Air and naval combat in TOAW IV

[CSO_Talorgan]

It says here:

http://toaw-iii-review.blogspot.com/ (~4/5 way down the page)

"Air combat and naval combat aren't the strong points of Toaw. There are plans to make them really as rich as ground combat on Toaw IV"

That would be superb, if true, but how reliable do you think this source is?

[macgregor]

I've expressed my dismay of seeing Ralph's only posting for the last...it's been around 6 months now is that he's been swamped with his day job, getting little, if anything done(or so that's the impression he's willing to leave). If Curtis Lemay(whose real name escapes me) is anxious to see these improvements though (While I know he's not the developer, he's in the fold somewhere) I'm confident that to the extent improvements are being made, the naval and related air will be improved.

[CSO_Talorgan]

I sometimes think that developers should *not* tell us what they are up to until a release is imminent. There is nothing worse than false hope.

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan

I sometimes think that developers should *not* tell us what they are up to until a release is imminent. There is nothing worse than false hope.

I think you would be right if it wasn't for the fact that Toaw is being developed in a rather informal way. It doesn't seem to exist an official position (at least that is the impression we have). Considering Ralph condition, his way of conducting it, by presenting a blog and exposing his thoughts to players seems praiseworthy. Toaw is developed during his spare time and he stated his payment was based on sale percentage, which I imagine isn't very much. It gives the impression of an almost benevolent work.
As someone stated in a recent post, it would be nice to see Toaw in the hands of an independent developer like Ageod. No demerit implied here in relation to Ralph; his work is great and I would be the first to defend placing his name aside that of Norm, but seeing full time programmers dedicated to this game would be nice. However it doesn't seem realistic from a commercial point of view.
Well... in fact I think it would, if someone was willing to bring a complete renewal of the game, due to the fact that most wargamers would at least take a look at TOAW IV and a well done work could capitalize on this fact. But, well, perhaps not; I'm shooting in the dark.

[CSO_Talorgan]

TOAW isn't the only game in this circumstance.

[damezzi]

Perhaps not. But then I defend the above criteria for any game in that circumstances. I don't feel comfortable by determining norms of behaviour to a designer that uses it's spare time and gains very little for his work, when he's probably the only one willing to accept the actual terms. Once more, I must say that this conclusion is based on the impression we have, since, if the game was profitable on the actual state, we would surely see a lot more working time used in it's development.

Anyway, I think critics should be pointed at those who have the rights on Toaw. Perhaps trying to transfer those rights or opening the code (if nobody is interested) would be more reasonable than keeping Toaw as a dusty trophee. Matrix politics seems to be the collection of a large number of old games (amongs the few new ones) with low production costs (for small tweaks and compatibility issues), along with the fact that collecting all those 'classics' build Matrix reputation as a grand wargames distributing enterprise, opening the path to the sale of new titles. If so, Toaw (among others like Steel Panthers, etc) is just a free (designer's like Ralph receive sales percentage) publicity tool.

I know that some think that opening the code isn't a solution, but comparing to the actual stalemate... With all the good will Ralph seems to have, one gets the impression that he doesn't have enough time at the moment to work in the game. Maybe I'm wrong and, as someone said in a recent post, they are working secretly to finish the patch and already planning the next step. I don't know why, but this doesn't seem to be the most probable hipotesys.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: damezzi
I know that some think that opening the code isn't a solution, but comparing to the actual stalemate... With all the good will Ralph seems to have, one gets the impression that he doesn't have enough time at the moment to work in the game. Maybe I'm wrong and, as someone said in a recent post, they are working secretly to finish the patch and already planning the next step. I don't know why, but this doesn't seem to be the most probable hipotesys.

@Damezzi; I can understand your frustration, Big Guy, but some things we just have to live with. Ralph working part-time on the code is one, and the time it takes for his playtesters to play the changes is another. Remember that Ralph does this in his real-life 'off hours' and the 'playtesters' aren't being paid at all, and considering the number of 'changes' involved, it's no wonder things are taking so long.

The 'Big' money isn't going to be applied to something that even Ralph states to be an 'antiquated piece of code' game, eh? Especially considering that 'Matrix' is pretty much a two family business.....( http://www.matrixgames.com/corporate/who.asp ) which no doubt isn't that highly capitalized. My understanding of 'Matrix' is that it was founded by a couple of gamers and one thing lead to another, if you get my drift.

