When?

[Hellen_slith]

Hello sorry if I missed it but is there any projected date as to when we might get the Matrix Edition?

Can't wait!

[:'(]

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Hellen

Hello sorry if I missed it but is there any projected date as to when we might get the Matrix Edition?

Can't wait!

[:'(]

Not soon enough - but we do want them to actually fix some stuff so I guess we ought to be patient.

[Pippin]

I would imagine it will take quite some time. Unless it's title by title, and even then it will probably take some time.

[JAMiAM]

There should be only one answer to this question, and that is "When it is done."

Anything else will only inspire false hopes, and inflame passions, if not met.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I would imagine it will take quite some time. Unless it's title by title, and even then it will probably take some time.

This brings up another (more easily answered) question: are the other titles generating as much interest as TOAW, or did they just come with it as a kind of job lot?

[danst31]

Look at the relative post counts in the forums. Toaw has 433, BoB and BtR 275, CS 129, BG 70, AoS 8. So obviously toaw is getting the most traffic, but 2 of the other 4 lines are getting a good sided ammount as well. I don't know why AoS is being essentially ignored, but the BG series is probably not getting much attention because HPS is selling modern equivilants of those titles already.

[TAIL GUNNER]

ORIGINAL: danst31

Look at the relative post counts in the forums. Toaw has 433, BoB and BtR 275, CS 129, BG 70, AoS 8. So obviously toaw is getting the most traffic, but 2 of the other 4 lines are getting a good sided ammount as well. I don't know why AoS is being essentially ignored, but the BG series is probably not getting much attention because HPS is selling modern equivilants of those titles already.

Yes, I have TOAW envy....you guys are roaring right out the gate...[;)]

I figured CS games easily outsold TOAW...

You guys are obviously very passionate about this game![:D]

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

ORIGINAL: danst31

Look at the relative post counts in the forums. Toaw has 433, BoB and BtR 275, CS 129, BG 70, AoS 8. So obviously toaw is getting the most traffic, but 2 of the other 4 lines are getting a good sided ammount as well. I don't know why AoS is being essentially ignored, but the BG series is probably not getting much attention because HPS is selling modern equivilants of those titles already.

Yes, I have TOAW envy....you guys are roaring right out the gate...[;)]

I figured CS games easily outsold TOAW...

You guys are obviously very passionate about this game![:D]

Were bloody fanatics...if we don't get what we want expect suicide bombing to be our next stop. The only real defence is that half the time we can't agree about what it is we want.

[danst31]

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

I figured CS games easily outsold TOAW...

You guys are obviously very passionate about this game![:D]

Blame a combination of nothing to replace it, and an excelent scenario generator. Limited to the scens that came with the game toaw would probably be dead since only a handful were any good. TS only offered $200/per and got exactly what it paid for.

[TAIL GUNNER]

ORIGINAL: danst31

Blame a combination of nothing to replace it, and an excelent scenario generator. Limited to the scens that came with the game toaw would probably be dead since only a handful were any good. TS only offered $200/per and got exactly what it paid for.

Huh, you're totally right.....

I still own TOAW I and II (but haven't played in years) and the only packaged scenario I remember really having fun with is the Korean War one in TOAW I...which if I remeber right Norm created himself...

REALLY enjoyed that epic user-made Barbarossa scenario though!

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

There should be only one answer to this question, and that is "When it is done."

Take your time and get it right.

[geozero]

I'm guessing there will be 2 phases.

#1 - release an updated patched version

#2 - produce a whole new generation of TOAW with updated maps, editor, database, AI, etc.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: geozero

I'm guessing there will be 2 phases.

#1 - release an updated patched version

#2 - produce a whole new generation of TOAW with updated maps, editor, database, AI, etc.

Depending, of course, on what deals Koger makes with matrix, eh?

All things equal, methinx that the 'Matrix version' of ToaW will come first, and then 'possibly' a patch for 'acow', tho I wouldn't hold my breath on the 2nd.

That would depend mightily on what sort of commo Norm and Matrix get in to, eh?

Patches don't provide money...........Matrix will need something in order to bring the new version out. One remains sure that 'Norm' will want to make it good for his fans!

Due to the 'extreme' game/fan base of this game, and Matrix's buyer friendly attitude, well, maybe there will be a patch to acow, but all this will depend on users buying the updated version. SOMEONE will pay for this, why not YOU?

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: geozero

I'm guessing there will be 2 phases.

#1 - release an updated patched version

#2 - produce a whole new generation of TOAW with updated maps, editor, database, AI, etc.

