The Operational Art of War v3.4.0.201 Public Beta

[Andrew Loveridge]

Hello all,

We have a new version of the Public Beta available in the Members Club. It addresses many issues introduced with all the new improvements added in 3.4, including new versions of the exe for Windows 98 systems and earlier, 'Slower' systems. Links for these can be found in the Windows Start Menu. (We have added links to the new Game Menu, but for some reason they are not working) For a complete list of all the changes check out the Whats New PDF.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey Andrew:  Roger and I have started a game of Armageddon 2015 and we're running the 3.4.191 version.  Would you recommend up-versioning or just staying 191?  I guess what I'm asking is what exactly has changed to make the new 201 version and do the changes have anything to do with game-play.  I'm not Roger and I should up-version or not.

[Telumar]

I had a look at the new What's new briefing and the only change mentioned there is about scenario specific PO files. Very interesting.

Though i would be interested in all changes and bug fixed since .191 as Ralph posted on his site for earlier versions. Where is he? Why has this been released as an entire package..? Questions...questions..

[ralphtricky]

I'm away from my pc until Sunday night. I think that naval supply wa fixed. I do not remember the other changes.201 should be the final 3.4 patch once the install issues are fixed, so I would recommend updating to it.

[Curtis Lemay]

The TOAW_Log was fixed.

An Elmer Assist problem was fixed.

Naval supply was fixed.

Cycling through potential combats with the Attack Planner no longer includes potential bombardments.

The .AI file thing.

Older versions can't load .201 saves.

That's all I can think of for now.

[Telumar]

Thank you, Bob and Ralph.

The .AI file is a good idea, looks interesting, when i have the time i'll tweak around with it and see what one could get out of this.

Now for the unpleasant part :

Naval supply was fixed.

A change for the worse. We had this discussion here: tm.asp?m=2611142 , so i don't want to repeat arguments for leaving the so-called bug as it is. Just that all of the discussion's participants were against "fixing" it, and those participants were all long time TOAW players/wargamers and experienced (delete this in my case) scenario designers.
I only want to say (as an argument against fixing) that it wouldn't have broken many scenarios and if so, this hand full of cases could have been edited for the final 3.4 release. Pity.

[Erik2]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Thank you, Bob and Ralph.

The .AI file is a good idea, looks interesting, when i have the time i'll tweak around with it and see what one could get out of this.

Now for the unpleasant part :

Naval supply was fixed.

A change for the worse. We had this discussion here: tm.asp?m=2611142 , so i don't want to repeat arguments for leaving the so-called bug as it is. Just that all of the discussion's participants were against "fixing" it, and those participants were all long time TOAW players/wargamers and experienced (delete this in my case) scenario designers.
I only want to say (as an argument against fixing) that it wouldn't have broken many scenarios and if so, this hand full of cases could have been edited for the final 3.4 release. Pity.

I agree. This really is a backward step. Now all ships at sea will always be in supply if I understand it correctly. Not very realistic at all.
The new variable supply points give scenario designers a nice tool to differ between port supply capacities. I have experienced with that in my Weserubung scenario and it works really well.
In fact, I do not think I will update this time until the fix is refixed.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

A change for the worse. We had this discussion here: tm.asp?m=2611142 , so i don't want to repeat arguments for leaving the so-called bug as it is. Just that all of the discussion's participants were against "fixing" it, and those participants were all long time TOAW players/wargamers and experienced (delete this in my case) scenario designers.

Not quite true. And how about the 500 or so designers who aren't around any more to post in.

I only want to say (as an argument against fixing) that it wouldn't have broken many scenarios and if so, this hand full of cases could have been edited for the final 3.4 release. Pity.

We don't know how many it would have broken - one is too many. And they couldn't have even been identified before release, much less fixed. Most wouldn't even have been fixable. This bug would have allowed no resupply at sea at all. Not realistic in plenty of topics.

It was a bug. It had to be fixed. Maybe we can add a designer option for this at some point, but it was too late for that in 3.4. And it needed to be done in a more carefully considered fashion.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It was a bug. It had to be fixed....

How about the introduction of a replenishment ship like they have in real navies. It could be thought of as a "floating supply point" of sorts. Ships within a certain range of it are "in" supply. One, two, three hexes, you pick.

[philturco]

Can I upgrade to this new beta in a PBEM I've already started if both my opponent and myself upgrade at the same time ?

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

A change for the worse. We had this discussion here: tm.asp?m=2611142 , so i don't want to repeat arguments for leaving the so-called bug as it is. Just that all of the discussion's participants were against "fixing" it, and those participants were all long time TOAW players/wargamers and experienced (delete this in my case) scenario designers.

Not quite true. And how about the 500 or so designers who aren't around any more to post in.

I only want to say (as an argument against fixing) that it wouldn't have broken many scenarios and if so, this hand full of cases could have been edited for the final 3.4 release. Pity.

We don't know how many it would have broken - one is too many. And they couldn't have even been identified before release, much less fixed. Most wouldn't even have been fixable. This bug would have allowed no resupply at sea at all. Not realistic in plenty of topics.

It was a bug. It had to be fixed. Maybe we can add a designer option for this at some point, but it was too late for that in 3.4. And it needed to be done in a more carefully considered fashion.

Totally exaggerated.

Some designers may be out of reach. But then, what do you fear if you change some bits and bytes of their original data by yourself or someone else from the Beta testers or the community? Patent lawyers?

Well, it's too late anyway.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Bibbo
Can I upgrade to this new beta in a PBEM I've already started if both my opponent and myself upgrade at the same time ?

