Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's not like this patch is coming out tomorrow, and apparently Ralph hasn't done anything to improve larger scenarios(again) nixing the naval completely. Should I be surprised? No. I think they should just make TOAW for the eastern front. Matrix could then have a category; 'eastern front' games; all displaying precisely the same conflict, and then comparison shop. While those of us interested more in other scenarios pray for a new game elsewhere. I guess this is what the 'sore gun' comment was about as Ralph indeed knew something I didn't. E tu brut.

Well, if you're looking for a naval simulation there's better options out there, other than TOAW, such as this:

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/N ... /guad.html

Now, what this patch shows is that the model of development for TOAW is wrong, and if Matrix does intend to pull out a TOAW 4 (I very much doubt so) they need to revamp the devlopment team, since if it takes 2 years to pull out a patch, with some changes to the ngine, but , no radical changes whatsoever, just imagine how long it would take to pull out a game... (Combined Arms springs to mind).

I've done all I can for this game, and there are many less vocal that feel as I do. I've even connected matrix with a game developer. Unfortunately, it was not for this game. It looks like I'm facing yet several more years of frustration from Matrix. I guess I'd better get started venting some of it.

BTW was that comment supposed to be cheeky jmlima? Regardless I'm not amused. You know friggin well what I'm looking for and it's not a *** **** naval simulator!

2 mf'in things; a naval reaction based on a navint value and an ASW value for units. THAT'S IT! I've designed it. I've typed enough print to tackle the code myself longhand, and read enough posts to wonder if I'd been better off reading books on computer programming. of course in the time I've waited ,i could have a degree by now. I'm sick of the run-a-round. Ralph designs this game in every direction except the one we asked him to.

Consider this my formal request for a new TOAW developer Dave and Erik as I am not happy with Ralph.

Not sure what you mean about the East Front comment. The map works ok at 10km per hex. Might be better with another few rows but nothing drastic.

The unit count in an East Front campaign scenario suffers greatly from the 2k limit. But then again, if you look at all the transitions and changes and Shtats, even if you represented the conflict at regimental level you would need several thousand more counters. I don't think a 10k counter mix for the Soviets would be too far off. 2k would go for the artillery alone. I guess you could do a good job keeping it at divisiional/brigade with 4k.

As far as naval, the game engine was never meant to depict that as anything more than it is now. Same with air. Since those things, if better modeled, would add more detail to a turn I really don't think I would care for more. I can't imagine playing an East Front or West Front campaign with all that thrown in. It would take longer to play the scenario than the actual war took.

I could support a little larger map, maybe another 50 rows and columns. I could support more counters, maybe another 1 or 2k. Neither would be difficult, IMO and could have been completed long ago with a minor patch. But to be honest, anything more would make a scenario unplayable simply because of the size.

ORIGINAL: Panama
As far as naval, the game engine was never meant to depict that as anything more than it is now. Same with air. Since those things, if better modeled, would add more detail to a turn I really don't think I would care for more. I can't imagine playing an East Front or West Front campaign with all that thrown in. It would take longer to play the scenario than the actual war took.

That's a sweet interpretation of what I requested e.g.-a naval reaction based on a navint value and an ASW value for units. And which are you? Part of the development team or Matrix staff?

What's that Ralph? ...and the horse I rode in on? But I don't ride a horse!

Perhaps you ARE the horse. South end. [:D] j/k

No, not part of the development team. Sorry about that. That would indicate that I actually had a job now which would be a good thing. [;)]

One thing I've noticed about this forum. Alot of name calling and hate, oh the hate. Not dislike, but true unadulterated hate. It's quite sad really.

ORIGINAL: Panama
One thing I've noticed about this forum. Alot of name calling and hate, oh the hate. Not dislike, but true unadulterated hate. It's quite sad really.

Amen. Though the words I tolerate. It's the actions that get you.

One thing I've noticed about this forum. Alot of name calling and hate, oh the hate. Not dislike, but true unadulterated hate. It's quite sad really.

 
It gives the forum a lot of personality.

ORIGINAL: macgregor
... apparently Ralph hasn't done anything to improve larger scenarios(again) nixing the naval completely. Should I be surprised? No. I think they should just make TOAW for the eastern front...

I can't comment on what Ralph has or hasn't done. But I can say that I, too, have no interest in East Front TOAW (or West Front TOAW either); I'm interested in East Asia TOAW, primarily WWII Pacific Theater.

Unlike WITP/AE and UV, which focus on naval (and air) warfare and shortchange land combat, I prefer TOAW's emphasis on land operations. But TOAW's naval (and air) aspects could be fixed/improved still.

Oops. Did I just step into another minefield?

