The Art of Conflict 2.0

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Raindem
... Each release has been leaps and bounds beyond the last (at least as far as scenario design tools go).

...

I would caveat that by saying that the editor in it's current form is not superior to TOAW3, at best it would be similar, but since many of the export / import / save functions are broken, it's worse.

Unless you are referring to the game as a design tool, then yes, each release has been theoretically incrementally better, but I wonder why every-time I read the playtest forum I go back to TOAW 3 as being something I can trust much more not to have broken functions behind the hood.

[Lobster]

To be fair TOAWIII had a much larger team working on it and it had just been purchased from Talonsoft so the code wasn't as far different as the original. Now the 'team' is two people with one of the two working on it only some of the time and not seeming to care about it most of the time.

I guess it should come as no surprise that this seems like the period of time between 3.4 and 4.1. Years of waiting for something that should have taken 80% less time.

[DD696]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

the first order of business should be (IMHO) to fix TOAW

There had been a major effort in the Development Forum to affect some change and get TOAW on the right track. I can't speak to specifics but the result is nothing is going to happen. Don't misunderstand, TOAW is not dead, it is constantly being worked on.

My opinion, and my interest in another project is fired by the fact that, TOAW development has been stagnant for fifteen years or more. Every couple years we get a little bit of a new version that will include some new content along with some new bugs. My contention is that for the best game in the history of gaming, this record is completely unacceptable. And this is wholly a result of TOAW being selfishly held hostage by the current developer. I could say a few other things, but it wouldn't change anything, we've already been thru it all on the Development Forum. I'm not satisfied going to my grave knowing that more could have been done.

I think everyone interested in this game should pay careful attention to what sPzAbt653 says.

I will also say that if anyone has any interest in helping to create a game from the ground up to contact larryfulkerson via PM. If the developer refuses to do anything, and Slitherine refuses to plant a firm kick on the developer's non moving posterior to get it moving, then perhaps those of us who value the concept of the game can work together to create a much better product.

Edited for a missing word.

[altipueri]

So should I go back to TOAW 3 ?

There seems to be a sudden outbreak of people who I thought supported the game ranting at Matrix and saying they'll build a new game.

I'm only an occasional player, and of small scenarios, but annually I seem to say that I really must get to know TOAW better and as I downloaded some large pack of old scenarios perhaps I should just play them with TOAW 3.

[DD696]

We all must make our own choices.

[sPzAbt653]

There seems to be a sudden outbreak

You haven't noticed, this has been going on for years. Its tiring, and many/most of the best and brightest TOAW minds have moved on to other projects/games.

perhaps I should just play them with TOAW 3.

I've played games with IV and don't see any reason to avoid doing so. The Original UI is still available, and the Original Graphics can for the most part be used although it takes a little effort. It's not necessary to use the Original stuff, as you can see by the AAR's that some are using the new stuff.

Plus, IV does have the Jump Map [8D]

[ncc1701e]

Whoauu... This is insurrection. Developing a game can be hard. We need to think about plenty of things:
. database
. graphics
. sounds
. combat rules
. AI
. and testing mechanisms

Could be interesting indeed.

[ncc1701e]

Regarding the combat rules and the outcome of a battle (I think this is the most important just before AI), you should read couple of things:

a. Understanding War from Trevor Dupuy
b. Military Power from Stephen Biddle
c. War by Numbers from Christopher Lawrence

Very interesting reading to:
1. understand the formulas to code for your combat engine
2. guide your schema for the equipment database that you will need to implement

[76mm]

Thanks for the tips, looks interesting!

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Regarding the combat rules and the outcome of a battle (I think this is the most important just before AI), you should read couple of things:

a. Understanding War from Trevor Dupuy
b. Military Power from Stephen Biddle
c. War by Numbers from Christopher Lawrence

Very interesting reading to:
1. understand the formulas to code for your combat engine
2. guide your schema for the equipment database that you will need to implement

You don't really have to design a wargame like TOAW from scratch. Nigel Askey did it for you. Start with Volume I. http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the- ... ctiveness/

[Hellen_slith]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

So should I go back to TOAW 3 ?

There seems to be a sudden outbreak of people who I thought supported the game ranting at Matrix and saying they'll build a new game.

I'm only an occasional player, and of small scenarios, but annually I seem to say that I really must get to know TOAW better and as I downloaded some large pack of old scenarios perhaps I should just play them with TOAW 3.

IMHO: Yes and No.

For me, I am a refugee from TOAWII / ACOW days, and I never really had any solid time investment blok to really learn the game back then. I did manage to design a very small scenario for ACOW, which even then had some kindly reviews (alas, I lost that scenario, so it is somewhere in Gehanna now....) ... if anyone still has my "To the Rescue" scene somewhere, I would very much like to get a copy of it. ANYWAY,

I even bought TOAW III years ago, but never installed it. Now that I have the time to investigate all those scenarios for III (and there are a BOATLOAD of them) I find that I spend all of my time now playing TOAW IV, so III is still on the back burner for me.

It is what it is. I continue to think that efforts to "jump ship" are misplaced and that Matrix / Slitherine might respond to honeyed prods. However, any new game should (I think) have a robust PBEM / Multiplayer aspect. My candlewick right now is trying to get the Slitherine "plus plus PBEM" ironed out and working properly.

Good luck with the project!

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
You don't really have to design a wargame like TOAW from scratch. Nigel Askey did it for you.

