Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It wouldn't be possible. My question was why aren;t they being modeled as Task force Alpha, Task force Brave, etc. Then the question of moving individual units doesn't come up. I know that there are a lot of issues, but I was wondering about that one.

You mean have the player edit the content of his naval units?

So long as I don't have to worry about the ins-and-outs of naval warfare. It's not why I play the game- though others feel differently.

If they can get the speed right for the transports, that would be a start. Allowing ships to 'patrol' as sort of like an extended version of tactical reserve except out to say, 3 hexes would work for me. Naval air interdiction should make it unpredictable where a naval unit will run out of movement. That's how interception should work. Taskforces if feasible could work. Stack movement as well.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It wouldn't be possible. My question was why aren;t they being modeled as Task force Alpha, Task force Brave, etc. Then the question of moving individual units doesn't come up. I know that there are a lot of issues, but I was wondering about that one.

You mean have the player edit the content of his naval units?

So long as I don't have to worry about the ins-and-outs of naval warfare. It's not why I play the game- though others feel differently.

I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that Ralph is asking why doesn't the scenario designer model the naval groups appropriately. Not the player.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that Ralph is asking why doesn't the scenario designer model the naval groups appropriately. Not the player.

Most scenarios are of sufficient length that it is preferable to have smaller naval units so as to be better able to fine tune the weight of naval power you use for a particular operation. For example it might be attractive to lump in destroyers with the larger ships, but this reduces the player's options.

Additionally, depending on the scale creating large task forces can skew the scaling of the strength numbers that appear on the unit icons. Whilst this has no effect on the mechanics of the game, it can significantly reduce playability, because it reduces the player's ability to distinguish between the strength of his units at a glance.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that Ralph is asking why doesn't the scenario designer model the naval groups appropriately. Not the player.

Most scenarios are of sufficient length that it is preferable to have smaller naval units so as to be better able to fine tune the weight of naval power you use for a particular operation. For example it might be attractive to lump in destroyers with the larger ships, but this reduces the player's options.

Additionally, depending on the scale creating large task forces can skew the scaling of the strength numbers that appear on the unit icons. Whilst this has no effect on the mechanics of the game, it can significantly reduce playability, because it reduces the player's ability to distinguish between the strength of his units at a glance.

I don't dispute any of that.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Additionally, depending on the scale creating large task forces can skew the scaling of the strength numbers that appear on the unit icons. Whilst this has no effect on the mechanics of the game, it can significantly reduce playability, because it reduces the player's ability to distinguish between the strength of his units at a glance.

That's easy to fix, exclude the navy units from average strength calculations and max displayed strength at 99.

Isreal 48 is a good test scenario for this case. Most units are 1-2, the strongest land units are are 2-4 soviet paratroops, the bulk of the range is taken by a single very large US taskforce. At the scale of the scenario it should be split up some IMO, but that's annother issue entirely.

Would it bog the game engine to have divideable naval formations like land units? In this way,squadrons could be formed or broken down. I can see having a few desrons but I'm inclined for the sake of the overall number of units to pair a small escort with each capital ship. Some have suggested transport,perhaps even amphibiuos units. I find that interesting though once again I'm concerned with the overall number of units. Then again, what do I know.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Additionally, depending on the scale creating large task forces can skew the scaling of the strength numbers that appear on the unit icons. Whilst this has no effect on the mechanics of the game, it can significantly reduce playability, because it reduces the player's ability to distinguish between the strength of his units at a glance.

That's easy to fix, exclude the navy units from average strength calculations and max displayed strength at 99.

That's the most egregious problem with task force sized units and what you are suggesting would fix most of it. There would still be a bit of a problem left in that players would not know the true strength of their task force units.

But there are other, less egregious, problems beyond that one:

1. As mentioned above, players would lose the fine control of their naval forces. As an example, if one were on the wrong end of the air superiority equation one might not want to risk an entire task force on a bombardment raid into enemy territory, but might be willing to risk a destroyer or two.