A 'ToaW 4' would be something they could sell in a whole new light, just like other franchises do on a regular basis by calling thier 'Patches' as a whole new game, except this ToaW probably WOULD be a whole new game, using a new code to 'get r done'...lol! Hence the commentary concerning 3d etc etc when it comes to Ralph's responces to some of these questions.

ToaW has the same set of problems that attached to the whole of the "Battle Tech/Mechwarrior" system, with the 'rights to the intellectual property' battle etc etc included.

-------------------------------

As to the 'original' question in this thread, "That would be superb, if true, but how reliable do you think this source is? "........

Well, I'll say this: Serge has his heart in the right place, but remember he's doing a blog, something that developes with time, and isn't some sort of direct connect to AUM, eh?

In the end, he's reporting just what he can discover, and that might be subject to error. He no doubt will correct himself when neccesary, and probably would appreciate comments 'from the wild' while he's at it.

Only Matrix knows what it will do with this game, and THEY don't appear to be doing nearly as much talking as Ralph does. IIRC, "half a loaf is better than none", LOL!

[:'(]

[damezzi]

I appreciate your light hearted way of counter balancing one's argument, L'zard. I just want to make clear that I was in fact defending the designers position and Ralph's exposure of ideas, even if they won't necessarily materialize.
Regarding Toaw IV, it isn't a personal necessity of having a better game. As I stated in another thread, I'm satisfied with Toaw the way it is, with all it's flaws. There is no better game of the kind in the market, but one must admit that the buoyancy that characterized Toaw forums isn't there anymore and even being relatively new to the game, I already noticed a decrease in interest. Considering that Toaw is as good as the contribution of it's community...
I see Toaw IV as a necessity only as a way of recovering market and bringing people back to the game. Another necessity would be a designer's manual. Most of the time, when we see someone blaming the game engine, the problem is shown to be in the scenario design. Ok, hardcore players will consider it and even suggest things like changing it for your own delight, but most gamers just want to play and will treat any weird event as a bug. Such a manual could be done by a collective effort of the community, but I don't see it happening. Someone suggested a Toaw Wiki and there wasn't any manifestation and let's consider that there isn't much effort involved in posting a sentece like "Nice idea" or the like in order to push someone into doing it.
But you must be right in what regards the probable lack of capital of Matrix, yet I don't know why the feel of abandon they transmit don't seem the best of politics. It does seem that some games are let to follow their own uncertain path without any intervention from Matrix, not even in publicity, which should be one of distributors attributions.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I appreciate your light hearted way of counter balancing one's argument, L'zard. I just want to make clear that I was in fact defending the designers position and Ralph's exposure of ideas, even if they won't necessarily materialize.
Regarding Toaw IV, it isn't a personal necessity of having a better game. As I stated in another thread, I'm satisfied with Toaw the way it is, with all it's flaws. There is no better game of the kind in the market, but one must admit that the buoyancy that characterized Toaw forums isn't there anymore and even being relatively new to the game, I already noticed a decrease in interest. Considering that Toaw is as good as the contribution of it's community...
I see Toaw IV as a necessity only as a way of recovering market and bringing people back to the game. Another necessity would be a designer's manual. Most of the time, when we see someone blaming the game engine, the problem is shown to be in the scenario design. Ok, hardcore players will consider it and even suggest things like changing it for your own delight, but most gamers just want to play and will treat any weird event as a bug. Such a manual could be done by a collective effort of the community, but I don't see it happening. Someone suggested a Toaw Wiki and there wasn't any manifestation and let's consider that there isn't much effort involved in posting a sentece like "Nice idea" or the like in order to push someone into doing it.
But you must be right in what regards the probable lack of capital of Matrix, yet I don't know why the feel of abandon they transmit don't seem the best of politics. It does seem that some games are let to follow their own uncertain path without any intervention from Matrix, not even in publicity, which should be one of distributors attributions.

@Damezzi:

Glad you didn't take the previous as a slam.......(You might notice that I'm your 'friend' on the GS forum, eh?) .............

I'm in total agreement that something in the way of a NEW manual would be timely. This is something I was trying to start with the 'ToaW University' on the GS/forum, eh?

In the end, like many other games, we'll have to create the 'manual' ourselves through posts to one place, until the next iteration of the game, and some 'playtests' by us users....(something that populated so many of the Older Forums..)

