Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

My point was that since WitP currently models the Pacific fairly well, and TOAW doesn't even beging to model that theatre, it would make more sense logically to use WitP as a starting point.

WitP has ~100km hexes and it's stuck with them. It doesn't have a map editor at all. That means that TOAW can already do certain Pacific topics better than WitP can (Okinawa, Luzon, China, Operation Olympic, etc. - wherever ground combat dominates and naval combat does not). If we had any sort of decent Naval Engine, then any campaign could be focused on far clearer than WitP could ever do. It's a long way off in either case, but TOAW is actually closer to that goal than WitP, since it has already got ground combat wrung out, and it has its powerful editor built in.

I can't help with code or scenario development, but if you need a beta tester for any new TOAW Pacific Theater scenarios with an upgraded TOAW naval/air game engine, count me in!

If TOAW was to evolve a realistic “naval” capability, what characteristics would you find to be the most important? Name your top five.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

If TOAW was to evolve a realistic “naval” capability, what characteristics would you find to be the most important? Name your top five.

Regards, RhinoBones

'If TOAW was to' ...and I thought you were on the inside. Considering the time it took Norm to develop TOAW against how long it's taken anyone else to scratch the surface I'm going to say any development of a naval model for something called TOAW controlled by Matrix probably ain't happening. More likely someone with the skill of a Norm(perhaps even him) will develop such a product from scratch. TOAW was a great idea that unfortunately fell into the hands of salesmen and 'entrepreneurs'. They got my fifty. Hopefully someone was inspired by TOAW and shares my vision for it's potential. I don't think anyone at Matrix does.

ORIGINAL: macgregor
'If TOAW was to' ...and I thought you were on the inside. Considering the time it took Norm to develop TOAW against how long it's taken anyone else to scratch the surface I'm going to say any development of a naval model for something called TOAW controlled by Matrix probably ain't happening. More likely someone with the skill of a Norm(perhaps even him) will develop such a product from scratch. TOAW was a great idea that unfortunately fell into the hands of salesmen and 'entrepreneurs'. They got my fifty. Hopefully someone was inspired by TOAW and shares my vision for it's potential. I don't think anyone at Matrix does.

Gezzz . . . thought I asked the question in a civil manner. I'll take your response as a "No, I have no bananas." Too bad . . . you could have been a contributor.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

If TOAW was to evolve a realistic “naval” capability, what characteristics would you find to be the most important? Name your top five.

Regards, RhinoBones

I can't list five, since I only consider myself knowledgeable in air combat, in terms of military equipment, tactics and so on with some (far from the same extend of air) reading in ground combat, too.
The first thing that comes to mind is the way naval units take shots when engaged by air units. Some extreme results occur. Being primarily a ground combat game to this point, interaction with other types of units should precede the pure naval combat problem, in my opinion.

Another point perhaps is the capacity to establish a blockade, some reaction deployment or something like it. Here I'm entering an area which I really know very little, so, someone with better knowledge, please correct me, but since Toaw is a turn based game and in most scenarios naval units have a large amount of MPs to use, it just seem to me to easy for such a unit to go around, back and forth, unpunished. Due to the fragility of naval units in Toaw, one tend to keep them stacked, covering a small area. Maybe that's the way it is in real life, I just opened the point for discussion, since, intuitively (I can't make better in terms of naval warfare) I find strange the impression of owning the seas I have, mainly in small scale scenarios.

That brings me to the third point: I must read something about naval combat, even if that's not my area of interest, so, if someone can indicate me a good book or site on the subject.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

WitP has ~100km hexes and it's stuck with them. It doesn't have a map editor at all. That means that TOAW can already do certain Pacific topics better than WitP can (Okinawa, Luzon, China, Operation Olympic, etc. - wherever ground combat dominates and naval combat does not).

Sure. However note that naval simulation really has no bearing on any of these campaigns. In each case one side had all the cards- otherwise they would not have been able to deploy a major land force overseas from their home bases.

In the Pacific, while the naval struggle was still in doubt, the battles were necessarily small and quite tactical. The US was no more going to deploy eight divisions to reinforce Luzon than Japan was going to invade Australia a year later. The naval campaign had to be decided first.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

'If TOAW was to' ...and I thought you were on the inside. Considering the time it took Norm to develop TOAW against how long it's taken anyone else to scratch the surface I'm going to say any development of a naval model for something called TOAW controlled by Matrix probably ain't happening. More likely someone with the skill of a Norm(perhaps even him) will develop such a product from scratch. TOAW was a great idea that unfortunately fell into the hands of salesmen and 'entrepreneurs'. They got my fifty. Hopefully someone was inspired by TOAW and shares my vision for it's potential. I don't think anyone at Matrix does.

I agree that the "next TOAW" will probably come from another Norm- a person who is willing to pour their heart and soul into it. The market is too small and the labour required to vast. Of course the problem is that they will build the system that they want to see- with no care for what you and I want.

As to "the hands of salesmen and entrepeneurs"... well how would you feel if you were asked to do you job as a favour to humanity instead of for a pay cheque? People have to earn a living.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Considering the time it took Norm to develop TOAW against how long it's taken anyone else to scratch the surface I'm going to say any development of a naval model for something called TOAW controlled by Matrix probably ain't happening.

