Said it before, and saying it again....

[sithlord_shag]

In terms of building scenarios Stucco, I would encourage you to persist. Yeah it is clunky but generally placing units is not one of things you would typically have trouble with. The editor does get easier as you use it more.

Any reader of this forum can get a clear idea that TOAW does not have a huge resource priority for matrix. Bob and I just had a discussion in another thread about this. Its a shame but the key question is are scarce resources justified in changing something that can be painful at times as opposed to fatal. I dont think so and even though I whinge about evil-ed, it really is not so bad to justify the extensive modification it might need. I dont even think you could modify the way I would like without a whole rebuild.

Many scenario design problems stem from going in half-assed not from the UI. Good research and planning really does overcome a lot of problems.

Sure documentation is problem as well but when this was released in 98, it was a big game and I dont think that TS or Norm could really have covered the burden of detailing all its features in one manual. It is so detailed there is stuff in it you forget. I actually realised something I had forgotten when I started doing scenario design again after 20 years the other day.

Given the way the resources seem to be allocated to the game its lucky to have Bob. I dont how they are paying you mate, fish, loaves or old fashioned love...whatever it is keep it up. I'm happy to contribute to whatever fund you purchase your illicit or legitimate pleasures from anytime.

[Lobster]

Actually making the map and units and deploying them is the least of problems. Researching everything in an atttempt to get it right instead of getting it somewhat close is the most time consuming by far. So much contradiction in military history. You can even have histories from two different people in the same division that see things differently.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Actually making the map and units and deploying them is the least of problems. Researching everything in an atttempt to get it right instead of getting it somewhat close is the most time consuming by far. So much contradiction in military history. You can even have histories from two different people in the same division that see things differently.

I would say the effort in designing a scenario is as follows:

Building the OOB is easier than doing the research is easier than building the map is easier than playtesting.

With Fall Grau, the map was a work in progress for about six years. About eight years were then spent on testing (the release version is 2.27 and almost every version since 2.0 had at least one playtest, with the same being true of 1.0 to 1.22, on the smaller map). If you haven't done a blind playtest the scenario is probably broken no matter how much time you spent on the research. Of course with Fall Grau there was very little research as it's not that kind of scenario- and anyway I inherited the OOB etc. from Jeremy.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Actually making the map and units and deploying them is the least of problems. Researching everything in an atttempt to get it right instead of getting it somewhat close is the most time consuming by far. So much contradiction in military history. You can even have histories from two different people in the same division that see things differently.

+1

Seriously, if trivial things like deployment are too much work for you, what sort of research will your audience think you did?

[Zovs]

Well for most of the surviving scenario designers and editors, most of us have been playing this (in one version or another) since 1998 when TalonSoft first released it. It was mind blowing back then. As much as I gripe about it, TOAW is so easy to get into and designing scenarios is not that big of deal as long as you follow the number one golden rule.

Save Often!

IIRC there was an editor tutorial back in 1998 and then I think also when ACOW (A Century of Warfare) that were included from TalonSoft's manual. It what a lot of used to build things.

The main problem with the TOAW IV editor is if you use the new on map editor it has a tendency to CTD and thus you loosing al your work.

Hence the Rule # 1

save often and then save again

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Well for most of the surviving scenario designers and editors, most of us have been playing this (in one version or another) since 1998 when TalonSoft first released it. It was mind blowing back then. As much as I gripe about it, TOAW is so easy to get into and designing scenarios is not that big of deal as long as you follow the number one golden rule.

Save Often!

IIRC there was an editor tutorial back in 1998 and then I think also when ACOW (A Century of Warfare) that were included from TalonSoft's manual. It what a lot of used to build things.

The main problem with the TOAW IV editor is if you use the new on map editor it has a tendency to CTD and thus you loosing al your work.

Hence the Rule # 1

save often and then save again

This is not a new rule. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in the editor will have at some point (usually after a four-hour mapping session) accidentally clicked "fill to border" and then panic-clicked somewhere else so it can't be undone.

Save often.

[Zovs]

Roger that.

Or after spending four hours in the event editor and forgetting to save after the fourth event when you got to event 304 and it CTD you just walk away from that scenario for at least 6 months to a year….

[Lobster]

The A Century of War manual has a General Notes on Scenario Creation section but no tutorial. Saving often is more of a standard in the computer world regardless of what you are doing. But having said that, I have not had a CTD since I don't know when. But that fill to border thing, that will cause a stroke.

So yeah, save often. You never know what the cat will do or the grandkids or your lack of sleep because you wanted to do just one more thing.

[sPzAbt653]

Outdated as it is, I've found TOAW's Editors to be better to work with than the several other games with editors that I have. The 'problem' with the TOAW Editors, if I may make my own analogy, is that they are like a DOS program wrapped in an User Interface. Other games' Editors are obviously created for and with Windows and since most of us are more familiar with that, we hear these types of complaints. But as far as I am concerned you take Scripts and Windows Based OOB's and bury them with the dog poop. TOAW is much nicer to work with.

If you are popping in to make a 'mod', then sure it is going to be difficult without any instruction. But that is why we are all here, and that is actually why I came here in the first place in 2007, to ask an editing question. Why search a manual when you can ask here directly?