My understanding is that the newest versions can read 'old version' files but the old versions can't read the new files formating. I'm in the same boat ( a PBEM opponent and I changing to the new version ) and my opponent and I have discussed this and we came to the conclusion that maybe it's not such a good thing this new version.......it aledgedly breaks the naval rules by allowing ships to be 'in supply' virtually anywhere on the water for all time. Not exactly realistic. My opponent and I aren't planning on up-versioning anytime soon.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

A change for the worse. We had this discussion here: tm.asp?m=2611142 , so i don't want to repeat arguments for leaving the so-called bug as it is. Just that all of the discussion's participants were against "fixing" it, and those participants were all long time TOAW players/wargamers and experienced (delete this in my case) scenario designers.

Not quite true. And how about the 500 or so designers who aren't around any more to post in.

I only want to say (as an argument against fixing) that it wouldn't have broken many scenarios and if so, this hand full of cases could have been edited for the final 3.4 release. Pity.

We don't know how many it would have broken - one is too many. And they couldn't have even been identified before release, much less fixed. Most wouldn't even have been fixable. This bug would have allowed no resupply at sea at all. Not realistic in plenty of topics.

It was a bug. It had to be fixed. Maybe we can add a designer option for this at some point, but it was too late for that in 3.4. And it needed to be done in a more carefully considered fashion.

Totally exaggerated.

Some designers may be out of reach. But then, what do you fear if you change some bits and bytes of their original data by yourself or someone else from the Beta testers or the community? Patent lawyers?

Well, it's too late anyway.

We misunderstand each other i think...

I meant each one of the discussion participants was either an experienced TOAW player or scenario designer.

And yes, one single broken scenario will already be too much.

And no, i don't think that a lot of scenarios would have been affected. And those that would have been could have easily been fixed. When the designer might be out of reach, then without his consent.

And yes, a designer option would be appreciated, but the other way around..

And yet i think it is a change for the worse.

[ogar]

I've got to start by once again, thanking Curtis, and everyone involved in getting TOAW to a version 3.4. I really appreciate the efforts and the attention; sometimes I do not agree with decisions, but those are quite few in comparison to the decisions I agree with and the results I enjoy. This time, this decision is one I do not like.

I will be glad to see designers given the option to not have all-supply all-the-time for any naval units.

I did not think this was even a problem let alone a 'bug'; it was the logical effect of the new supply rules -- which I along with many others requested, looked forward to, and am now enjoying (not sure if enjoy is what I do with no enough supply where I want it, but...)

Anyhow -- decision has been made; it's in the new version as a fix; given the designers the option to enable/disable it is very good.

I'm a little grouchy over this, but please re-read my opening sentence.

[Silvanski]

Nice to see it available at last, even it's the beta. I've been running the test version in a separate directory for some time and it includes sevral bug fixes as Curtis described
I only wish the PNG graphics came as a separate download, cuz I use a mix of graphics and customized opartfonts.ini. which means some copy and paste work has to be done  

[Erik2]

It was a bug. It had to be fixed. Maybe we can add a designer option for this at some point, but it was too late for that in 3.4. And it needed to be done in a more carefully considered fashion.

How is restricting naval supply to ports a bug? This is the situation in real life. In my testing in forces the vessels to enter a supplied port after 2-3 days (day-turn scenario) of action which I think is realistic.
Having unrestricted supply where ships may stay fully supplied at sea until the world ends is the bug IMO.

Other than that, the 3.4 version is a leap forward and everyone involved deserves a big thank you.

Erik

[secadegas]

I totally agree with the team's decision on this. It is pretty obvious this wasn't a requested change. All of us have been dealing with ships' full supply for "ages".
This was never a problem...

It's good for your particular scenarios... so what?? No one plays TOAW for its naval warfare. We all know there are other platforms doing it much better.

I tend to understand people that never "shoot a PBEM turn in anger" posting and making a lot of "serious" demands.

However I never understood hard veterans behaving like "idealists" after having taken so much fun from this game on much "rough" versions.

[Telumar]

It's good for your particular scenarios... so what?? No one plays TOAW for its naval warfare. We all know there are other platforms doing it much better.

So what? Leave it as it is because that paricular aspect of the model is 'rough' anyway..?

However I never understood hard veterans behaving like "idealists" after having taken so much fun from this game on much "rough" versions.

Because now those veterans have a chance of getting a smoother version. Because now we have an excellent developer/team that does listen to the community. (Thank you for your efforts and work, Ralph, Bob et al. - very much appreciated despite this little discussion we have)

This was not always the case as you know..


Yes, it was not a requested feature, but the feedback from the community, or at least from those people that posted, tended towards the direction of letting the bug stand as it is and regard it as a feature. Bob (and Ralph?) has announced a designer option for this. Maybe we should calm down now all.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It was a bug. It had to be fixed....

How about the introduction of a replenishment ship like they have in real navies. It could be thought of as a "floating supply point" of sorts. Ships within a certain range of it are "in" supply. One, two, three hexes, you pick.

Something of that nature would be desireable even if the topic was a situation where ships weren't being kept in supply at sea. But, obviously, that will take some development.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Totally exaggerated.

Some designers may be out of reach. But then, what do you fear if you change some bits and bytes of their original data by yourself or someone else from the Beta testers or the community? Patent lawyers?

Well, it's too late anyway.

Not exaggerated at all. And it would be humanly impossible to modify an unknown number of stranger's scenarios in time for release this decade. That's assuming any form of fix could be devised. Scenarios that model topic where ships were being kept in supply at sea couldn't be fixed at all. And what about all the scenarios that are out there but not in the scenario suite - where do we get any right to screw with those?