Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Ah, good! Let's castigate Larry, Jack, & Steve for a while. [:D]

Seriously, though, they're harder to find than you think.

Not gonna castigate those guys! [:D]

That said, I think that one of the problems with TOAW IV's beta team was that AFAIK it was made up almost exclusively of old-timers, many of whom have been playing the game for literally decades. While it is great to get the benefit of their familiarity with the game, it also greatly reduces the benefits offered by a fresh pair of eyes/perspective. For a twenty year old game, I think that a fresh perspective would be very useful.

For a twenty year old game, I think that a fresh perspective would be very useful.

+1

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

For a twenty year old game, I think that a fresh perspective would be very useful.

+1

This may be not a fresh perspective (I'm getting pretty stinky lately), but as a big fan of TOAW since a long time and still a patzer ... the game holds up (for me) maybe b/c I am just a patzer.

In an ideal world, IV would be flawless. But I grant that there are issues w/ CTD.

Those issues (for me) are few and far between, b/c I am not at the level of design. I just play the game. And it is a great game to play.

Maybe if there was a "Silver" version (for people like me who just want to play the scenes) as well as a "Platinum" version (at a premium price, w/ the design issues fixed for the designers) it well might keep its legs and grow in popularity.

But speaking for myself, I just enjoy the game as is and am thrilled that it has come this far, even with the flaws that (I think) stem from Win10 as much as from the original design.

Anyway, that is just my thoughts. Happy gaming!!

Is there a beta version we can test?

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Let's not. Let's castigate whoever didn't bother reading bug reports. This was reported back in December 2017 both in the Dev forum and the open forum. I'll link the open forum since it's uh...open.

tm.asp?m=4394062

Now I'm sure some defense will be used like it was reported in the wrong forum or something else. But it was tested and found to be bugged badly and reported in the Dev forum. It's called a fatal exception error or fatal error. These are the ones that are typically fixed first. But this one has never been touched.

BTW, why no patch lately?

December 2017 was post launch.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Let's not. Let's castigate whoever didn't bother reading bug reports. This was reported back in December 2017 both in the Dev forum and the open forum. I'll link the open forum since it's uh...open.

tm.asp?m=4394062

Now I'm sure some defense will be used like it was reported in the wrong forum or something else. But it was tested and found to be bugged badly and reported in the Dev forum. It's called a fatal exception error or fatal error. These are the ones that are typically fixed first. But this one has never been touched.

BTW, why no patch lately?

December 2017 was post launch.

It was reported pre launch. I know because I reported it. I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time digging up a post that was made that long ago. It was my job to report it. Job done. It was someone else's job to read the bug posts, make a list of the bugs and fix them. We are lacking in that department. But hey, we're going to get new stuff.

Am I to understand that any one of these versions will have a working editor that we can use for changing the color of the icon....no CTD's? I'll have to try out the most recent version and see what happens.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It was reported pre launch. I know because I reported it. I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time digging up a post that was made that long ago. It was my job to report it. Job done. It was someone else's job to read the bug posts, make a list of the bugs and fix them. We are lacking in that department. But hey, we're going to get new stuff.

Damn if I can find it.

As Lobster says it was reported here on 12/2017: tm.asp?m=4394062

But its a known issue now right?

I really want well for Matrix/Slitherine, I really do. Ive bought alot of their games over the years. I bought this game a few days after release, and didnt actually install it till a few weeks ago. Its a wargame construction set, oh but the new editors hosed. So either dont create in the construction set or use the Windows 95 version of the editor.

Reminds me of when I asked on the Histwar forum if I would live long enough to see the completed product.

Not responding to anyone in particular, just to say that we knew that the work on the editors wasn't finished when work was stopped on them in 2015. By the time the later Beta classes were added, no one was talking about the editors anymore as it was old news. I'm not happy about it either but it was no big secret and it has been posted several times NOT to use the 'U' Editor.

The CTD during play is a different situation. We did not experience this during Beta, and we were testing some large scenarios [including the largest, FitE2]. Repeat - we did not have this happen during Beta. Now when it was first reported [I think with the 'Next War' scenario] I got it and did my part for tinkering with it and could not reproduce it. Not saying there isn't some issue, but we Beta folks need to get something repeatable in order to pack it up and ship it to Ralph for deconstruction. No repeatable, not much we folks can do.

And - Beta was opened to newer younger players. I didn't see where any of them stayed around for more than one or two posts. I have my ideas as to why but not sure it would help to go into it, but I will say that it's another example of not trying to cater to a different demographic than what we are, otherwise we all lose. This small group grows in small bits mostly based on things that wargamers like about historical simulations.

