Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
BTW interesting postings there, poster than continues to amaze us with his so big knowledge of computer and board wargames and then spell out what other have done better in other games.

Had he really wanted to show off some amazing knowledge of board wargames he should have quoted Frank Chadwick's WWIII series in a post about TOAW.

Challenge moment: who will be the first able to point out why? No, Trey Marshall's conversions do not count [:)]

Edit: OK, I went there to molest the place - let's see what will boil up

A few other ToaW threads over there:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=021504#000000
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=019826;p=1 - this is the one that persuaded me to buy it.
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ulti ... 415#000007

Hey how do you get those abreviated link titles on this system??

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
BTW interesting postings there, poster than continues to amaze us with his so big knowledge of computer and board wargames and then spell out what other have done better in other games.

Had he really wanted to show off some amazing knowledge of board wargames he should have quoted Frank Chadwick's WWIII series in a post about TOAW.

Challenge moment: who will be the first able to point out why? No, Trey Marshall's conversions do not count [:)]

Edit: OK, I went there to molest the place - let's see what will boil up

As a kid, I'll bet that you used to poke at bee hives with a stick, didn't you?

Ralph

Hey guys, thanks for the show of support over there. I know several of you are active members of both sites, but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar. Now, as soon as my registration over there is approved, I'm going to test my resolve at following my own advice...[;)]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
As a kid, I'll bet that you used to poke at bee hives with a stick, didn't you?

Ralph

As you may know, I was recenty accused (elsewhere) of "not being a molester enough" too [:D]

Anyway, while I have the utmost respect for those able to put "Asymmetrical synergies in the abstractive synthesis of combat results" in the same sentence ( [&o] [&o] [&o] ), somehow I fail to see how you could talk this way about a game while keeping a straight face.

ORIGINAL: Zweihorn

Critics on TOAW. I discovered this very negative critics on TOAW in another forum:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002167I´m quite a newbie, but I would like to hear how the experts think on this critics. For me TOAW loooks very flexible and realistic on the operation level.

Sounds like a typical case of forum royalty pontification with a nice round of syncophant drooling afterward. My best advice is to try the game yourself and go ahead and make your own decisions.

There isn't even much "syncophant drooling", certainly for that particular forum. I thought it was quite an interesting discussion, actually. The guy concerned knows his stuff; but rather too well in a sense as he seems incapable of distinguishing between lack-of-quality and personal prejudice, in this case towards both TOAW and the Airborne Assault games.

ORIGINAL: Hertston
...and the Airborne Assault games.

[:D] The comments on the Panther stuff was hilarious, truly, and really a sign of not being able to admit not having spent the time to really understand how things work before making up ones mind. I play almost all of the games, and more, mentioned in thread "over there", all with great pleasure. What this character fails to recognize is that every game has its time, and require the right mood. There are fundamental differences between CM, TOAW and the RDOA, HTTR, COTA trilogy, and comparing is hard. But, I'm preaching to the quire here, so I will just conclude: TOAW is [bthe[/b] longest surviving game on my computer(s). It is not because it is seriously flawed....

ORIGINAL: Hertston

There isn't even much "syncophant drooling", certainly for that particular forum. I thought it was quite an interesting discussion, actually. The guy concerned knows his stuff

Not at all, IMHO, and this is not because I'm "partisan". He fails to grasp the basic (and factual) point that TOAW is a *tool* to write wargames at operational level - and not a wargame "per se". Since the nature of TOAW is open to all who make the simplest inquires about the game, this is enough to say that he doesn't know stuff beside the one he has memorized.

Notice how I used the word "wargames" and not "scenarios": TOAW is flexible enough that, even if keeping a general core of rules, it allows to the designers to portray a specific situation the way they feel is better - almost like if they were writing the specific rules for an unique title. You can have a "Stalingrad" where you can try to pull out the Sixth Army in a big what if, another one where the Sixth Army is fixed and the race is to save it from the outside, yet another one at a different scale and covering all the Southern Front in 1942, and so on.

So, truth is that when you launch a "scenario" in TOAW, you are actually opening a new wargame box, complete with unique rules (the attached docs) - which you have to study so to understand the situation, the designer's intent, the "chrome bits" (ex. high attrition level at Stalingrad to simulate the unusual disease levels in the kessel) and other factors specific to that scenario. Only then you can start thinking about how to play it. The dude at Battlefront is right when he writes:

"Game design is a process in which an intelligent person with a clear thesis about the key aspects of some strategy game subject, models those key aspects, and puts control over them in the hands of the players. Leaving the outcome to their respective wits and getting his own tush off their table - but having selected the key variables and parameterized their control."