I'd suggest that #1 should fix or improve on at least one significant aspect of the game. It almost does not matter what aspect but something should be improved. In terms of bugs and cheats most of us have had years to deal with these issues and have become fairly comfortable with the quirks while many others left before maybe some of the more inane quirks where even discovered and became standard exploits.

The Matrix edition wants all of us supporting it but we might need a bit of a tug to move us away from our old favourite scenarios or the seemingly perfectly playable game we already have.

Also fixing something might make it easier for the designers of the scenarios to get enthused about making a Matrix version of their scenario. Its easier to get enthused if some aspect of the scenario can be better modeled or some such. Enthused designers means matrix versions of the scenarios which then drives sales.

[geozero]

Personally, I think that any new version should (but likely will not be) backward compatible. That's because as programming changes over years, and new features or rules implemented, it will become necessary IMO to break from the old format.

For example, I'd love to see the scale changed so that larger battles can be fought or more detailed battes... would love to see a 500 meter per hex scale as well as 100km per hex. Just my opinion.

Also, would love to see more in the way of terrain and elevation choices, as well as unit types and color schemes, air and naval combat rules, etc.

Any of these implementations may likely make the old scenarios obsolete, however, should only take a little bit of time for designers to modify their OOB's and TOE's to fit any new format.

But hey that's just thinking...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero

Personally, I think that any new version should (but likely will not be) backward compatible.

I think Matrix has indicated that this will be done. For one, they have to set up the process to convert scenarios over, otherwise they will lose the strong existing basis for the TOAW community.

For example, I'd love to see the scale changed so that larger battles can be fought or more detailed battes... would love to see a 500 meter per hex scale as well as 100km per hex.

While there's no particular reason not to allow these scales in terms of density penalties, movement rates, etc.; because the game is fundamentally operational in focus, I would hope that Matrix will not divert effort to making these scales 'work' away from making the core operational model work.

On scale in general, since all the characteristics of a scale are mathematical (ie, density penalty is proportional to the area of a hex), I don't see why there should be pre-set scales at all- the designer should be able to go for 7km/hex if he wants. Further, the density penalty and movement rates should be fully edittable- though there should of course be default values and recommended limits.

Also, would love to see more in the way of terrain and elevation choices,

These aren't 'elevation choices' in TOAW. Hills and mountains represent rugged, not high, ground.

Any of these implementations may likely make the old scenarios obsolete, however, should only take a little bit of time for designers to modify their OOB's and TOE's to fit any new format.

Yeah. It should be possible to provide an easy-to-use process to convert scenarios from TOAW:COW.

[pzgndr]

On scale in general, since all the characteristics of a scale are mathematical (ie, density penalty is proportional to the area of a hex), I don't see why there should be pre-set scales at all- the designer should be able to go for 7km/hex if he wants. Further, the density penalty and movement rates should be fully edittable- though there should of course be default values and recommended limits.

This is a deceptive argument. How fast does a tank move? This speed is NOT necessarily how fast a tank division moves. At whatever scale a designer chooses, some abstractions must be made. These abstractions have a limited range of validity. You cannot simply toggle between tactical/operational/strategic, however mathematically appealing it may appear.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

This is a deceptive argument. How fast does a tank move? This speed is NOT necessarily how fast a tank division moves.

It's a moot point since TOAW doesn't operate at the level of individual tanks, and tank companies move at the same speed as tank divisions in the game, at whatever scale.

You cannot simply toggle between tactical/operational/strategic, however mathematically appealing it may appear.

You can still come up with a formula for it (though of course it won't be as simple as [move = x/hex size]). If you want to approach it your way, have fixed defaults coded into the game for certain basic scales, then average the actual movement rates between these, depending on whatever scale the designer chooses.

[geozero]

Also, would love to see more in the way of terrain and elevation choices,

These aren't 'elevation choices' in TOAW. Hills and mountains represent rugged, not high, ground.

Correct. That's what I'd like to see implemented - elevation. At 50km per hex the hill or mountain hex may have worked okay for strategic purposes, but at 500m or 1km per hex, it becomes a "tactical" advantage to have greater elevation height.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero

Correct. That's what I'd like to see implemented - elevation. At 50km per hex the hill or mountain hex may have worked okay for strategic purposes, but at 500m or 1km per hex, it becomes a "tactical" advantage to have greater elevation height.

Ah well, this is something I'm not keen on: Matrix spending time trying to make TOAW a tactical game. It's not. I see you're listed as a "Battlefields! Scenario Designer". No doubt that game covers these things for the 1km/hex scale. Wouldn't it be better to use that system for those scenarios, and optimise TOAW for operational warfare?