Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Some of that can be done now that I've opened up the scenarios to be saved as XML. I'm hoping to add a 'trusted pbem' mode that will allow for a moderated pbem game where a third party or program can modify the save file. It wont be trivial, but it completely opens up the game for anyone willing to work with XML and a programming language to add more of a strategic layer, a better weather model, etc..

Excellent! Making the configuration, scenario, and save game files as text files, even if with an added XML layer -- this opens up a host of possibilities.

If you would, look at Europa Universalis III (or any of its Paradox cousins) for its extensive modding possibilities. Magna Mundi, soon to be a stand-alone PI game, began life as a EU3 mod. MM the Mod almost completely transformed EU3 game play. With its heavy reliance on text files (not to mention its promised full-length, comprehensive modders guide), Magna Mundi the Game promises to be an exemplar of moddability. Something to aim for. Text files are key.

I'm trying to time box 3.5 so it won't take more than 3 months. I may not succeed, but that is my goal. I really want it to be shorter, but I dont think it will be with the amount of work to be done.

If work on TOAW IV begins soon afterward, that will be exciting. Might I suggest enlarging the development/testing team?

To clarify a bit, AI is a very long term goal, not something I work on constantly. It is an extremely tough problem, and isn't a part of the 3.5 patch. The UI is also not part of 3.5, it needs a total rewrite to bring it up to modern standards which can't be done in a patch.

Those are worthy pursuits. I just don't think they are the most important ones.

In any case, I echo what others have said: please be more communicative. Silence kills interest, and hope.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I rely heavily on the forum and the beta testers for ideas. The hardest part of my job is probably saying 'no' because I don't think a specific idea fits my view of what TOAW is, most often because I don't feel that the added complexity for the player is worth the added richness it gives the designer.

Ralph

I'm going to say I hope this is not directed at getting the navies to work better. Though something tells me this may be naive thought. I feel I've simplified and streamlined something that would only add to, while not burdening or complicating anything of what already is. I don't want to change anything for scenarios that don't include naval units. If you can't do it, or won't, then forgive me, but I don't think your judgment of what TOAW is, is relevant to the consensus. The quest for perfection is indeed a slippery slope. But naval units have to work and interact better, and mobile supply points must be developed for realism's sake, or this game is a lame duck waiting for another to render it obsolete.

I would have to argue that the vast number of sceanrios played are against the AI. This being the case, improving that portion of the game is extremely important.

A better AI is always good, but if you stick to AI only you miss that special feeling when fighting against a human opponent.

@ralphtrick
Is there room for some "sissy" wishes for 3.5?
I would like see that TOAW saves the position of the scenario briefing so you don't have to scroll down again and again what can sometimes be a pain in the butt.

Though something tells me this may be naive thought.

You're paranoid.[:D] My comments had nothing to do with naval warfare, just general design principles. I've tried very hard to keep the interface as clean as possible since I've seen too many games ruined by a kitchen sink approach. I'm trying to capture the 'interesting decisions' and to allow for automating or defaulting everything that isn't 'interesting'.

One man's interesting may be another man's junk. [:D]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
You're paranoid.[:D] My comments had nothing to do with naval warfare, just general design principles. I've tried very hard to keep the interface as clean as possible since I've seen too many games ruined by a kitchen sink approach. I'm trying to capture the 'interesting decisions' and to allow for automating or defaulting everything that isn't 'interesting'.

Thanks Ralph. That sounds reassuring, and to be fair, it's not the first time you've tried to reassure me. If you've been reading my posts, then you know that most of my ideas have been met with 'the broken end of a bottle' by the regular posters(both of them; Bob and Colin -and sorry for the Kelly's Heroes reference). I suppose it takes it's toll. Sometimes I feel like they're 'jamming' the thread with truly overweight ideas they then try to attribute mine with, making it that much easier to dismiss the ideas in their entirety. Yeah -I'm paranoid.

Since I amazingly didn't see anyone ask...what is going to be in 3.5?

I didn't ask, because I didn't expect an answer.

To be fair to Ralph, that's a defensible position. If I were in his shoes, given his stated intention to "time box 3.5 so it won't take more than 3 months," I might not answer either (no time for debate, only time to do).

It's after 3.5, when work begins on TOAW 4, where I would hope to get some answers, more give and take, and more openness in general.

But if Ralph answers now for 3.5, I will happily eat my .

I'd love to be more open, but I've known studios in the past get burned badly by the backlash of fans whan a feature didn't make it into the final cut, or when people misunderstood what the developer was talking about. I absolutely plan to be more open about the next game, more like the way Elemental was handled, but without the bugs[;)].

I will confirm that we plan to increase some of the data structures, that was one of the first things in, and unless something very major comes up, should stay in. I won't mention which ones will be increased, though.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I'd love to be more open, but I've known studios in the past get burned badly by the backlash of fans whan a feature didn't make it into the final cut, or when people misunderstood what the developer was talking about. I absolutely plan to be more open about the next game, more like the way Elemental was handled, but without the bugs[;)].

I will confirm that we plan to increase some of the data structures, that was one of the first things in, and unless something very major comes up, should stay in. I won't mention which ones will be increased, though.

Ralph

Ah, you sly old dog. [:D]