, and I need to finish up my end of it so we can ship it.

Ralph

[sPzAbt653]

'Countdown to Infamy' ... 'War in Europe'

I was interested to see the issues with these scenarios, but I don't see them anywhere in my TOAWIII or COW folders. [&:]

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

'Countdown to Infamy' ... 'War in Europe'

I was interested to see the issues with these scenarios, but I don't see them anywhere in my TOAWIII or COW folders. [&:]

They're avaialbe at http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/
Just place the title into the search engine.

[sPzAbt653]

The game never shipped with scenarios such as 'War in Europe' or 'Countdown to Infamy'

Oh, I see. But I don't see reason to complain to Matrix about this. I'm not trying to get on your bad side Mac, it's just that I don't see it.

TOAWIII had tons of changes over COW (documented in the 'What's New') and a bunch of new scenarios. Well worth my money, considering that since 1970 I've been used to paying the same ammount for one title, one game, one scenario. And with COW/TOAW, if you don't like something, you can change it with the editor (that and Bio-Ed/ODD are worth $$$). But I understand that we will have a difference over the air and naval aspects, as I don't care for them and I know you have spent a lot of time trying to improve the naval aspect.

From what I've seen, there are very knowledgeable people here that help immensely with any issues that are raised. I have seen other forums where seemingly important questions are raised and never answered. That really doesn't happen here. And I've seen where Ralph drops what he is doing in order to address an issue, if it is an actual issue that needs to be addressed.

Cheers!

[sPzAbt653]

They're avaialbe at http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/

Ah, thanks Mac. I've dl'd scenarios from Rugged Defense and Games Depot. It seems there isn't the playtesting involved that Matrix puts scenarios thru. I've gone thru a few to make fixes on my own before playing. I always run the scenario dump and flip thru the event list on scenarios dl'd from these sites, to try and head off any unpleasantness. I understand that many players don't want to have to this, but it's the best thing to do. They are a good source for additional scenarios, but some aren't put together with the experience necessary to prevent 'bugs'. I hope I don't stick my big foot in my big mouth, but I might not mind dl'ing those scenarios just to look at the issues to see if they can easily be corrected (though sometimes when I get involved in something like that I tend to make a federal project out of it).

[damezzi]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing me to give it up, but I definitely am looking at doing things differently for the next game. It's possible that I'll be able to do something like make the editor open source, and that will at least allow the possibility that someone else will help.

It's good to know you make it for love, since if it depended on money...

Making the editor open source is a great idea, so that you could get external help.

If I get specific reports of problems, I do my best to fix them. This patch has been delayed far too long, and I need to finish up my end of it so we can ship it.

Take a look, if you have time, on my post on cooperation effects in combat (I have made plenty of tests). It may or may not be an issue, but take a look, even if it is just to discard the possibility.

Anyway, I must state I love this game, even with some issues. And I think that the prove of its quality is that even people that don't play it anymore stay around, in a kind of acknowledgment of its potential. 

[Obsolete]

In retards to that RBC issue, thanks for the tip on the artillery, though unfortunately we usually don't have artillery around to do this work-around.&nbsp; Also it seems now like that artillery issue is another exploit to work around the game to eliminate the entire RBC which seems to be yet another un-thought out mechanic.&nbsp; Grrrr..

We simply should only move into the hex when/if we decide.&nbsp; Or, if IGNORE losses is turned on, as stated in the manual.&nbsp; Though I've noticed another glitch that happens sometimes when a limited-losses unit still tends to jump into a hex during REGULAR battle.&nbsp; Or maybe there's something else still going on there that I don't know about.

[Obsolete]

ORIGINAL: Narses

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

Come to think of it, one thing that is bugging me is I am never sure what is a new addition to the game, and what is a bug.  For example, currently I noticed my HQ's are getting hit by bombard-shots when I try to disengage.  This should never happen if my HQ (or artillery) is moving into a hex with a friendly unit there.  Yet I am still getting disbanded in some cases.  The new manual seems to pretty much repeat what the old one does on this matter.

And some other things, it seems setting your deployment to entrenching does not make your units dig in every turn, you have to keep going around re-digging in, and it's very tedious the way the hotkeys keep switching to the next unit in line.

Anyhow, I'll be looking forward to the next patch

Keep your HQ off the frontline. Or at least don't move from one enemy zone of control to another especially if it involves direct movement from one hex to another that are adjacent to the same enemy unit. The large number of movement points you expend doing this represents a lot of time spent in motion in close proximity to hostile forces. Not recommended for HQ or support units.

HQs tend to have low recon ratings and they do poorly at both catching and avoiding enemy units.

One major use of HQ is to AVOID the disengagement issue. And hence, as stated in the manual(s), I will use them time to time to protect my stack while doing a disengagement. Unfortunately, it does not work as it is written.

[Veer]

Sprites are for kids!

Eisenhower wasn't looking at sprites and neither was Rommel. Rather, looking at maps with MILITARY SYMBOLS representing the units.

You mean that cool map they showed in Battle of the Bulge (1965) with all the little men and wooden tanks didn't exist. [:(]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

On my part, it's a labor of love

And that's what we need.

Now, if we can just get some wargaming enthusiast to come into a massive inheritance....