If you are making a full scenario from scratch, you have to realize that it takes time commensurate to the scale of the scenario. You can make a small scenario in a few hours, but the larger ones can takes YEARS. And as others have said already, the research takes a huge amount of time also.

To me, the saddest thing was that we had Ralph actively developing new Editors and that was stopped in order to get the Graphics for IV completed. That was a shame because to me, as a scenario designer, those new editors would have been a huge improvement to TOAW. Instead, they weren't completed and therefore they cause issues, and also we got added restrictions to scenario design such as limited icons and tedious unit color change procedures. For all of IV's improvements, items like these leave a sour taste.

For an example of the incomplete 'new' editors, open a scenario in the Editor in III and IV and select a Unit then hit 'U'. Even though IV's is incomplete, you will see the obvious positive difference.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

To me, the saddest thing was that we had Ralph actively developing new Editors and that was stopped in order to get the Graphics for IV completed.

This is grating, as I find the new interface and new graphics ugly and unhelpful. However, I get that Matrix wants to sell the game and for that they have to make it look like it's new even though it's not.

Nothing wrong with the graphics as they were in 1998... I play games a lot older than that.

[parmenio]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Seriously, if trivial things like deployment are too much work for you, what sort of research will your audience think you did?

As ever, you've missed your calling in the Diplomatic Corps.... [8|]

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

This is grating, as I find the new interface and new graphics ugly and unhelpful. However, I get that Matrix wants to sell the game and for that they have to make it look like it's new even though it's not.

Nothing wrong with the graphics as they were in 1998... I play games a lot older than that.

Not only that. There are new games with graphics that resemble something out of the 1980s. And let's not forget Minecraft. The guy from Sweden who made it sold it for 2.5 $$$billion$$$. Blocks anyone?

Contents make a game while graphics are a poor cousin.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Not only that. There are new games with graphics that resemble something out of the 1980s. And let's not forget Minecraft. The guy from Sweden who made it sold it for 2.5 $$$billion$$$. Blocks anyone?

Well, to be fair, Minecraft itself has been around for more than ten years, and those graphics- which include quite complex management of light and shadow- would have been totally impossible for a commercial game in the 1980s. I remember 3D games from about 1990: they didn't look like Minecraft.

The look of a game does matter but the new TOAW graphics would have been entirely possible in 1998 and are really down to an individual person's tastes rather than making things objectively better, especially as there were multiple custom graphics sets already available for TOAW III.

Again, though, it's hard to sell a "new" version of a game when to a casual observer it looks exactly the same. Didn't I already buy this? Or, didn't I already decide not to buy this?

Anyway, this week I have been mostly playing Lords of Chaos on my Atari ST emulator

[Lobster]

Well, to be fair, didn't say Minecraft was around since 1980s. Only implied the graphics are simple. Blocks. What made it popular was people with imaginations. People with imaginations make TOAW what it is too. Not the graphics.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Well, to be fair, didn't say Minecraft was around since 1980s. Only implied the graphics are simple. Blocks. What made it popular was people with imaginations. People with imaginations make TOAW what it is too. Not the graphics.

Well you say that- but have you ever tried playing with the 3D view? It's basically impossible.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: parmenio

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Seriously, if trivial things like deployment are too much work for you, what sort of research will your audience think you did?

As ever, you've missed your calling in the Diplomatic Corps.... [8|]

We're not negotiating a treaty here. We're trying to make the best engineering decisions. That requires the truth.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: parmenio

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Seriously, if trivial things like deployment are too much work for you, what sort of research will your audience think you did?

As ever, you've missed your calling in the Diplomatic Corps.... [8|]

We're not negotiating a treaty here. We're trying to make the best engineering decisions. That requires the truth.

Okay. The deployment editor sends you to the far corner of the map sometimes when you display formations. The deployment editor sends you to some random spot on the map when you want to deploy a unit with a specific turn and location after physically deploying units in the same formation. Those are both annoying and time conusmming. So no, it isn't perfect, the bugs have been present for a very long time and no one wants to fix them. So, while deploying units may be one of the least time consumming it is also one of the most annoying. If I recall Steve reported one or more of these bugs long ago. [;)]

[parmenio]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: parmenio

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Seriously, if trivial things like deployment are too much work for you, what sort of research will your audience think you did?

As ever, you've missed your calling in the Diplomatic Corps.... [8|]

We're not negotiating a treaty here. We're trying to make the best engineering decisions. That requires the truth.

I'm not quite sure how you equate slagging someone off to "making the best engineering decisions"

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: parmenio

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: parmenio




As ever, you've missed your calling in the Diplomatic Corps.... [8|]

We're not negotiating a treaty here. We're trying to make the best engineering decisions. That requires the truth.

I'm not quite sure how you equate slagging someone off to "making the best engineering decisions"

Happy to repeat myself: Making the best engineering decisions requires the truth.

[DD696]

I just had the editor CTD. A flash message said to send the info to Ralph.

Does anybody, anybody, think that would be worthwhile?????????????????????????????

Edit: Really, does anybody think that within the next 5 t0 10 years that issue would be fixed?