Chance of Norm Koger doing a sequel?

[DeadInThrench]

You should be BANNED PERMANENTLY for that last post.... which I will not quote.

DiT

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I think the Earth is flat, and the oceans were put there to make us think we can sail around it (if the sea monsters don't get us).

Ah, subjective reality!

How many of you can prove to me that Your really alive and not an AI..........wonderful sPz, just wonderful.........

Merry Xmas, all you pixel-bstds!

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: L`zard

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I think the Earth is flat, and the oceans were put there to make us think we can sail around it (if the sea monsters don't get us).

Ah, subjective reality!

How many of you can prove to me that Your really alive and not an AI..........wonderful sPz, just wonderful.........

Merry Xmas, all you pixel-bstds!

Merry Xmas L'zard!

From Bloodstar aka Monkeys Brain as well hehe

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: marcusm
I mean a proper sequel.

Granted that he will remain a while in the Naval combat fold but after that.
Has he clearly stated that there will never be any sequels?

Just curious. I think TOAW is the best wargaming system ever and it can only be improved upon.

Erm, just a question: If TOAW is the "best wargaming system ever", how would it be possible to improve upon it?

First, check the wishlist posted, there are some excellent ideas there.

Off the top of my head, no promises implied here, we're still defining it, this is more of a 'vision' statement...

To summarize, that would be a game that has a 21st century interface (3D where it makes sense) instead of a DOS interface, is much more beginner friendly, will allow people to concentrate on the fundamentals instead of the details if they want, be more friendly to smaller games and larger games, and also encourage more social interaction. Oh, yes, it would also have to be more designer friendly, and have a more powerful event engine and Elmer would play better with less guidance.

There's a bunch of other stuff, but that's the 'big picture' I have in my head.

A tall order, but we'll see how close I can come to that vision.

[DeadInThrench]

Just my opinion but....

Games that simulate conflicts where the commanders could essentially see the whole battlefield (like Gettysburg, Waterloo, etc) are best with figurines and 3D graphics, but games that simulate conflicts where the commanders were looking at maps, are best played on maps, in other words 2D graphics and unit counters like TOAW has now.

In other words, I have looked at the 3D graphics in TOAW and kinda neat but, I wouldn't consider actually playing the game with those.

To be honest, I was kinda surprised to see improved graphics mentioned. IMO the graphics are fine.... it's various details in the systems that exist now, and other things like the need for a production system, a better (but not overly complicated) naval system, things like a chain-of-command and the ability to re-assign units to other formations, etc, is where the opportunity is for a TOAW4 IMO.

Sheesh... I saw this happen with another Matrix project... Horse and Musket. The graphics and interface and the basic design are great, but the AI is horrible and the game systems need improvement. So, what are they gonna do?? Well, they are gonna improve the graphics (good grief). The fact that it may never see the light of day and if it does it ain't gonna sell.... seem to be minor points.

If all's Matrix can do is sponser graphics improvements, maybe they should stick to the XBOX and adventure game fields.

DiT

P.S. Sorry for being negative, but what can I say? Well, WE DON'T NEED ANY SIGNIFICANT GRAPHICS IMPROVEMENTS.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

Just my opinion but....

Games that simulate conflicts where the commanders could essentially see the whole battlefield (like Gettysburg, Waterloo, etc) are best with figurines and 3D graphics, but games that simulate conflicts where the commanders were looking at maps, are best played on maps, in other words 2D graphics and unit counters like TOAW has now.

In other words, I have looked at the 3D graphics in TOAW and kinda neat but, I wouldn't consider actually playing the game with those.

To be honest, I was kinda surprised to see improved graphics mentioned. IMO the graphics are fine.... it's various details in the systems that exist now, and other things like the need for a production system, a better (but not overly complicated) naval system, things like a chain-of-command and the ability to re-assign units to other formations, etc, is where the opportunity is for a TOAW4 IMO.

Sheesh... I saw this happen with another Matrix project... Horse and Musket. The graphics and interface and the basic design are great, but the AI is horrible and the game systems need improvement. So, what are they gonna do?? Well, they are gonna improve the graphics (good grief). The fact that it may never see the light of day and if it does it ain't gonna sell.... seem to be minor points.

If all's Matrix can do is sponser graphics improvements, maybe they should stick to the XBOX and adventure game fields.

DiT

P.S. Sorry for being negative, but what can I say? Well, WE DON'T NEED ANY SIGNIFICANT GRAPHICS IMPROVEMENTS.