If anyone thinks that Norm developed TOAW "from scratch" or "by himself", they're mistaken. First of all it is filled with legacy code from earlier products like "Age of Rifles" and earlier. It's an archaic mismash of hand-me-down stuff that now gives Ralph fits. And while it was being developed, Norm had the help of a vast staff of folks at Talonsoft back in their prime. Poor Ralph just gets to pick over the leavings part time.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

WitP has ~100km hexes and it's stuck with them. It doesn't have a map editor at all. That means that TOAW can already do certain Pacific topics better than WitP can (Okinawa, Luzon, China, Operation Olympic, etc. - wherever ground combat dominates and naval combat does not).

Sure. However note that naval simulation really has no bearing on any of these campaigns. In each case one side had all the cards- otherwise they would not have been able to deploy a major land force overseas from their home bases.

Wasn't that just what I said above?

In the Pacific, while the naval struggle was still in doubt, the battles were necessarily small and quite tactical. The US was no more going to deploy eight divisions to reinforce Luzon than Japan was going to invade Australia a year later. The naval campaign had to be decided first.

So, in other words, TOAW needs a Naval Warfare Engine. Again, just what I said. What I also said, was that WitP needs both a real Land Warfare Engine and a real Editor of the caliber of TOAW's. That's why TOAW is closer than WitP to that ultimate Pacific War simulator. I really think we can blow by them if we really want to.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

If TOAW was to evolve a realistic “naval” capability, what characteristics would you find to be the most important? Name your top five.

It'll definitely take more than five.

Let's start with supply: item 5.15 (Discrete Supply) or something similar.
Then you've got to move stuff in ships: item 6.14 (Discrete Transport).
Need to distinguish between beaches and ports (item 2.10).
Then most of the stuff in the Naval Warfare section:
Start with letting air units be assigned to Naval Interdiction (item 9.1)
Automatic interdiction by coastal artillery and naval units (item 9.2)
Ability to form Task Forces (item 9.4)
Naval Targeting and priority (item 9.5)
Submarines (item 9.12)
Treating naval units like they were ships instead of land artillery that floats (item 9.15)
A mechanism specifically for conducting naval combat (item 9.16)
Handle line-of-sight detection of ships (item 9.18)

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If anyone thinks that Norm developed TOAW "from scratch" or "by himself", they're mistaken. First of all it is filled with legacy code from earlier products like "Age of Rifles" and earlier. It's an archaic mismash of hand-me-down stuff that now gives Ralph fits. And while it was being developed, Norm had the help of a vast staff of folks at Talonsoft back in their prime. Poor Ralph just gets to pick over the leavings part time.

Fascinating... Poor Ralph. It's nice to know what's going on. Sorry if I caused a ruckus. What if it really is so arcane that it really benefits to be done from scratch?(or sections at any rate) I'm loath to appear as back-seat driver(though obviously not enough to refrain) since I have no programming skills, but I imagine you do and are involved. My thought is that if there's a team leader who has envisioned this final product in detail, he could delegate to other programmers specific tasks. Certainly there could be a way to negotiate some help from the TOAW community no? There appear to be programmers all over the place. A little proofreading and I'd think the game could be constructed in sections, not unlike a ship. The forum here, as well as Ralph's blog appears to wander adrift a bit however as if not really sure where to start, perhaps because all the while the primary task has been to map out the code. Regardless, we've been waiting for over 5 years now. Have we no right to be anxious? Forgive me for thinking that communication can solve everything, but I think at the very least, more communication is needed.

So then it's scrubbed?

Here's an older thread with a few ideas about possible features of a naval engine.
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1846034&mpage=1&key=&#1846121
 
 

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So, in other words, TOAW needs a Naval Warfare Engine.

There was no operational level campaign in the Pacific where there was a parallel naval contest. The nearest- Guadalcanal- saw the land battle taking place over about three 2.5km hexes.

One could certainly do more with a naval engine. However, I could also do with upgrading to a four bedroom detached house. We all have to live within our means.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let's start with supply: item 5.15 (Discrete Supply) or something similar.
Then you've got to move stuff in ships: item 6.14 (Discrete Transport).
Need to distinguish between beaches and ports (item 2.10).

Now we're getting somewhere. These all sound like excellent improvements for the whole system- whether or not we intend to take it further.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

There was no operational level campaign in the Pacific where there was a parallel naval contest. The nearest- Guadalcanal- saw the land battle taking place over about three 2.5km hexes.

First of all, Guadalcanal is ~75km long (bigger than Okinawa) and the action ranged over about 60km of it (Taivu to Cape Esperance). And, due to the dense overgrowth, there would be no problem doing it at 1km/hex. You could do the entire Solomons at that scale.

Then you have Southwestern New Guinea. Distance from Port Morsby to Buna alone is at least 150km.

And those are just the campaigns where the naval contest was in doubt. Even when it's not in doubt you still need a naval engine if it is contested - take the Philipines, for example. The Japanese are completely inferior, but still throw lots of ships at the invaders - including BBs.

Finally, there's the whole thing. Not done at 100km/hex, but at something much smaller.

I've come to the conclusion that this TOAW IV game we envision is being designed from scratch independently from Matrix, and Golden Delicious is it's team leader secretly preparing to trump any Matrix release. Otherwise his comments here(and I've been reading them for many years) simply do not make sense to me.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've come to the conclusion that this TOAW IV game we envision is being designed from scratch independently from Matrix, ...

TOAW 4?

Yeah, a while after the patch for 3, and just after the release of Combined Arms... [:D]