...And, ironically, it is here where his "criticism" of TOAW crashes and burns, since this is exactly what TOAW as a tool allows you to do - the end product being the specific scenario you either give out to play, or you play courtesy of some one else's efforts. Instead, he does seem to believe that TOAW is a wargame based on wild assuptions, vagueness and arbitrary rules - which is like to say that MS Word, as a novel, lacks focus and is too vague. [8|]

I think that I'll stick with *my* opinion of TOAW for a little while more [:)]

Tthree great design series are made more in that they allow USERS to make scens.. the CM, dated graphics but a fines series nontheless, Taow3, and The decisive battle series. When I pay 80.00 willingly for Witp, or some other game.. granted you can do scens in that but not in this league,and I compare the "fun factor"... I think before a system failure there where like 2500 sdcenarios just for CMBB. Heck even running a fixing mod in MWT2..
Why is this relevent to this thread?
Games should be judged and opinions givin in a atmosphere that allows diverging opinions without flaming. Yet those same opinions should be able to be ?ed... the above post mentioned that Taow3 is a builders game.. youe simply need to look at the depth of what can be built tot see how it shines...
Sometimes fools need to be ignored

..NOOO ELEPHANTS*...
 
..*Elmer intervention..
 
..otherwise, no worries, wot e'said..
 
 

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..NOOO ELEPHANTS*...

..*Elmer intervention..

..otherwise, no worries, wot e'said..

I'm not exactly working on 'Elephants', but I am working on making creation of Objectives a little easier...

Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

In the sample pretend that the entire formation consists of the lone company at the far left of the map. Will the formation advance from objective #1 to objectives #2 and #3 if objectives #2 and #3 are already under friendly control, or, will the formation instead advance directly toward enemy controlled objective #4?

Also, the text fonts are really nice, but I'm not sure the world is ready for red and yellow roads, and brown polluted rivers. Think we already have enough of those.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

In the sample pretend that the entire formation consists of the lone company at the far left of the map. Will the formation advance from objective #1 to objectives #2 and #3 if objectives #2 and #3 are already under friendly control, or, will the formation instead advance directly toward enemy controlled objective #4?

Also, the text fonts are really nice, but I'm not sure the world is ready for red and yellow roads, and brown polluted rivers. Think we already have enough of those.

Regards, RhinoBones

It will probably go straight towards 4. Elmer mainly cares about the highest enemy held objective.

Actually, the rivers are brigth blue[X(] The railroads are black.

Sometime soon, I probably should take the time to go though my graphics directory, and reinstall the ones I want. I've got two machines with different graphics on them. It hurts sometimes<g>

Objective lines=Badass. [8D]

ditto abt the objective track lines, btw the Obj# are white font... I get these in orange, not very readable ... is that something which can be changed in the 'opart 3 fonts' settings?

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ditto abt the objective track lines, btw the Obj# are white font... I get these in orange, not very readable ... is that something which can be changed in the 'opart 3 fonts' settings?

No, it's hard-coded, I'm afraid. I changed the colors for the next release.

Sounds great Ralph, much better than yellow objective values (and therefor objective numbers in the editor)

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'm not exactly working on 'Elephants', but I am working on making creation of Objectives a little easier...

Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

Ralph

That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

This would be good, as long as it was a toggle option. Even with the active formation being a different color than the others, it may sometimes get so "busy" over some stretches of the map, that focus might be better achieved by toggling off the full display.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

Or, perpendicular, star-shaped, criss-crossing, etc. Along with the option to display one, or all, of the formations, as detailed above, you should be able to pick any subset of formations and display them, to the exclusion of the others. That would help on fine tuning groups of formations for specific tasks.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.

This would be sweet. Imagine the interface of TOAW III's editor coming into the 21st Century! It could be something like this...Select menu option to place objectives. Left click on map to initiate the objective placement and to place the first objective. As you mouse about the map the program will dynamically draw the lines from last defined objective out to the mouse cursor, keeping the previous ones from objective to objective, while further clicks place a new objective in the sequence. A right click on any objective would remove it, dynamically renumbering the sequence and redrawing the lines. If a hex contains more than one numbered objective for the formation, then the right click would bring up a list of numbers to choose the deletion(s) from with the numbers listed as well as an "all" choice. Again, all changes implemented immediately on the lined visual display.

If anyone has what they believe to be a more seamless UI that that in mind, please feel free to chime in with your suggestions.