Matrix Games Forums

Ah, thanks Nemo, this is exactly what I wanted to know.

General Staff, not sure what you mean when you say that the new AI has to be seperated from the scenario.

ORIGINAL: Arinvald
General Staff, not sure what you mean when you say that the new AI has to be seperated from the scenario.

Just that a scenario is a totally separate entity from the exe that runs the AI.

So the scenario is going to run differently in ACOW or TOAW III if you are playing the AI, even though the scenario is exactly the same.

Apologies for any confusion.

Ray,

ORIGINAL: Lava
Of course it's PBEM only.
Still no answer?
You guys don't even know your own product?
Ray (alias Lava)

I may be reading too much into this, but I don't understand the impatience or the need to suggest we don't know our product. From the time stamp, you posted the first post at 6AM on a Saturday, then posted again at 9AM when no one had answered, then again at 1PM. I don't know if anyone has counted up the exact number of PBEM-only scenarios but I don't think it's a large number. Traditionally, the only TOAW scenarios that were PBEM-only were the extremely large ones that the designer could not get the PO to handle properly or which were designed from the get go for PBEM. The vast majority of the new scenarios as far as I know, and all 70 Classic scenarios, are PO-capable.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I may be reading too much into this, but I don't understand the impatience or the need to suggest we don't know our product.

Hi Erik,

It's not impatience Erik, it's my reaction that quite possibly a large amount of the "new" scenarios are PBEM only... which is a bit surprising actually.

IMHO, the "200" scenarios marketing thing should have stated that "x" quantity of scenarios are PBEM only. Something I have totally no interest in and, based on the quantity, could influence a person's buying decision.

Historically, all TOAW scenarios from earlier releases were capable of being played against the AI.

Just wanted some assurances here that I have not bought a game made primarily for PBEM players, of which I am not.

Ray (alias Lava)

Ray,

Over the course of the past few months, I've noticed that you've been one of our most visible and outspoken supporters, with regard to this release. I want to apologize, personally and publically, if it seems that I've in any way singled you out as whining. However, that said, I still found that starting this particular thread, and then posting repeatedly on it, without waiting a reasonable amount of time for one of us to reply to be "unconstructive". Hence, my frustration.

To make amends, when you get the game, if you find a particular scenario is lacking in PO capability, and wish to play it, then feel free to let me know, and I will personally revise it to play a competent game against you, from either side. All I ask is that it is limited to no more than 700 units each side, no more than 60 turns long, and that you give me a month to finish it up.

Fair enough?

Ray,

ORIGINAL: Lava
It's not impatience Erik, it's my reaction that quite possibly a large amount of the "new" scenarios are PBEM only... which is a bit surprising actually.

Ok, understood. I don't believe that to be the case though - I think the majority of the new scenarios are all PO capable.

IMHO, the "200" scenarios marketing thing should have stated that "x" quantity of scenarios are PBEM only. Something I have totally no interest in and, based on the quantity, could influence a person's buying decision.

I believe almost all are labeled in-game one way or the other, it didn't occur to us to do it another way because the PBEM scenarios are a big selling point for many players, so having a mix seemed to cover all bases.

Historically, all TOAW scenarios from earlier releases were capable of being played against the AI. Just wanted some assurances here that I have not bought a game made primarily for PBEM players, of which I am not.

That's true, though not all were actually setup to play well. Also, as the first release that included scenarios from the community, we in no way wanted to exclude outstanding scenarios that had been designed for PBEM.

Your point about noting how many are PBEM only is well taken though. We'll come up with a count and note it in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM . . . Fair enough?

Really don’t think that you need to open yourself up to any more abuse from a malcontent. Every scenario comes with a scenario briefing. It has been my experience that the briefing provides information as to whether the scenario is PBM only or AOwPI enabled. All players need to read the Briefing.

That people neglect to read the Briefing is no fault of Matrix.

Regards, RhinoBones

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the response.

I really doesn't matter to me, I would have bought the game even if the majority of the new scenarios were PBEM only. But I think, from a sales perspective, its best to be up front with that kind of information.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Over the course of the past few months, I've noticed that you've been one of our most visible and outspoken supporters, with regard to this release.

That's because I am. And I certainly hope the game does well so that you folks can continue on into the future.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAMI want to apologize, personally and publically, if it seems that I've in any way singled you out as whining.

Huh? I've got a lot thicker skin then that. Didn't even notice.

[;)]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
if you find a particular scenario is lacking in PO capability, and wish to play it, then feel free to let me know, and I will personally revise it to play a competent game against you, from either side.

I can do that myself... you all need to carry on moving forward.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Fair enough?

You see J-Man, folks misread me here.

I know the brunt of the folks who buy this game will have no problems and will be tremendously happy to have a new game in their hands with the exellent support that Matrix brings with it. Folks like me.

But I have different perspective. My perspective is trying to bring new folks into the wargaming hobby. There are a lot of lurkers out there who will never post, but will make buying decisions on what they read on forums. There is also a group out there that will dip their toes into the waters and when they run into problems, will post questions that "veterans" think are a little silly. How those "silly" questions get answered will determine whether that person continues or just throws up their hands and quits or for the lurkers, whether they will buy the game at all.

