Two questions on the new version

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
That's right. Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem. This is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, selfish attitude toward this game I've encountered since being one of the first people to post on this forum. What a crock! Who would tell the programmer NOT to do work on the game unless he was setup by the programmer? David Heath is an idiot for letting this happen. As some know, I enjoy posting and I will do my utmost to expose this over-priced turd for the sham it is.

No conspiracies, just different priorities. Take a look at the wishlist, there are 47 pages of ways to change TOAW.

For the 3.4 patch, the major things we picked like reworking supply were simply more important for that patch than Naval warfare. That doesn't mean that will be true for a future patch.

I appreciate passion, but please don't make any more personal attacks. If you want to be helpful, critique the naval warfare mod listed in the wishlist or work up your own scheme. If you want to be even more helpful, tell me how the AI would work for a naval oponent.

Ralph

[Curtis Lemay]

As I'm posting, Ralph is roaring ahead with 3.5. And, while I hate to get people salivating over it when 3.4 has just come out, if things work out as planned, it's going to have some very sexy things in it (in fact, it already has), including some of the naval issues. After years spent mostly just fixing things that never worked right in TOAW, we finally seem to have our heads far enough above water to be able to address some of the "blue sky" desires.

But there has to be a recognition of the enormous number of those desires, and the non-trivial nature of their implementation. You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

By the way, I'm posting this from the vicinity of Trinidad, Colombia.

[macgregor]

I appreciate the responses from the developers. It's the responses from the players that just incenses me. I just hope that if the day arrives that the naval combat improves, that they don't all start whining like me - saying things like 'I don't like the game now that you improved the scope'. I'm confused. I honestly don't know what is driving this kind of reaction.

[E]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem.

You're really starting to sound like Ernie...

"Rubber ducky, you're the one!
You make bath-time, lots of fun!
Rubber ducky, I'm awfully fond of you!"

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

How's 16:00 work for you? *grin*

[marjur]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As I'm posting, Ralph is roaring ahead with 3.5. And, while I hate to get people salivating over it when 3.4 has just come out, if things work out as planned, it's going to have some very sexy things in it (in fact, it already has), including some of the naval issues. After years spent mostly just fixing things that never worked right in TOAW, we finally seem to have our heads far enough above water to be able to address some of the "blue sky" desires.

But there has to be a recognition of the enormous number of those desires, and the non-trivial nature of their implementation. You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

By the way, I'm posting this from the vicinity of Trinidad, Colombia.

Wow, already a new patch in the works!

I wonder what'll be in it [&:]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: marjur
Wow, already a new patch in the works!
I wonder what'll be in it [&:]

'Stuff'

I can confirm that I've coded settings in the INI file to allow you to adjust the animation delays for Movement and for Combat. I cannot confirm that they actually will be in 3.5, but they are simple enough that I would be surprised if they get pulled.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem.

You're really starting to sound like Ernie...

"Rubber ducky, you're the one!
You make bath-time, lots of fun!
Rubber ducky, I'm awfully fond of you!"

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You can ask for the moon, but expecting it to be delivered by noon is infantile.

How's 16:00 work for you? *grin*

Let me get this straight ...you're making a 'Sesame Street' reference ...in response to a comment I made about people who resist progress and technological improvement? Can someone explain this to me? Is there a segway I'm missing, some correlation there? I don't get it. This has definitely reached the level of 'twilight zone'.

In all fairness Curtis and I appreciate your response, can we agree that comparing the 7 years I have posted(I'm one of the original members) ideas and offered suggestions to a couple hours doesn't correlate either. In fact, my very first post in Matrix 7 years ago, was about this very subject.

It matters not to me what the problem is between the developers, or the other players and I is, if me leaving this forum and terminating my membership is the answer, and perhaps someone would care to start a thread, if enough of you wish it, I certainly will.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I can confirm that I've coded settings in the INI file to allow you to adjust the animation delays for Movement and for Combat. I cannot confirm that they actually will be in 3.5, but they are simple enough that I would be surprised if they get pulled.

