Matrix Games Forums

If you read the manual carefully you'll see where the same phrase means different things. [:D]

True.

Careful reading will undoubtedly bring enlightenment. Maybe the game should be renamed: “Zen and the Art of Operational War”?

Then again, given that, “… One tuck is one truck and it is many trucks…” clearly contains far more than a passing nod to quantum theory, perhaps: “Schrödinger’s Cat and the Art of Operational War” might be better? One cat is many cats...

My personal favourite in the manual can be found at 17.9.3 (page 133)

Other Event cancelled: The Event is activated after another specified Event is cancelled. Note that this only applies to cancellation due to Probability check failure (see below). Cancellation by the Cancel Event effect will not cause this to cancel. (sic)

There is no such thing as an “Other Event Cancelled” instruction in the Editor but nowhere in the manual is there a reference to “Event Cancelled”, which is present in the Editor. Meanwhile, the supposedly ‘explanatory text’ referred to in “(see below)" is so utterly perplexing a mere padawan such as I could not even begin to comprehend it.

Initially I thought James Joyce had had a hand in writing it, then I realised it was pure RD Laing:

They are playing a game.
They are playing at not playing a game.
If I show them I see they are,
I shall break the rules and they will punish me.
I must play their game,
Of not seeing I see the game.

Tell me that isn’t pure TOAW IV manual-speak.

Regards,

R193

I have profound respect for and sincere appreciation for any one who works on rewriting the manual. It's badly needed.

Oh dear! Have I just been despatched to sit on the naughty step?

The manual does, indeed, need to be re-written and I have absolutely nothing but the utmost admiration for those who have attempted to make it better. I possess a little more than a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the blood sweat and tears involved in such an undertaking. So, if I’ve implied, or given anyone cause to infer, otherwise then I apologise, because that was certainly never my intention.

You would agree, I hope, that the purpose of a manual, any manual, is to explain and render coherent, the thing being described, which in this case is a piece of software. Generally speaking, the current version of the TOAW IV manual makes a reasonable fist of explaining the basic stuff, setting-up the game, the interface and so on. But beyond that things become complicated for two primary reasons.

First, due to the way the game has developed over the years, the terminology used within the game (and by that I mean when it is being played) has become inconsistent and this complication has been further exacerbated by the need to incorporate the new "Advanced Rules" with the older "Standard Rules".

Second, and here I admit that here I am guessing, I suspect the original text was drafted, as manuals often are, from the "insiders" perspective. There is nothing wrong in that, it is a sensible way to do it. It guarantees that the knowledge, expertise and know-how about how to play the game is accurate and complete. However, such a method has two inherent drawbacks in that it doesn’t, necessarily, reflect the way an “outsider” - a novice game-player - uses a manual and, second, it lacks the critical eye of and editor to ensure that uniformity and consistency are maintained throughout the document.

I’d glad to offer assistance it it was required or wanted. But I’m an “outsider” and I get the distinct impression that the objective editor’s eye wouldn’t necessarily be welcomed.

But it’s been an interesting conversation. I’ve enjoyed it and learned much.

Thank you.