Next version News (4.0)

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

1/ Ability to shift units between HQ's in some circumstances (eg divisions between corps, but not companies between battalions)

This would be really great. Seen it mentioned more than once. Maybe kind of like Hearts of Iron. Maybe do something with equipment transitions too so it makes the ability to create super units impossible. If a unit TOE says 20 tanks it doesn't have the possibility to end up with 20 old type and 20 new type.

Maybe I should say something about trucks. [:D]

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster
And who said it was the only thing I wanted to see?

You did. "Only thing that irks me is...."

This is why I objected- because I see this as a non-issue or at best a very low priority development. Worst thing about it is it would mean all existing scenarios would need to be reworked (or are we saying no backwards compatibility?). So I objected to you giving it your number one priority.

Now I'm also objecting you trying to paint me as a troll. I made a reasoned response to your post and you didn't like that I disagreed.

So we can't change anything because all of the existing scenarios would have to be reworked. Ok. I guess we are screwed. You right about everything obviously. [8|]

BTW, this:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

1/ Ability to shift units between HQ's in some circumstances (eg divisions between corps, but not companies between battalions)

This would be really great. Seen it mentioned more than once. Maybe kind of like Hearts of Iron. Maybe do something with equipment transitions too so it makes the ability to create super units impossible. If a unit TOE says 20 tanks it doesn't have the possibility to end up with 20 old type and 20 new type.

If you knew..

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So we can't change anything because all of the existing scenarios would have to be reworked.

It's a major consideration. One can make changes of course- but the game needs to be backwards compatible. Otherwise the huge back catalogue of the game becomes junk.

[sPzAbt653]

With all the issues of porting scenarios across the various versions, and the amount of changes coming with 4.0, might it not be better to leave older scenarios with 3.5 ? I know that leaves hundreds of scenarios out of 4.0, but since many won't work anyway, whats the point of importing more confusion to 4.0 ?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum
you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

Because of this I would say it's too late to close the gate, the horse is already out. Perhaps there is some mechanism that will still allow pre 4.x scenarios to work but I really don't know.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum
you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

Because of this I would say it's too late to close the gate, the horse is already out. Perhaps there is some mechanism that will still allow pre 4.x scenarios to work but I really don't know.

Depends. If the designer had the foresight to use the generic Tracked Tractor instead of the generic truck to tow
those 240mm guns, it will still be possible for the scenario to not break. And a truly rigorous designer would
have done that (sadly, I can't even count myself among such, though).

Otherwise, scenarios will have to have some adjustment to work in IV. Backward compatibility is nice, but not even
ACOW completely achieved it.

[USXpat]

IMO, a bit more consideration needs to go into the design of "future compatible scenarios" - as the marketability of a "game engine" without a lot of scenarios to go with it becomes questionable. The whole gaming world has changed quite a bit since TOAW was first released. Considering the amount of detail that goes into a TOAW scenario, of virtually any size, even some of the smallest ones - is far greater than the kind of detail that goes into "Panzer General" type games or traditional board games with 3-3 infantry and 4-6 armor counters with no detail of is under the hood.

Hundreds of scenarios with backwards compatibility issues ranging from supply elements, to events, to equipment... and the desirability for most to have a functional PO that makes use of the newest features, plus the play testing involved... scary.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: USXpat

IMO, a bit more consideration needs to go into the design of "future compatible scenarios" - as the marketability
of a "game engine" without a lot of scenarios to go with it becomes questionable. The whole gaming world has
changed quite a bit since TOAW was first released. Considering the amount of detail that goes into a TOAW
scenario, of virtually any size, even some of the smallest ones - is far greater than the kind of detail that goes
into "Panzer General" type games or traditional board games with 3-3 infantry and 4-6 armor counters with no
detail of is under the hood.

Hundreds of scenarios with backwards compatibility issues ranging from supply elements, to events, to equipment...
and the desirability for most to have a functional PO that makes use of the newest features, plus the play testing
involved... scary.

Within reason, yes. But we can't be straitjacketed by such a requirement. A requirement that existing scenarios
not even require re-play-testing would mean no material improvements of any kind. That can't even be demanded of
3.5.

Just take the mentioned issue: Designers would have to check their scenarios for units that have had their MPs
reduced to 1. Not that big an issue.

I'm sure there will be plenty of scenarios made ready for it. And what scenarios they will be!