With the perspective a day gives, I'm okay with the venting I've done. I am frustrated with the direction, or lack of with regards to the wishlist.
perhaps the pace, but mostly because it appears as though Ralph is part of this Eastern Front gang that decided they liked the way TOAW displays the eastern front WW2 apparently better than the myriad of games matrix already offers on the scenario. There's a lot of favoritism going on and it stinks. That scenario is being accommodated above all others. I'm not so sure that once Ralph has the Russian front issues solved, including every little whim his clique is still coming up with, that he may tell Matrix he's too busy at work, leaving this hodge-podge to the next developer. As it stands now, I don't believe that there has been ANY discussion of what Ralph is planning with regards to anything BUT the Eastern front gang's issues and looking at the patch description, it shows.

I know matrix is not a democracy and that my vote means nothing, but for what it's worth, I want someone else developing this game.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

...
I know matrix is not a democracy and that my vote means nothing, but for what it's worth, I want someone else developing this game.

In all fairness , I think you're pointing batteries at the wrong target, have a look at the whislist thread and you'll realize why I'm saying this.

BTW, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'East Front scenario', is there one in specific you're aiming at?

I really, and I'm sure there are many who would agree with me on this, need to leave this forum alone. It's killing my desire to play the game, and apart from some alienation, my posts have had no impact on the outcome of this game development. Perhaps if someone would offer to inform me when a patch or TOAW4 comes out, I could delete this forum from my bookmarks. I've given up cigarettes and coffee. I can surely give up posting here.

I'll just relate that I waited 12 years for the changes I needed to make CFNA work right. There needs to be some recognition of how difficult all changes are to make. And recognition of just how many demands for changes that there are out there - it's enormous.

A full-blown naval model is very non-trivial. And it's not a universal need. It can't have priority over needs that affect every scenario. Before you add a new room to your house you first fix the leaking roof and broken windows. But I do hope it will be addressed eventually.

Nevertheless, note that 3.4 will have two naval improvements to it: Naval stacks will now take group orders, and adjacent naval units now bombard instead of assault.

Is Ralph alone working on the patch? And would matters improve if it were a team effort, not a one-man job? (Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes with software projects, too many cooks spoil the soup.)

I don't know from universal, but as long as wars are to be fought on a globe, naval warfare is indeed a very global necessity. The difficulty in simulating naval combat arises from the pbem experience. Read my lips;'I DON"T WANT A NAVAL SIMULATOR'.
Look, we have Engineers with an engineering '%' capability that works for repairing bridges and other things. A NAVINT value would solve everything. Based on this percentage, naval and air units would spend their remaining movement to attack moving enemy unite in the hex they are detected. It's figuring out what percentage that requires factoring in speed, radar, all-weather, etc. sensibly, the variable would affect stacks, not units, allowing player to have interception fleets. If weather can affect ground combat, why can't it have an effect on naval interception? Is that a whole new simulator?

The dev team seems to want to make this into some monster. Am I missing something? The changes I'm seeing Ralph implement require easily as much work, if not more.

In fact, from the contact I had with Ralph while implementing the graphics mod, I could infer that he is pretty independent in what concerns his thoughts on Toaw future, while being very receptive to ideas. I’m far from being an eastern front addict – I’m not even a WWII addict, like most here – and I may agree that eastern front sometimes seem to monopolize the energy of some good designers, while the true potential of Toaw (reproducing multiple conflicts) is let aside. This is so that Boonierat extraordinary work on the Vietnam war feels really like an exception to the rule. But Ralph has really nothing to do with it and designers working for free will do what fits their tastes better.
Trying to find developers for Matrix won’t help. Good promotion of the game may help, though, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern for people here as it is in forums of games not half as valuable as Toaw. Toaw has it’s flaws and it’s easy to point them; the challenging thing is to point the alternative game… the one that does what Toaw does without Toaw’s flaws.
In what concerns naval warfare, even those who like eastern front on this forum seem to agree that a better naval model would be desirable. It may take long, but so what. Better have a slow and continuous support than nothing at all… and most games of the type, after selling their share, just come to a halt. What we have to lose by playing the game in it’s actual state? It’s an excellent game after all and if some substitute shows up, then we’ll be happy to have an alternative. Toaw just can’t be the game that each and everyone, individually, wants it to be. “I don’t care for that!”… well, others will care; “I would like to see that implemented!”… well, it’s the right of anyone, but wait in the line… just see the size of the wish list.
Toaw is one of the most important references in computer wargaming, a lot of players here just can’t let it aside and find a substitute and yet, the most common sentence on this forum is: “The problem with Toaw is…”. It’s a kind of whining realm.

Let me apologize to those who are fascinated with Eastern front scenarios. I have nothing against you. and if you dominate these forums because you are the most active, then so be it. Perhaps my frustration would be better directed at those want to see the game develop as I do, for I think I have fallen on the sword enough, unsolicitedly as it seems. The game will take the direction the majority of gamers prefer based on the perception of the Matrix and the dev team. If I look at these forums, I see the majority are about Eastern front scenarios. I may not be happy about it, but that's just the way I am.