Hey, that's great. Fact is, I'd like to slow down animation displays even more, and more finely tuned, than what's available in 3.4 (via slowAnimation=Y). A pause-game hot-key would be a nice addition, too.

Enhanced naval (and air) combat? Wow, it keeps getting better and better!

[E]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Let me get this straight ...you're making a 'Sesame Street' reference ...in response to a comment I made about people who resist progress and technological improvement? Can someone explain this to me? Is there a segway I'm missing, some correlation there? I don't get it. This has definitely reached the level of 'twilight zone'.

It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to your obsession with water toys (I mean "Naval Combat Modeling" *grin*). The fact that it was Sesame Street-level jibe, seemed even more appropriate in the context of your telling the other poster his species should have remained on all fours. *grin*

[Sprocket62]

I believe macgregor would like this included in the next patch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System

[macgregor]

 E's comment has finally found redemption.

I must say, the TOAW demographic seems to have taken on a new look since when I first visited. 

[E]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
 E's comment has found redemption.

I must first and foremost (in retrospect), apologize for the missing "*grin*" from the "Rubber Ducky" portion of my post (I thought I put it in there *ack*). Second of all, I can (sort of) identify with your feeling of betrayal... I bought "Advanced Tactics" last year during the sale, only to find after the fact, that it required (dot)NET... a system that not only do I refuse to install, but _cannot_ install. So I have a game I cannot even try, even though (dot)NET was not on the list of "requirements." So, while your feelings of betrayal may be open to interpretation, I can still identify with them. And yet, we both need to... let go, take our lumps, and be much more careful in the future (as if that would've helped either of us... sometimes you win and sometimes you don't.

[Nova538]

Folks,
As one of the original "bitchers" about the naval combat in the game I can see some inprovment in the current version. I've been looking at my South Pacific scenario recently. The air and naval forces seem to be more involved with each other than previously. They also don't seem as reckless. As for the need for good naval modeling in an operational level game, I still think it is important. The results of a sea battle can effect the results of the land campaign. I can see no real need for units such as Tenders, or Oilers, except as chum for the DBs, and surface ships, in this game. Subs would be an improvement, primarily as scouts and supply breakers.
Thanks,
NoVa

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Nova538
I've been looking at my South Pacific scenario recently....

So um..........hey Nova538......would you be so kind as to send me a copy of your South Pacific scenario. I'd very much like to look that bad boy over and play it some. I'm at fullkersonlarry60(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks so muchly.

[Nova538]

Larry,
No problem. it will be comming to you shortly.
Nova

[larryfulkerson]

Got it.  I'll playtest this bad boy for you.  Hey maybe an AAR is in order here !   Fairfax, VA.  huh?  I used to live there when I worked in DC.  Small world.

Thanks again.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Nova538

... I've been looking at my South Pacific scenario recently ...

Do you anticipate publicly releasing an updated 3.4-compatible version? If not, might I get a private copy, too? [:)]

robert(dot)osterlund(at)comcast(dot)net

[larryfulkerson]

Funny thing......I open the scenario and look at the losses screen first thing and there's losses listed already for certain types of equipment.  Happens with 3.4.202 and 3.5.0.7 both.  

[Oberst_Klink]

3.5.0.7? Uncle Larry already got the next Beta? Maybe the losses already reflect the anicipated naval improvements, convoy system,... fully designed AO, AP, APD, SS, CS, CVE, CVL all there and done'in at the Iron Bottom Sound? *snickers*

But yeah, I'd like to have a look at the SouPac scenario as well Nova, bitte.

kLiNk, Oberst

[Iron Stringbean]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: macgregor
... As some know, I enjoy posting ...

And on occasion I enjoy clicking the little green block button.

Begone, macgregor!

Ah! Thank you for pointing this out!