Am I to understand that any one of these versions will have a working editor that we can use for changing the color of the icon....no CTD's?

Go to Edit > Forces. It's no secret, it's been this way since 1998.

DO NOT USE the 'U' button in the Editor. That is an incomplete function, and can cause ctd's. It's no secret, it's been that way since 2015.

New comers don't know that because they don't have access to the way back machine. [:D]

I will just post that I've designed two new scenarios post launch without problems: Shiloh 1862 and Chickamauga 1863. I've done full playtests on Shiloh without issue, as well.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I will just post that I've designed two new scenarios post launch without problems: Shiloh 1862 and Chickamauga 1863. I've done full playtests on Shiloh without issue, as well.

IIRC, one of the playtesters (Hellen?) mentioned the CTDs happened (at least part of the time) in conjunction with naval movement and / or combat. That may be a clue as to scenarios without naval action suffer from them less. I haven't seen any CTDs on my older version of TOAW IV, but I haven't been playing much besides sandbox scenarios designed to examine selected combat situations.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
And - Beta was opened to newer younger players. I didn't see where any of them stayed around for more than one or two posts. I have my ideas as to why but not sure it would help to go into it, but I will say that it's another example of not trying to cater to a different demographic than what we are, otherwise we all lose.

Well, the players don't necessarily have to be younger to provide a fresh perspective--just someone who hasn't been playing for 20 years. The veterans have been playing for twenty years because they like the game as it is, whereas it seems to me that some changes to the interface could bring the game into the 21st century, which alone could attract a larger (and younger) player base.

I'm doubtful that catering to an ever-shrinking band of veteran players is what is needed for this game to evolve/grow over the long term.

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

IIRC, one of the playtesters (Hellen?) mentioned the CTDs happened (at least part of the time) in conjunction with naval movement and / or combat. That may be a clue as to scenarios without naval action suffer from them less.

I'll just mention that Shiloh has a couple of naval units.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
And - Beta was opened to newer younger players. I didn't see where any of them stayed around for more than one or two posts. I have my ideas as to why but not sure it would help to go into it, but I will say that it's another example of not trying to cater to a different demographic than what we are, otherwise we all lose.

Well, the players don't necessarily have to be younger to provide a fresh perspective--just someone who hasn't been playing for 20 years. The veterans have been playing for twenty years because [they] like the game as it is, whereas it seems to me that some changes to the interface could bring the game into the 21st century, which alone could attract a larger (and younger) player base.

I'm doubtful that catering to an ever-shrinking band of veteran players is what is needed for this game to evolve/grow over the long term.

The majority of the cost of a computer program turns out to be the maintanence of it, the changing of it as need arrises. So the original developers need to ensure that they write code that is easy to understand. They should use the principle of "least astonishment" as they write the code. It should be written in the appropriate language, one made for maintance of programs, C# comes to mind. The original TOAW code is obviously written for a DOS environment or maybe an early windows OS. What's needed is a completely new program written from scratch as a proper windows program. The cost of maintance would be 1/10th what's needed now for the code as it is. The new program wouldn't give away any of it's DOS ancestry. The new interface could be one made for the 21st century, and look like it. New features could be added to the program easier. Much of the existing code coulde be used as is probably.

The veterans have been playing for twenty years because the like the game as it is,

I know what you mean, but actually a lot of the veteran players are not happy with the way things are at all. Having put up with the way that development has been for the past thirteen years, us veterans are a little more selective in picking our battles. So, if it isn't broke, let's first act on something that is broke. There are improvements that we would all like [:)]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: cathar1244
IIRC, one of the playtesters (Hellen?) mentioned the CTDs happened (at least part of the time) in conjunction with naval movement and / or combat. That may be a clue as to scenarios without naval action suffer from them less.

I'll just mention that Shiloh has a couple of naval units.

And I'll mention that I used Operation Cartwheel thru a lot of the Beta period to test stuff and never had a crash, and I mentioned before that T. Harvey has several large and small naval-centric scenarios that he was testing thru out Beta and I don't recall him reporting any crashes.
I'm not discounting anything, I'm saying that whatever it is has been impossible to isolate so far. It's also worth mentioning, from a troubleshooting perspective, that none of these crashes have been reported with the stock scenarios that came with the game.

What's needed is a completely new program written from scratch as a proper windows program.

With your experience, is there any way that you could give a reasonable estimate of the cost and time needed to complete such a project?