Trust me, you do need the graphic improvement, you just don't know it. [:-]

When I'm talking about graphics, I'm also talking about the entire UI. The dialogs now are 1990's style, the entire experience is very out-dated. I'm not putting Norm down, he did a great job, but there are different standards with scroll-bars, draggable dialog boxes, dockable panels, etc. The whole thing was also built for 640x480. If you want a terrain effects panel, you should be able to dock it to the bottom, drag it to the side, that kind of thing. I think that some people would kill for a scrollbar on the event panel.

I'm not talking about a full 3D immersion like Combat Mission and a number of other games, I'm talking about making the icons vector graphics so they can be zoomed in and out all the way without losing fidelity. It's about being able to zoom in/out at any angle, and there may be some speed improvements by letting the graphics card do more work. If you want to play on the current flat map, that will definitely be possible, although the 'counters' will have depth even if you can't see it, if you want to play on one that has the elevations contoured slightly with icons, that's also possible, if you want to play in Panzer General/Steel Panthers mode, that will be possible too. If the cat jumps on the keyboard, the counters will bounce realistically off the floor.[X(] Someone else will be doing the icons and the models, so it won't detract much from what I'm doing.

BTW, I haven't ruled out XNA yet. There are a number of issues with it, so I'll probably go with something else, but I'm still looking into it. I mention it because using XNA, it's possible to develop a game that's used by the PC and the XBox 360[;)] The biggest problems with the XBOX are fitting into a small screen, and how the heck you'd use the controllers to control the game??? I'll see where XNA is in a year or so, and how much XBOX 360 certification would cost. I definitely don't want to dumb down the game from where it is, although I do want to simplify the UI. The XBOX sounds attractive, although it probably won't happen.

Ralph

[marcusm]

I like the part about opting to play without the detail(ie number of trucks etc).

I can't see the point of 3d stuff though. What TOAW needs, is to stick to clean boardgame graphics.
All the time spent in cool graphics could be better spent on better AI and optimizing for larger operations like FITE.

[Karri]

While 3d graphics are certainly not needed, some changes would indeed be good.The UI can be improved a lot...

[DeadInThrench]

Ralph...

I have taken a look at the 3D interface a couple times and, cute, but I think the bottom line here is if the time and effort it took to put that in, was instead put into a better production model (well, a production model to start with), Matrix would probably be looking at at least 25% more sales and maybe 50% more TOAW activity in the forums.

Really, does ANYONE actually play TOAW with the 3D interface???

Sheesh... in Horse and Musket, they went down the road of a better.... continously zoomable... interface, and it is really nice! But, the AI took a major step backwards (and was horrible in PWM) and there is now only an effort to make token improvements to the game system while there is opportunity for major improvements (e.g. deployment, scenario options, etc), and if you look at the forums... deadsville.

And, like TOAW, HnM was once Wargame of the Year, and now look at it.

So, are you sure you want to go down that road, keying on graphics improvements rather than game system improvements??

Hmmm... and what's worse here, is a continously zoomable interface in TOAW, is absurd IMO. What's gonna happen to the numbers and letters on the counters? While a continously zoomable interface is the right stuff for games like HnM, for game on maps like TOAW, it is absurd.

Ug.... if Matrix' plan in games that they pick up the developement rights to, is just to make graphics improvements, well, sheesh, maybe I better stick with what I have or wait until the next 2x3 (or other outside developer) game comes out.

IMO it is a shame if a publisher picks up the rights to a game that was popular, and the people that really liked it are looking for improvements in the game that they really liked and, all's they get is.... graphics improvements (sheesh).

I am not denying that there can be improvements to the UI... I have suggested them myself... having the option to have the hex composition display in the upper right hand corner.. as well as other things. But, the ideas of zoomable, dockable, 3D, etc, IMO, are not what is really needed in a future TOAW, that is, if you want to game to sell.

DiT

P.S. IMO, the ability to jump to a given event would be a better improvement in the event's editor than a scrollbar. Remember we are talking about designers here, and they know what events they have in there and it's just a matter of getting to the one they want without having to step (or scroll). You have dialogs already for numerical input, so just add a button with this function and you will be fine.

[macgregor]

I could not agree with Deadinthrench more. Bottom line, if it's a free patch I'll take it. But if you want my money. I've waited long enough for some essential improvements. If this game continues in a different direction, then so am I.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
If the cat jumps on the keyboard, the counters will bounce realistically off the floor.[X(]
...

Boy does that bring back memories...and not good ones either! Bad, BAD Kitty...[:-]

[DeadInThrench]

If a download patch is just fixes... it should for free.

But, if there are significant enhancements, then there should be a charge.... 10 bucks, 20 or more depending on the extent of the enhancements (but, the sold version of the game should then include those enhancements so that those that buy the game new do not have to pay twice).

