The Editor

[Szilard]

I hope fixing the horrible editor is somewhere on the initial todo list.

1. Bug fixes

There's a bunch more than those I list here, but these are the ones which make designing a TOAW scenario a particularly "special" experience for me.

- Inserting/sorting events can screw up references to other events. [How this bug could persist after all the releases is beyond me. I get scared thinking about what the code must look like.]

- Deleting units & formations (or maybe it's inserting them, or both) can screw up references to other units etc in events. [Ditto.]

2. New stuff which I think should be reasonably easy to do, assuming the existing code isn't a total nightmare

- Import/export of events. The scenario dump feature seems to omit certain pieces of info, and there's no way of importing. Would be very helpful if you could provide some minimal but robust thing to transfer between internal and CSV or some other standard format (with error-checking on the import). This would let designers play with events in Excel or whatever, without having to wrestle with the nasty little interface TOAW provides. [Curt Chamber's ODD is an excellent tool, but it suffers from the gaps in the scenario dump, and doesn't provide an import feature.]

- Import/export of forces. The existing facilities don't provide all the info I want, and I have never been able to make the OOB import work. What I would like to see: not just OOB's but also unit formation assignments, formation objective lists, formation supply/leadership/orders parameters, force parameters (supply stockpile etc etc). Again, import/export to/from CSV format would be adequate, as long as there is error-checking on the import.

Hopefully, somebody would come along and build a tool which used these files for more sophisticated force design - templates for historical TOEs, ability to define your own templates, ability to change all inf bttns TOE's by changing a template etc etc.

[ralphtricky]

Do you have reporducable examples of the bugs? WIthout that, it's going to be tough to fix the problems. I'm more of a player than a programmer.

Thanks,
Ralph Trickey
Programmer

[macgregor]

I'm starting to see a rift between fans of toaw. There are those who prefer to play battles at 5km or less and those (like myself) who prefer battles at 10km or greater. Both groups have completely different priorities. I don't want to see either group ignored. Though my fear is that people enjoying larger scenarios will be dissappionted if they're expecting improvement from acow. I hope I'm wrong. Please let me know. I don't want to monitor this forum based on a false assumption.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm starting to see a rift between fans of toaw. There are those who prefer to play battles at 5km or less and those (like myself) who prefer battles at 10km or greater.

Haven't noticed this myself. Though, I think there is a difference of opinion on the question of operational/strategic scale. Some want TOAW to have more strategic options like production hexes while others just want to improve on the operational aspects of the game.

[macgregor]

Producing your own units is way out there. I'm quite satisfied recieving reinforcements based on history or some designer's speculation. It would be nice to be able to affect those reinforcements through resource acquisition or adversly, with strategic warfare. But my primary interest is in seeing realistic naval warfare. If the details of land combat (i.e. multiple hits, reserve movement, stealthiness[as with commandoes -for subs] and interdiction) are merely transposed to the sea I think this is entirely posssible. The addition of naval interdiction as a mission, submarine as a unit type and ASW as a weapon value is all I ask. Already however, I'm being told 'find another game'. Maybe I should.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Do you have reporducable examples of the bugs? WIthout that, it's going to be tough to fix the problems. I'm more of a player than a programmer.

Thanks,
Ralph Trickey
Programmer

Sure.


Inserting events: Take eg the Normandy44 scenario. Go to the event editor. Look at event 120: "If event 95 is activated then enable event 60". Now scroll back to event 50, and click on it to make a copy of it - this inserts a new event 51. All subsequent events shift down one, so event 120 becomes event 121. Scroll down to event 121. It now says: "If event 96 is activated then enable event 60", where it should say: "If event 96 is activated then enable event 61". The trigger event has been adjusted properly, but not the action event.

Sorting events: reload Normandy44, go to the event editor. Click the "ES" button to sort by event effect. Event 120 now becomes event 376. Again, the trigger event has been adjusted propery, but the action event remains 60 - which is now wrong.

Unit screw-ups: Reload Normandy44. Go to the event editor; check event 12: "Withdraw 101AB HQ on turn 9". Go to the force editor; cut out the first Allied formation (9th AF). Go back to the event editor. Event 12 now refers to "VII Corps Eng".

Mising event info in scenario dumps: Quote from the help file for Curt Chambers' ODD utility -

All data for all events is not contained in the dump file. Listed below are some of the known missing links. If you discover any new ones, please submit a bug report to me.


· Once in a while a scenario dump occurs that is completely unreadable in a text format. This might be caused by a problem within the scenario itself. Not sure.
· A “Radius” value is sometimes missing, and the “X/Y” values that refer to a non-labeled location are usually missing.
· “ Form’n Orders” does not list the formation or the orders.
· “ PO Activate” and “Theater Option” do not provide the target event number.

· “ Strategic Bias” does not reveal what the Bias is.
· “ Disband Unit” and “Withdraw Army” do not show the affected unit. Oddly enough, “Withdraw Unit” does display the target unit.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Do you have reporducable examples of the bugs? WIthout that, it's going to be tough to fix the problems. I'm more of a player than a programmer.