I've read that his "model" or whatever won't come out until his last book, which I understand might be a ways off? Would Volume I be interesting for this kind of thing?

I've been looking at his books for some time but have been put off by the price, although now I see that the Kindle version of Volume I is only $14, so pretty reasonable...

[Simon Edmonds]

It is weird how this thread has gone off in a tangent in the last week. It's a bit like somebody say's "we can make a better tyre for this car", and a group rushes off to invent a wheel to put it on.
Remember. THERE IS NOT MUCH WRONG WITH TOAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Yes I would like to see some changes. But not at the cost of a war with Matrix. I think we should offer to take the antiquated code from Matrix. Convert it to modern code; without changing anything. And then give it back. That gives everyone a concrete foundation to work from. I'm sure both Matrix and the developers would be more motivated towards improvements it there is a modern code to work from.
I am retired, and I spend about 6 hours a day, 7 days a week, playing wargames or researching war history. I have some background in computing and a basic understanding of programming. I for one would be willing to put my hand up to help if the owners and developers are interested in going in this direction.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Lobster
You don't really have to design a wargame like TOAW from scratch. Nigel Askey did it for you.

I've read that his "model" or whatever won't come out until his last book, which I understand might be a ways off? Would Volume I be interesting for this kind of thing?

I've been looking at his books for some time but have been put off by the price, although now I see that the Kindle version of Volume I is only $14, so pretty reasonable...

Volume one does a lot of the work of developing a war game. But of course it isn't the whole thing. One of the more complex things in a war game is the development of a weapons systems attributes, how those weapon systems interact with one another, building a database that can compare all of the weapons systems with one another..yada yada yada. I really don't think people quite have a grasp on what is involved. It's not like a science fiction game where you can make stuff up. And even the solid science behind all of the weapons testing doesn't doesn't agree from one source to another. Volume one helps a lot in that regard and following volumes takes the formulas and presents them in a hard format for each nation. If a weapon system isn't there then the formulas will allow someone to come up with the proper numbers for that weapon system. I'm not a math guy and never will be so I've not tried myself.

As far as making a complex war game that doesn't need a manual of some kind, good luck with that. [;)]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Simon Edmonds
Yes I would like to see some changes. But not at the cost of a war with Matrix.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call this a "war" with Matrix... I'd be happy for Matrix in general, and TOAW in particular, to do very well. But the complete lack of communication has made me despair of seeing any changes in the foreseeable future, much less those that I'd personally like to see.

I hope that Matrix takes you up on your offer to help, and that in that event you (or someone else) will then deign to let the rest of us know what is going on.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
One of the more complex things in a war game is the development of a weapons systems attributes, how those weapon systems interact with one another, building a database that can compare all of the weapons systems with one another..yada yada yada. I really don't think people quite have a grasp on what is involved.

I know that I don't! I just ordered the Kindle version of Volume I, will take a look.

[sPzAbt653]

Again guys, read my posts here if you haven't. Nothing is going to change with the progress TOAW. I've put too many of my years into attempts to improve it, and it is time to move on.

I have no issue with Matrix, they have no control over TOAW, it's not their fault. I've had good relations with a few folks there. I see no reason why some negative comments have been made about them. Of course, I don't know what others know, and no one knows what I know, so to each our own.

If a future reality holds a new game, it will need a publisher/distributor. What then, steam? omg.

[fogger]

Has anybody approached Matrix about doing the new game? They already have the infrastructure in place. They are probably just as ticked off as everybody else about the lack of process. If "key" people (Steve, Bob, ??) have good relations with some of the people at Martix why burn bridges? I am sure that if there is a dollar to be made they will be in it.

Bob has not commented here but I am sure he (and the people at Matrix) have read the above posts. It would appear to me that Bob is working his butt off trying to fix TOAW. I think he would have a good idea of what is involved in starting a new game.

I am no programmer but to me it appears that if all the resources that would have to be sunk into a new game were applied to TOAW we would end up a "Roll Royce" of games. Why will Matrix not allow this to happen? They do own the game don't they?

Why are we going to "destroy the village to save it"?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: fogger
I am no programmer but to me it appears that if all the resources that would have to be sunk into a new game were applied to TOAW we would end up a "Roll Royce" of games.

Yes and no. While TOAW is clearly an advanced game, AFAIK it is also based on 20 year old code, which might be considerably harder to work on than something new. Dunno..

ORIGINAL: fogger
Why will Matrix not allow this to happen? They do own the game don't they?

Well, that's the big question. If Matrix is following this game at all (not especially obvious), they could either post here seeking help or reach out to individuals. AFAIK that's not happened, who knows why?

ORIGINAL: fogger
Why are we going to "destroy the village to save it"?

Honestly I don't think it is quite fair to accuse the players of destroying the game, or even wanting to... First of all, nothing is being destroyed. Second, Matrix/the dev team hasn't released a much-awaited patch for eons and has basically totally stopped communicating with the player base about the game. Third, if Matrix wanted player help with the game, it could reach out for it. But instead...crickets.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Honestly I don't think it is quite fair to accuse the players of destroying the game, or even wanting to... First of all, nothing is being destroyed. Second, Matrix/the dev team hasn't released a much-awaited patch for eons and has basically totally stopped communicating with the player base about the game. Third, if Matrix wanted player help with the game, it could reach out for it. But instead...crickets.

Delete Matrix from the comments and insert the dev and you have a statement and that's closer to the truth.