While a 'ToaW' wiki could work, any 'Wiki' has it's problems with the authority of the posters, and the validity of thier posts, nichtwahr? The ToaW family is going to be the same, reguardless, throughout, eh?

Let's face it, ToaW is just about as inflicted as 'Battle-Tech', in that it started from a 'boardgame' gone ported to 'puter' version, and that the PLAYERS can force differences into the 'rule play'.......The 3.4 iteration is supposed to be the final patch....just by the 'community' thread sort of thing.

I'd personally like it if the 'patch' got finished (rather than expanded and tested over and over) , and Matrix asked me for the money for ToaW 4, !!!!

Myself: fk any more patches, let's see the parameter for T-4, and then we'll know if the game is worth the wait!

Kurt

[macgregor]

Matrix is taking a big risk. Instead of holding our focus on it's product, it has more or less sent the grognard community searching for the best grognard product. Luckily for them there is no 'announced' competition right now for such a product. But as sure as there is the word 'grognard' in the english vernacular, there is a vision of the perfect grognard product. Once a competitive product is announced out of a calculated demand by another company, Matrix will then scramble to deliver on it's promise. I'm afraid it will be too little too late at that point. I don't know what matrix paid to obtain TOAW but I believe they've recuperated their investment through exciting the grognard community with this wishful vision of a better product. If their current course is to be maintained however, I think they're better off marketing the game 'as is' to another company as opposed to promising the grognard community a better game that will take many years if it is to be accomplished at all. To what extent Matrix considers itself 'in the service of the grognard community' I don't know. But they are dissuading people on an almost weekly basis with their inaction. I know. I get the emails. I for one am tired of showing up on this website only to find nothing. And so the search continues....

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: L`zard

@Damezzi:

Glad you didn't take the previous as a slam.......(You might notice that I'm your 'friend' on the GS forum, eh?) .............

Sure!

I'm in total agreement that something in the way of a NEW manual would be timely. This is something I was trying to start with the 'ToaW University' on the GS/forum, eh?

That was a great initiative. Yet the problem is filtering and compiling all information. Hardcore designers will go around searching or asking, but I'm sure that a lot of designers do with what they have at hands and some may even give up when stuck. Maybe some scenarios that aren't all that good would be a lot better if there was something like a scenario designer's guide, with the accumulated experience of all those years of scenario design. I'm not a scenario designer, but it isn't difficult to find discussion about the misguided use of things like supply levels, force proficiency, attrition divider, victory conditions, and so on. Things that could easily be avoided if designers had easy access to tips, examples and explanations about the precise influence of those variables. It may seem obvious from reading the manual, but one notices that there is a great deal of experience attached to it. What works in one condition may not work in another.

Let's face it, ToaW is just about as inflicted as 'Battle-Tech', in that it started from a 'boardgame' gone ported to 'puter' version, and that the PLAYERS can force differences into the 'rule play'.......The 3.4 iteration is supposed to be the final patch....just by the 'community' thread sort of thing.

I remember reading about the possibility of another patch after this one; a corrective patch perhaps, considering issues may show up when the significant changes of the next patch begin to be used.

I'd personally like it if the 'patch' got finished (rather than expanded and tested over and over) , and Matrix asked me for the money for ToaW 4, !!!!

Myself: fk any more patches, let's see the parameter for T-4, and then we'll know if the game is worth the wait!

Kurt

I tended to prefer waiting more to have a more comprehensive patch, but at this point I think I share your opinion.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: damezzi
I tended to prefer waiting more to have a more comprehensive patch, but at this point I think I share your opinion.

All things equal, it seems to ME that the .79 patch should be as comprehensive as might be needed for the nonce........it would give all of us something to chew for at least a year, if the pattern is the same as the last set o' patchs, eh?

I know fer sher that waiting for another patch after .79 isn't going to do any of the designers any good, as they will have to wait one MORE time to playtest any current scenario befor release.......and considering the basic complexity of playtesting to 'PROOF' grade, this can take up to a year...

Methinx it might be more useful to go to the 'ToaW IV' "discussion" state, rather than argue out the current 'wish-list' much more.

What I believe I've heard from Ralph, is that HE'd rather work in some new code, rather than continue to belabor Norm's old stuff, eh? Personally, I think it might be time to give Ralph the chance........