2. Scenarios would lose the chrome of individual ship names. By definition, chrome doesn't affect how the scenario plays. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. Otherwise, we wouldn't call those places Paris, London, Berlin, or Moscow. We would call them place1, place2, place3, place4, etc. Same for unit names. Chrome is a serious matter.

3. Reconstitution build time would be bypassed. If I evaporate a battleship unit (and that unit has an appropriate size) but it was not sunk, just sent to the "on hand" pool, it should take four weeks for it to reconstitute. But if that battleship was just an element of a TF unit, the TF unit is unlikely to evaporate. Since it will still be on the map, the battleship in the pool will be available for return to the TF unit the very next turn (which might be only 6 hours).

4. Reconstitution for individual ships could not be denied. For example, in my Okinawa scenario, capitol ship units are denied reconstitution. Even four weeks was too short of a repair time in my estimation. If only task force units were employed in that scenario only full task forces could be denied reconstitution. Not only would that be unreasonable, but evaporation of full task forces would be unlikely.

5. The "Unit Destroyed" trigger could not be used for the evaporation of individual ships. Again, in my Okinawa scenario evaporation of capitol ships trigger VP awards. That couldn't be done if they were just elements internal to TF units.

I employed "fleet-sized" naval units in my Soviet Union 1941 scenairo, but that was a corps/army scale scenario. In regiment or battalion-scale scenarios individual ships are the natural choice. Being forced to employ TF-sized units at those smaller scales would lessen the game.

What phase of the program/update is this project at ? Beta ? Play testing ?

We've been "Work Testing" since January.

I'm not into all the little details of the game..I just want to play it again....My original version won't work on Windows XP....so what's it gonna be...Some kind of patch to make it compatible or will we have to buy a new version? If so...when oh when? Been waiting so long....

On a side note...is there any way to make the original TOAW work on Windows XP??? I've read something to that effect...true or not? and it can't be too complicated...

ORIGINAL: solo223

I'm not into all the little details of the game..I just want to play it again....My original version won't work on Windows XP....so what's it gonna be...Some kind of patch to make it compatible or will we have to buy a new version? If so...when oh when? Been waiting so long....

Matrix apparently intends to release a new version for sale in the first quarter (i.e. before the end of March) of this year.

On a side note...is there any way to make the original TOAW work on Windows XP??? I've read something to that effect...true or not? and it can't be too complicated...

TOAW Century of Warfare can run on Windows XP. I'm not sure about older versions.

well..unfortunately...I don't have the Century of Warfare package but the original stand-alone TOAW ...kind of sucks to know that a later version that includes the original works on XP....a patch would have been nice to have....darnest thing is that I have a 2nd older rig with Wondows 98 but for some reason the thing won't load the game...Installation goes well but once i click on the executable everything vanishes....

thanks for update though....i'm checking every week....

ORIGINAL: solo223

well..unfortunately...I don't have the Century of Warfare package but the original stand-alone TOAW

Actually, now I think about it I can run TOAW Volume I on my Windows XP computer anyway. Do you have the most recent patch, and have you tried running in Windows 2000 compatability mode?

No I don't have the recent patch anymore since I reformatted my hard drive about 1 year ago...and I believe the time has come to make another sweep....i've tried the windows 2000 comp mode and it didn't work....

ORIGINAL: solo223

No I don't have the recent patch anymore since I reformatted my hard drive about 1 year ago.

It's available here;
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/toaw/ ... /toaw1.zip

I've been running the original TOAW Vol. 1 on XP Pro for a few years now. You need to turn the graphics down to 16 bpp in windows before you start the game or the button graphics don't redraw after you press them but other than that I've not had any problems.
I just installed it and started it up. Not running it in any compatibility mode or anything.

I'll be damned....i'm gonna try this tonight....thanks man....

n/m