Concerning PBEM only scenarios, I pressed the issue because I felt that "loading the scenario into the editor" answer would leave new folks just scratching their heads, and folks on the fence about buying the game feeling that they were way out of their league with this game or that something was being slipped by them. I spoke for those folks. "Yea, we're going to fix that" was the proper answer, and it was given as well, but should have been the first one followed by, "but if you are experienced with the game, than you can load..."

If the only folks you want to please is the folks from SZO, than don't worry about my post. But if you want to expand your target audience, you can't make assumptions about your audience. There are lots of young'uns out there and even stupid ones and folks who just don't want to be hassled by "grog-buttheads" when they ask a question.

So yes, I am a big supporter of you'all and your game. But that doesn't mean I will step aside and say nothing when a new guy asks a question and gets the "oh your an idiot" or "Zen manipulation of the game works like this" kinda answer.

That's bad for business and in the end bad for everyone if it means the game gets a "it's for hardcore folks only" reputation.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

That people neglect to read the Briefing is no fault of Matrix.

Regards, RhinoBones

Folks should be able to see at a glance at the scenario listing whether or not it is PBEM only.

I've played TOAW for many years and can count the times I've read through the scenario briefing on one hand.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava

I've played TOAW for many years and can count the times I've read through the scenario briefing on one hand.

That will probably filter through to the statistics on ladders (Win/Lose/Draw) in the long run. [;)]

ORIGINAL: General Staff
That will probably filter through to the statistics on ladders (Win/Lose/Draw) in the long run. [;)]

Yep.. well... it's the middle category I'd probably exceed in. [:)]

I'm a soltairy gamer, but I would imagine that if one was going to get serious and go head to head, the first step is a very close reading of the scenario.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava

I'm a soltairy gamer, but I would imagine that if one was going to get serious and go head to head, the first step is a very close reading of the scenario.

If it will help you get into the water, I'll give you a game. Off-ladder so no embarassment to either of us. Something short, small as I can't commit to a monster. Maybe Kasserine 43 and you can take the Axis side?

ORIGINAL: General Staff
If it will help you get into the water, I'll give you a game. Off-ladder so no embarassment to either of us. Something short, small as I can't commit to a monster. Maybe Kasserine 43 and you can take the Axis side?

Thanks for the invite.

Actually I haven't received the game yet.. probably in a day or two.

Once I get my hands on the game, I have a small project I want to try to wedge in between all my other "small" projects.

Perhaps, later when I've got a few fires put out.

Thanks though.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava
Thanks for the invite.

You're totally welcome. Just PM me if you want to take up the offer in the future. Best. GS

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

if you find a particular scenario is lacking in PO capability, and wish to play it, then feel free to let me know, and I will personally revise it to play a competent game against you, from either side. All I ask is that it is limited to no more than 700 units each side, no more than 60 turns long, and that you give me a month to finish it up.

Fair enough?

JAMiAM,
I notice that the Saddam's Final Gamble scenario is PBEM only. This was one of the main scenarios I was interested in. Could you make the Iraqi side PO enabled? I think the PO could do a decent job of this.

Thanks.[&o]

What are the rules for modifying scenarios?
 
I'm thinking that with the improved PO, there are a few scenarios out there that were designed in the dark days before Dr. FrankenTrickey brought "Elmer" to life, and with the new features in TOAWIII there are going to be some of the original scenario authors updating past work, but there are going to be some authors who either don't want to, can't or just aren't active anymore.
 
So if Joe Schmuckatelli tinkers with Gary Grognard's "Hypothetical Hutu invasion of the Malvinas, 1964, for TOAW TRS-80 Edition" and makes what was a PBEM only scenario a PO enabled nailbiter, and then posts it someplace, is Joe:
 

• A dirty, filthy, muzzleloading, scenario stealing, one-way rat [:-]
• A laudable asset to the TOAWIII community [&o]
• Going to have to wait for Gary to approve, even if Gary has gone on to the great Hexmap in the sky [>:]
• OK with what he's doing as long as he gives credit to Gary in the scenario briefing, or renames a unit after him in the game [:)]
• In deep doodoo because Gary is an attorney specializing in scenario infringement lawsuits [X(]

Is there a community rule for this?
 
 
 

Hi!

I think you just need to give it a new title, be sure to give Gary Grognard credit and explain what you've done in the Scenario Description.

For example:

Title: Hypothetical Hutu invasion of the Falklands, 1964, for TOAW TRS-80 Edition

Description: This scenario is based on the Hypothetical Hutu invasion of the Malvinas, 1964, for TOAW TRS-80 Edition made by Gary Grognard.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

[*]In deep doodoo because Gary is an attorney specializing in scenario infringement lawsuits

I wonder what the legal position is now. Apparently, when the game was owned by Talonsoft, all scenarios were legally property of that company.

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hi!

I think you just need to give it a new title, be sure to give Gary Grognard credit and explain what you've done in the Scenario Description.

For example:

Title: Hypothetical Hutu invasion of the Falklands, 1964, for TOAW TRS-80 Edition

Description: This scenario is based on the Hypothetical Hutu invasion of the Malvinas, 1964, for TOAW TRS-80 Edition made by Gary Grognard.

Naturally I approve the title correction, but if one's only added the PO, then I'd be inclined to leave the briefing unchanged except for one line "PO functionality added by Ray (alias Lava)".