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: USXpat
IMO, a bit more consideration needs to go into the design of "future compatible scenarios" - as the marketability of a "game engine" without a lot of scenarios to go with it becomes questionable. The whole gaming world has changed quite a bit since TOAW was first released. Considering the amount of detail that goes into a TOAW scenario, of virtually any size, even some of the smallest ones - is far greater than the kind of detail that goes into "Panzer General" type games or traditional board games with 3-3 infantry and 4-6 armor counters with no detail of is under the hood.

Hundreds of scenarios with backwards compatibility issues ranging from supply elements, to events, to equipment... and the desirability for most to have a functional PO that makes use of the newest features, plus the play testing involved... scary.

I plan to do reasonable things to maintain compatibility without being insane about it. In some cases it may make sense to put in options, in others, unfortunately, things may break.

A bigger concern is the AI, putting in a better AI is likely to break some older scenarios. I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

Ralph

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

Ralph

Ralph,

Nomonhan 39 by Norm Koger?

Best wishes,
Steve

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

A bigger concern is the AI, putting in a better AI is likely to break some older scenarios. I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

I'm not so worried about that. If an intelligent AI means the scenario doesn't work, then it wouldn't have worked as PBEM anyway.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

A bigger concern is the AI, putting in a better AI is likely to break some older scenarios. I know of one that has player two air units that are decimated on the first turn because the AI in 3.4 now targets them.

I'm not so worried about that. If an intelligent AI means the scenario doesn't work, then it wouldn't have worked as PBEM anyway.

I am with Ben on that one. Older scenarios can be fixed anyway. Indeed, older scenarios must be fixed to work with 3.4 as it now.

When it comes to scenario howlers, my personal favorite is Desert Storm 1991 by Wild Bill Wilder where the Iraqi scuds take out all the B52 bombers on Diego Garcia. I love that bit.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Devast8or]

Great news for TOAW community. Welcome back Ralph.. [:)]

[Victor1234]

Well, I don't come here often, but still play TOAW 3 religiously, and just wanted to say that I don't have too many problems with the UI, except for one area. The scenario editor event engine is alright for about 20 events, but for scenarios with several hundred, it's painful to use it! Something done for the event editor would go a long way in my books.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Victor1234

Well, I don't come here often, but still play TOAW 3 religiously, and just wanted to say that I don't have too many problems with the UI, except for one area. The scenario editor event engine is alright for about 20 events, but for scenarios with several hundred, it's painful to use it! Something done for the event editor would go a long way in my books.

Victor1234,

A very good point. Personally, I would like to see a full-featured programming (albeit simplified) language interpreter. We need proper while...do, repeat..until, for...step...next, if.. then.. else, and [call] procedure...end constructs at the very least plus a random number generator. Retain the existing editor for compatibility with older scenarios and introduce a TOAW IV programming editor for TOAW IV and above.

The Evil Ed was not built for event structures of several hundred interconnecting events.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Lobster]

A flow chart helps with large events projects.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A flow chart helps with large events projects.

A basic excel sheet also works, as Telumar demonstrated more than once

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2 ... e-evil-ed/

Klink, Oberst

[shunwick]

Helps but still not ideal. Loops, particularly complex ones, are a nightmare. As for multiple victory locations, you can easily disappear up your own backside. And that's not easy. [;)]

As for debugging someone else's event nightmare....

Best wishes,
Steve

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Helps but still not ideal. Loops, particularly complex ones, are a nightmare. As for multiple victory locations, you can easily disappear up your own backside. And that's not easy. [;)]

As for debugging someone else's event nightmare....

Best wishes,
Steve

Indeed!

For complex things and an extensive list of events it is no bad idea to keep an excel sheet. See here:

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/news-from-the-front-struggling-with-the-evil-ed/
http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/struggling-with-the-evil-ed-part-2/
http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/struggling-with-the-evil-ed-part-3-masaf/

As for debugging i usually do an extra test scenario for complex loops etc. with news strings to each event so i can easily follow the course of events (which is triggered, which not and not too unimportant, the sequential order of events that trigger in the same turn) from the sitrep. I know, this can be done with setting uberdude=Y in the opart3.ini, but i prefer my method as i add to the event's news string event number and what the event does, i.e. a typical news string would look like this: "#9 EvAct 3 Enable 6". So i would know that event #9 has been triggered, that it has been activated by event #3 and that it will enable event #6.

EDIT: Last sentence of the post added.. Also i've seen that the Oberst had already pointed to one of the toawbeachhead articles. Nevermind. At least i added that bit with extra test scenarios.