Then, once you get enough of the enhancements you re-release the game as TOAW4, with the latest patch to bringing the last TOAW3 up to TOAW4 being available like the previous patches.

If there is not regular income coming in for enhancements being developed, then that is missing motivation for so developing them! Hey, Ralph deserves fair compensation for the work he is doing (as long as it isn't the 3D graphics, etc <g>) just like everyone else!

There is commercial opportunity here that is not being taken advantage of!

Hey, I want that chain-of-command enhancement NOW <g>... and am willing to pay a fair price for it!

The world isn't the same place it was when computer wargaming first started, and those that play these games now want the ongoing enhancements (and are willing to pay for them... hehe... ignore those that aren't <g>), and the means of delivering them is now there via the Internet.

One can only wonder when Matrix and other publishers are gonna wake up to this and stop giving enhancements away for free.... or just not bothering to do them.

DiT

P.S. Really, if developers are not getting the compensation for the enhancements they are working on, then there isn't any motivation to so do them.

P.S.2. Am I getting this point across to Matrix? Possibly I should post in another forum or send an email or... letter??

[a white rabbit]

..mmmm, dunno about graphics being important, or Elmer's brain being increased..
&nbsp;
..can we first sort out some of the basic gritches, sea power/movement, and supply spring to mind as two that need some serious looking at, and from a designer's point of view access during the game to all the primary settings then let's see how these affect things before we go playing some more...
&nbsp;
..yahh, i'd like Elmer intervention in two player games, and given modern warfare it has to come, but can we get the historical stuff right first ?

[macgregor]

I know, I know, I was the one who complained before TOAW 3 even came out. I bought TOAW 3 because I had faith that, as long as there was a dev team, there was hope. Though in changing over, one of my favorite scenarios; 'Countdown to Infamy' had been lost. Though I only liked it because it made a serious attempt at improving the naval results, which it could only do so much. I suppose it's not that big of a deal. So far, I've come to appreciate two things with the most recent patch; the zoom and the directional keys. The graphics have improved, but not that much. I don't use Elmer so I can't appreciate his improvement. I'm still of mixed feelings about the combat rule changes. I don't get battle reports during enemy moves. I've waited a long time, though I realize Matrix hasn't had the game all that time. I'm happy with the wishlist. But until I hear of something concrete, it's just wishes. I know there is an issue with wanting to change the game over to a new code language. These new languages are always improving, offering more options and better graphics, and probably more stability. I say do whatever it takes. But let me say again, if the essential improvements are not in the next release, I'm not paying for it. To be honest, I bought TOAW 3 for these improvements, and properly chastised Matrix for not providing them. I've bought at least 6 versions of TOAW, and if I was satisfied playing the Korean War enough, I'd be playing TOAW 1. Ralph wanting to improve the graphic reminds me of Michael Palin at the pet shop, 'lovely plumage'. I plead with Matrix because they're the only chance I have of getting the product I desire. But I have to say, as of yet, they have not delivered. Not to me anyway.

[a white rabbit]

..fair does to Elmer, he does handle the tactical stuff better, doesn't play silly buggers with the HQs, does use ranged weaponry correctly and combat results, like retreats are more sensible..

..and that's just playing existing scens..

..but i still question if we're designing correctly, look at the thread on FITE and the difficulty to get civs accepted as part of a Russian TOE for 41/42, look at the complaints about ant-units when the dam' things shouldn't exist unless they did (( Indochine (French), Indochine part 2 ( USA/ Communists )) are two examples that spring to mind where they did..

..i really only design for my own learning, both of the game and a period i'm studying, so i managed a Cao Bang 1950 that worked but got torched by lightning, a France 1940, very small scale that i lost thru over-design and not keeping earlier copies, a Napoleon in the Pyramids before the BioEd (fun but not accurate), and i'm working on a BioEd Ancients, a Malaya 41, and a Philippines 41. Malaya's going fine, Ph has stalled cos the map's a bitch, and the Ancients just needs time i don't have for now, not with a valley to run..

..and i ask again, are we really designing correctly..

[berto]

I would appreciate the planned/hoped for graphics improvements, as ralphtrick described them, especially giving a modest 3D look to the terrain contours. Going beyond the described graphics improvements, though, is unnecessary, because TOAW plays just fine as an essentially 2D game.

What I'd most like to see is improved AI. I am tired of firing up scenarios of my favorite genre, WWII Pacific, only to read "AI? Don't even bother. This scenario is intended for head-to-head [PBEM, hot-seat, whatever] play only." What can I say? I am an unrepentant solitaire-only player, sorry.