Thanks,
Ralph Trickey
Programmer

/slaps self More of a layer than a DESIGNER[8|]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Szilard

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Do you have reporducable examples of the bugs? WIthout that, it's going to be tough to fix the problems. I'm more of a player than a programmer.

Thanks,
Ralph Trickey
Programmer

Sure.


Inserting events: Take eg the Normandy44 scenario. Go to the event editor. Look at event 120: "If event 95 is activated then enable event 60". Now scroll back to event 50, and click on it to make a copy of it - this inserts a new event 51. All subsequent events shift down one, so event 120 becomes event 121. Scroll down to event 121. It now says: "If event 96 is activated then enable event 60", where it should say: "If event 96 is activated then enable event 61". The trigger event has been adjusted properly, but not the action event.

Sorting events: reload Normandy44, go to the event editor. Click the "ES" button to sort by event effect. Event 120 now becomes event 376. Again, the trigger event has been adjusted propery, but the action event remains 60 - which is now wrong.

Unit screw-ups: Reload Normandy44. Go to the event editor; check event 12: "Withdraw 101AB HQ on turn 9". Go to the force editor; cut out the first Allied formation (9th AF). Go back to the event editor. Event 12 now refers to "VII Corps Eng".

Mising event info in scenario dumps: Quote from the help file for Curt Chambers' ODD utility -

All data for all events is not contained in the dump file. Listed below are some of the known missing links. If you discover any new ones, please submit a bug report to me.


· Once in a while a scenario dump occurs that is completely unreadable in a text format. This might be caused by a problem within the scenario itself. Not sure.
· A “Radius” value is sometimes missing, and the “X/Y” values that refer to a non-labeled location are usually missing.
· “ Form’n Orders” does not list the formation or the orders.
· “ PO Activate” and “Theater Option” do not provide the target event number.

· “ Strategic Bias” does not reveal what the Bias is.
· “ Disband Unit” and “Withdraw Army” do not show the affected unit. Oddly enough, “Withdraw Unit” does display the target unit.

Awesome, thanks. That's the kind of stuff that I can use! Thanks!! With feedback like that, I've got a reasonable chance of fixing some things.

Ralph

[DanNeely]

Also missing from the dump is information about replacement priorities and reconstitution.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: Szilard

Inserting events: Take eg the Normandy44 scenario. Go to the event editor. Look at event 120: "If event 95 is activated then enable event 60". Now scroll back to event 50, and click on it to make a copy of it - this inserts a new event 51. All subsequent events shift down one, so event 120 becomes event 121. Scroll down to event 121. It now says: "If event 96 is activated then enable event 60", where it should say: "If event 96 is activated then enable event 61". The trigger event has been adjusted properly, but not the action event.

Actually the ability to insert events is a very useful function. It just needs to be used correctly. The real problem is that it is not possible to delete an inserted event and restore the original numbering of events.

Recommend that a caution be added requiring the designer to confirm that an insertion or deletion should take place. For the accomplished designers, there should also be an option which allows the caution to be disabled.

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm starting to see a rift between fans of toaw. There are those who prefer to play battles at 5km or less and those (like myself) who prefer battles at 10km or greater.

I dunno. I've designed two scenarios at 2.5km/hex which I think are pretty neat, and one of my favourite scenarios is Colin's 5km/hex Seelowe. However, I also had a great deal of fun playing Fall Grau at 50km/hex and Europe Aflame at 33km/hex.

I don't think this is really the major rift. The biggest difference is how much people think TOAW can be changed without distorting the original purpose of the game.

I see the real priority in getting the main function of the game- land warfare in the 20th century- absolutely straightened out (that and more events). Then we can get on with adding new features, like strategic elements and naval warfare.

[macgregor]

The biggest difference is how much people think TOAW can be changed without distorting the original purpose of the game.

I don't know what the original "purpose" of TOAW is. Since you know, how about telling Matrix. So they know what to do.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I don't know what the original "purpose" of TOAW is. Since you know, how about telling Matrix.

.... there's a spectrum of views on this subject;

At one end, we have Oleg. He denies it- but his attitude to TOAW is akin to that of the devout towards religious texts. It is inviolable and must not be changed.
Then we have JAMiAM. The game could do with some tweaks, but look, if I rationalise it this way, the bug looks like a feature, see?
Then there's me- let's be realistic, and prioritise. Sort out the central components of the game before galloping off with new ideas.
Then you. Bolt on additional features to the game which complement the central theme.
Finally we have White Rabbit. Trying to use TOAW to refight Cannae.

I don't want to get into it too much, since we're already going at it on the other thread, but it's not that I don't think your ideas have merit- it's just that I see bigger problems with the game. Check out the length of the lists of fixes on various forums. Naval warfare comes somewhere down on page 473.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Then we have JAMiAM. The game could do with some tweaks,

Indeed,

Glad he's heading the Dev group, all I want is an updated game.

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Indeed,

Glad he's heading the Dev group, all I want is an updated game.

Ominous. Updated so that zero supply is the normal state for units?