Matrix Games Forums

Here I illustrate the changes to commander copy/paste: 1st shot shows a commander on the Commander Inventory => it is then copied with the copy button.

Next shot shows the commander pasted onto the end of the Commander List with the paste button. Note that its status is "Not in Scenario" when its status in the Inventory was "Assigned". Before, it would have retained the "Assigned" status (and there is no ability to change status on the List (unlike on the Inventory).

Note that this empowers designers to copy commanders made for one scenario to another scenario via pasting back onto the List. So...all the commanders I made for the CFNA 40-43 scenario can be copied to the other five CFNA scenario via this method. Note it isn't even necessary to save the modified List if the copying is completed without exiting the Editor.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun May 04, 2025 9:17 pm I have the installation zip ready. It's 157MB, so we will need a public FTP site.

How much of that zip file is graphics?

Regards

rhinobones wrote: Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:00 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun May 04, 2025 9:17 pm I have the installation zip ready. It's 157MB, so we will need a public FTP site.

How much of that zip file is graphics?

Regards

Probably most of it. But it wouldn't be comprehensible without the graphics.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Jun 30, 2025 9:15 pm Now that the latest hierarchy module bugs are fixed, I have to adjust the documentation a bit for the changes made. Then I'll try to drum up some help on the Beta Test thing. Then I guess I'll start on the legacy bugs if there's no progress on the Beta Test.

I've finished the documentation, so I made this post on the Main Discussion Board:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=411333

Let's hope that gets the Beta Test rolling.

Well, it seems we're back to waiting on Erik. While we wait I'll finally get to work on the Legacy Bugs.

Would it be helpful if we (players) send emails to Matrix and/or Eric as well, asking them to expedite?

Obviously don’t want to interfere in the process in undue fashion, but I am one of the players looking forward very much to this beta release and would be glad to help in any way I can.

Thanks

Ratbag55 wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2025 3:54 pm Would it be helpful if we (players) send emails to Matrix and/or Eric as well, asking them to expedite?

Obviously don’t want to interfere in the process in undue fashion, but I am one of the players looking forward very much to this beta release and would be glad to help in any way I can.

Thanks

I would council against that. I'm sure Erik will get to it as best he can. Better for us to adhere to professional decorum, rather than carping.

There are still things that need to be done beyond testing. For example, the translations needed. I still hope for volunteers for that, ultimately.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2025 4:08 pm There are still things that need to be done beyond testing. For example, the translations needed. I still hope for volunteers for that, ultimately.

Here's how we stand on the update. Note the need for translations:

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:27 pm 1. One feature remains to be finished. This was the Commander Vacancy Fill procedure. It is now finished.
2. Scenarios need to be modified/designed to incorporate the new features for testing and publication. Seven scenarios now so modified: Shiloh 1862; Kaiserschlacht 1918; CFNA 1940-43; Soviet Union 1941; Germany 1945; Okinawa 1945; Leipzig 1813.
3. Those scenarios need to be play-tested to ferret out any remaining bugs with the new features. There are already 15 bugs that have been identified and fixed in the new features.
4. There is a significant suite of legacy bugs that need to be fixed.
5. Language files need to be updated with the text of the new features. There were seven in TOAW-III:
_____a. English
_____b. Chinese
_____c. French
_____d. Spanish - finished by Josant.
_____e. German – not yet in TOAW-IV
_____f. Italian – not yet in TOAW-IV
_____g. Polish – not yet in TOAW-IV
_____h. Note to volunteers: Digital Translators make it unnecessary to speak the language to translate.
6. Documentation for the new features needs to be crafted.
7. Scenario Designers will be canvased for any new scenarios to add.
8. Matrix needs to make the installation build for the update.
9. That build needs to be tested.

My estimate/hope now is that the release could come in 2025.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2025 5:34 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2025 4:08 pm There are still things that need to be done beyond testing. For example, the translations needed. I still hope for volunteers for that, ultimately.

Here's how we stand on the update. Note the need for translations:

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:27 pm 1. One feature remains to be finished. This was the Commander Vacancy Fill procedure. It is now finished.
2. Scenarios need to be modified/designed to incorporate the new features for testing and publication. Seven scenarios now so modified: Shiloh 1862; Kaiserschlacht 1918; CFNA 1940-43; Soviet Union 1941; Germany 1945; Okinawa 1945; Leipzig 1813.
3. Those scenarios need to be play-tested to ferret out any remaining bugs with the new features. There are already 15 bugs that have been identified and fixed in the new features.
4. There is a significant suite of legacy bugs that need to be fixed.
5. Language files need to be updated with the text of the new features. There were seven in TOAW-III:
_____a. English
_____b. Chinese
_____c. French
_____d. Spanish - finished by Josant.
_____e. German – not yet in TOAW-IV
_____f. Italian – not yet in TOAW-IV
_____g. Polish – not yet in TOAW-IV
_____h. Note to volunteers: Digital Translators make it unnecessary to speak the language to translate.
6. Documentation for the new features needs to be crafted.
7. Scenario Designers will be canvased for any new scenarios to add.
8. Matrix needs to make the installation build for the update.
9. That build needs to be tested.

My estimate/hope now is that the release could come in 2025.