Oh, and it would be nice, too, to enhance the naval game (given my fondness for WWII Pacific).

But, TOAW offers so much game value that I'll surely buy any expansion pack/upgrade/new version. IMO, if you basically like a game (I very much like TOAW), given the extremely high benefit-to-cost ratio--i.e., hours and hours and hours of entertainment at pennies per hour--shelling out for each new game version is, to me, a no-brainer. (That said, it is possible to run a game into the ground. Witness Warlords III -> Warlords IV.)

[Curtis Lemay]

I'm quite certain that Ralph is talking about TOAW IV not TOAW III. TOAW IV is going to be built from scratch (not sure if I'm even permited to say that, in which case JAM may swoop in here and wack this thread - and then wack me). That means that even if he wanted TOAW IV to look EXACTLY like TOAW III all the code and graphics for that would still have to be generated from scratch. Why do that? If it's all going to be made from scratch why not move the look into the 21st century. Even if you don't care what it looks like you'll have to agree that everyone benefits if it makes TOAW IV more commercial (more $$ = more support).

Does that mean that TOAW IV will only differ from TOAW III in looks? Of course not!

Does that mean that Ralph will waste effort moving TOAW III's look up to that level? Again, of course not!

Is it true (as impuned in this thread) that all the changes to TOAW III so far have been superficial? Anyone who thinks that hasn't been reading the "What's New" documents. The vast majority of the changes have been bug fixes that plagued ACOW. It's true that many interface changes have been made because the interface is easy to change and has little risk of unexpected consequences - unlike changes to the game code itself.

But substantive changes to the game code have been made even so. We have 499 more event slots, we can edit & add equipment, flanking is more realistic, Flak can shoot down high altitude bombers, turn-burn attacks can be designer limited via MRPB, movement paths are now optimal, artillery's new Tactical Support mode rule, greater ranges for Force Movement Bias, Alternate Graphics (really can change the game - see my Numbers.bmp post elsewhere), weather improvements, improved PO, etc.

No one tries harder to focus Ralph on substantive changes than I do. And I'll continue to do so. But don't be cavalier about the effort or risks involved.

[macgregor]

Let me add to my previous post that I am pleased with what Ralph has accomplished. My personal wishes, which to me seem somewhat essential , which I believe are well enough documented, have yet to be met. Is that being too harsh? They're effectively represented on the wishlist, which has some highly ambitious proposals in it. For which Ralph has almost never complained about the practicality. I almost wish he would. His discussing improving Elmer and the graphics should not bother me. I suppose it just makes me a little nervous, when I'd so much rather hear him add his ideas about how he plans to tackle(or not) some of the more ambitious proposals.

I don't believe it was this thread, but I did use the word 'superficial'. Forgive me, but for someone like myself, hell-bent on effectively representing theater-size scenarios with merely functional naval combat, let alone production or strategic warfare, the graphics and interface improvements, while greatly appreciated, are, in comparison, somewhat.

[marcusm]

Just don't do the "MOO3" mistake and try to fix what isn't broken.

Or do what you like of course but if you want my purchase please don't break anything that
works. Btw. Even TOAW4 should have the ability to use single graphic maps instead of only tile based. 3D
or no 3D.

[DeadInThrench]

'Cavalier'???? U must be kidding me.

As a programmer/engineer myself, it is a well known fact that those that do not know programming are in many cases incognizant and/or unappreciative of what it takes to get a programming app off the ground.

But, on the other hand, it is also a well known fact, that... programmers... oftentimes go off on academic or other paradigms that are not applicable to the situation at hand. 'Responsibility to the customer'... is not something that comes with a Computer Science degree.

And in this case.... 3D and continously zoomable... are not applicable to the situation at hand here, and given that, why do a rewrite when there are real customers out there with real needs??

Sounds to me that the team here picked the wrong Norm Koger game to upgrade. There are people ASKING for a redo of Age of Rifles in the General forums and Ralph's ideas would be perfect for a game like that and.... was a most popular game and and an upgrade would sell for sure.

Sheesh... first Horse and Musket and now TOAW. Was thinking about it and kinda reminded me of some infamous exploits of certain pitiful British <g> military commanders.

So, while Matrix comes off as totally professional as a publisher, who otherwise is running what is going on here?

Abercrombie??? (lol)

DiT

P.S. Actually Braddock would be a better example. Unlike Abercrombie, he was not an idiot. However, a matter of the wrong stuff in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he paid for it with the loss of his army and... his life.

P.S.2. Yeah, I can only wonder if I am gonna pay for my posts with the loss of my ID <g>.