Thank you, Curtis, for all your efforts on this game! Since Erik already knows about it, let's just wait calmly. Please also rest assured to continue polishing this highly anticipated major update to near perfection. I believe this game will be reborn soon! I'm praying for you!

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:29 pm I fixed one more bug (#10 on the list): Now, once a commander has been added from the Commander List Editor to the Commander Inventory Editor, it can be removed by clicking the assign button for that side again, with that commander selected. The commander returns to "Not in Scenario" and is removed from that side's inventory.

I must have gotten lucky with the test example for this. This feature had a bunch of screw-ups in it - found by Jack. It should be fixed this time.

Adjusted the bug list (in item 11) accordingly here:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 6#p5229896

I marked the easy Legacy Bugs in blue => which I will attempt to fix first. Here, I've fixed the first of these (#7 overall).

These are just my estimates as to which are easiest. In this case, it took two full days to fix this one (way over my estimate).

Here's the "before" shot, showing the 0.5 MPs per hex for embarked movement when the improved road motorized divisor is 2. (Obviously, that divisor shouldn't apply to embarked movement.)

And here it is after being fixed. Note that it wasn't just a display issue: It really cost 1/2 an MP per sea hex before, and now is back to a full 1 MP per sea hex.

Note that it was really two bugs: The cost expended was a separate problem from the 1/2 MP display. Each was in a different part of the code and had to be traced (and fixed) separately.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 11:21 pm I marked the easy Legacy Bugs in blue => which I will attempt to fix first . . .

I see a list of 22 legacy issues which you seem to be resolving relatively quickly. I consider two days as “quickly”, thank you.
What I’m wondering is why you didn’t take on these problems first instead of waiting until you finished the hierarchy module. Am I wrong to think that a patch for legacy bugs could have been distributed five years ago? I realize that the hierarchy module is more than just a pet project, but here are 22 issues which could have been resolved years ago.

Regards

rhinobones wrote: Sun Jul 20, 2025 12:08 am

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 11:21 pm I marked the easy Legacy Bugs in blue => which I will attempt to fix first . . .

I see a list of 22 legacy issues which you seem to be resolving relatively quickly. I consider two days as “quickly”, thank you.
What I’m wondering is why you didn’t take on these problems first instead of waiting until you finished the hierarchy module. Am I wrong to think that a patch for legacy bugs could have been distributed five years ago? I realize that the hierarchy module is more than just a pet project, but here are 22 issues which could have been resolved years ago.

Regards

They were Ralph's bugs, and his job. I began working on the Hierarchy Module in 2019. We weren't even aware that Ralph was gone till 2021. Once we did, I determined I would finish the module I was working on, then address the legacy bugs. As I've stated before, I had no way to know how large a task the Hierarchy Module would turn out to be, even if Matrix would have consented to a bugfix-only patch.

But, rejoice! The Legacy Bugs are finally being fixed!

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Jul 20, 2025 12:43 am But, rejoice! The Legacy Bugs are finally being fixed!

We'll all rejoice when the time is right . . . I'll take your word that the time isn't too distant. However, still think that a patch could have been put out (in about 2022) which would have made the community very happy.

Regards

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Jul 20, 2025 12:43 am They were Ralph's bugs, and his job. I began working on the Hierarchy Module in 2019. We weren't even aware that Ralph was gone till 2021.

I think most everyone knew he was gone. It just wasn't official. And just because someone else created bugs doesn't make it someone's job to pass on fixing them. Now the fixes won't even be seen unless/until the new stuff is officially released. So the bugs will persist until, possibly, the end of time. Depending on Matrix to forge ahead with the new features anytime in the near future is becoming a pipe dream. If they really cared it would be in open beta. This is beginning to look like Steel Tigers. 'We don't have time for it right now but when we get around to it...blah blah blah Steel Tigers'

Lobster wrote: Sun Jul 20, 2025 3:52 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Jul 20, 2025 12:43 am They were Ralph's bugs, and his job. I began working on the Hierarchy Module in 2019. We weren't even aware that Ralph was gone till 2021.

I think most everyone knew he was gone. It just wasn't official.

Rubbish. Ralph was still logging in as late as June 27, 2021. It was well after that before we had confirmation from Erik that he was gone for good.

And just because someone else created bugs doesn't make it someone's job to pass on fixing them.

I had begun work on the new features under the knowledge that Ralph was handling the bug list, and was two years into its development. You can't jump around from one thing to another in coding. The legacy bugs had to wait.

Now the fixes won't even be seen unless/until the new stuff is officially released. So the bugs will persist until, possibly, the end of time. Depending on Matrix to forge ahead with the new features anytime in the near future is becoming a pipe dream. If they really cared it would be in open beta. This is beginning to look like Steel Tigers. 'We don't have time for it right now but when we get around to it...blah blah blah Steel Tigers'

I take Erik at his word that he'll get to it. Otherwise, why would I even work on the legacy bugs at all?

My take is that it would have been better to first fix the legacy bugs.

But, whatever, it is good that they are (eventually) fixed. And if scenario designers find the new features useful, so much the better.

Hopefully Matrix will allow the the fixes/release to go forward in reasonable time.

I've fixed the #8 bug on the list: