Page 5 of 11

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:54 pm
by gamer78
ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Baris

It is pity that this game still has great potential for sales for Matrix. It is very flexible. İmagine all the new and corrected scenarious based on new flawless engine...

Lol. Isn't wishing for 'the new flawless engine' something like waiting for the lion to lie down with the lamb?

...Let's shoot for 'less flawed,' shall we?

Wow, This part of Matrix forum is really "deep internet"[:D]...
Not a native language of mine so excuse the term "flawless". Engrish is not my native language.
Anywaaay, on topic. To be able to play "repaired " game is in my wishlist. Watching the forum for months but posting now to encourage guys who can make some kind of communication with the devs. From what I understand we agree on that.


RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:54 am
by Jo van der Pluym
It's now 7 days for Xmass. I am now a little bit

Mayby a good and [&o] to Ralph and Matrix Games helps

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:50 am
by BearFlag
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I can't agree with that. It was more like this: Before you add that new rec-room to the house, you first must fix the gaping hole in the roof and all the broken windows. ACOW had huge problems that needed fixing and that came first. We thought we were finally at the point by 3.5 that some serious expansion could be addressed. Unfortunately, that's when Ralph's issues seem to have cropped up. We still don't know why.

...

I think that's a stretch. Games are still being played; scenarios are still being designed. I fully expect 3.5 to be completed. I just can't say when.

Indeed it is and they are. I fall back on my assertion that TOAW solely occupies its unique niche. This is both the source of its continuing popularity and the origin of market vulnerability. But I also agree with Baris in that it is falling short not only of its potential, but the potential of that niche. Scenario designers have grumbled for years under restrictions which date back to the TOAW 1. Development of the game, both old and new, has progressed little in the direction suggested by its common use. So while it may be impolite to state, this failing belongs early to Norm Koger and later to Matrix.

Koger's releases followed the standard pattern for many wargame "engines." Add some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment and re-release it. This is the pattern that has worked for wargame producers since the 1970's. It is assumed to be THEEEE way to stay afloat. But I would argue that this is a unique niche deserving a (risk on!) unique approach. But that's another discussion.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Hmmm. You mean like a made from scratch TOAW IV? I wonder...

This is the tantalizing prospect, isn't it? In it lies the hope that TOAW will -finally- go where no computer wargame has gone before. A universal game design system for the modern era. (Well, some have gone there, but not in a compute-powerful, networked world.)

Does this sound more like "vision" and "direction" than repairing a hole in the roof over six years?

I can lay out with some precision the matrix (ooh, a pun) of possibilites which wraps my relative ignorance. Some of it revolves around the legal status of "Norm Koger" and "The Operational Art of War." Firstly, a living person's name is never free of legal ramifications. Period. Secondly, the game title is always "Norm Koger's TOAW", so I'm guessing there are some persisting legal hooks. Perhaps, Koger still gets a cut on sales. I don't know.

So it is likely ...

that any derivative product of Koger's code base will inherit prior legal bindings...

that any, utterly new, product wishing to use the name "NK" or "TOAW" may similiarly inherit...

that any, utterly new, product wishing to avoid legal entanglement must adopt an entirely new product name.

None of this, of course, speaks to the practicalities of actually writing a new or derivative game. Someone has to program it and the Matrix budget does not likely include plans for underwriting such risk.

Afterall, we're talking about one game, one code base, intellectual property claims and no cooperative development. There's no money in it without risk and vision. And it is on these sad grounds I reiterate that TOAW is developmentally dead. It's future is half-assed patches and, eventually, utter replacement from right field (the dark basement).

One escape from this inevitable future might be Matrix opening up the development for TOAW. It's not without danger. Volunteer programmers could run off with your code. But, really, this is a matter of coming up with reasonable controls and a security model. Matrix's interests have obviously to be protected. Perhaps certain source files would be omitted from the SVN repository like main.c or "combat_calculations.c". But then there's the problem that the volunteer needs to be able to compile and test. Maybe the withheld sources would only be available as object files. Alternatively, the close hold code would be compiled into a development-only DLL. I mean, really, the barrier to a coopertive enterprise which also protects Matrix is a technical challenge, not a frigging brick wall.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:59 am
by Oberst_Klink
OK, here it is:

https://www.change.org/petitions/matrix ... -supported

A calculated risk and not sure if I get 'banned' from the Forum in return. But I personally feel we, as a community, should voice our concerns and of course utmost dedication to Norm's child, no?

Klink, Oberst

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:31 am
by Olorin
Signed!

(OT - Oberst, your inbox is full, did you get my PM?)

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:34 am
by Oberst_Klink
Just noticed; there were 150 PMs in there. Shoot again!

And thanks!

Klink, Oberst

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:56 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: BearFlag

Development of the game, both old and new, has progressed little in the direction suggested by its common use.

I disagree. Just check out how much "blue" is in the wishlist document. The progression has consistently addressed items of the fanbase's desires as expressed in that document. They haven't all been addressed yet, of course, but many have. And, whether you like it or not, fixing the hole in the roof is going to be more important than adding the rec-room.
Koger's releases followed the standard pattern for many wargame "engines." Add some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment and re-release it.

A complete falsehood. Norm made major engine changes to TOAW all the way till Talonsoft folded.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Hmmm. You mean like a made from scratch TOAW IV? I wonder...

This is the tantalizing prospect, isn't it? In it lies the hope that TOAW will -finally- go where no computer wargame has gone before. A universal game design system for the modern era.


You didn't read between the lines. I'll make it explicit: Intentions (I can't be more specific than that) for a made-from-scratch TOAW IV have always been a future project vision - once 3.5 is finished.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:17 pm
by Grimnirsson
Signed!

and shared on the HFC site. We have 'a few readers' so this hopefully reaches out to those interested :)

The Operational Art Of War III – a call to arms!

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:44 pm
by PRUSSIAN TOM
Also signed! I'd also love to see a functional 3.5. It is sad to see all the loyal fans having to put new projects on "hold" ; I hope that Matrix addressed this issue, but they do have a bottom line they have to pay tribute to..[:-]...Perhaps in 2013! [8|]

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:24 am
by wodin
Matrix track record for in house development and remake sis very poor as far as continued support goes..many games either never see the light of day or they are brought out (the ones that do hit retail are normally old games after a facelift but are never supported in the long run) and then abandoned or the part time enthusiasts trying to keep it going end up leaving..

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:12 am
by BearFlag
Curtis Lemay:
A complete falsehood. Norm made major engine changes to TOAW all the way till Talonsoft folded.

Of all the things to single out and declare false, you chose the one most easily defended, the one that was mere observation. My only condemnation of that pattern which is so prevalent, and for so long, in the hobby and, yes, in Koger's series was limited to the pervasive assumption that this is the only marketing approach. And indeed hard experience has repeatedly taught this lesson to game companies. Most wargame companies and wargame designers are hesistant to deviate from the tried-and-true. My suggestion was that this particular niche may lend itself to a model other than "release once" or "release and expand"

That said, tweaking an engine does not a new game make. There is no better argument that TOAW is indeed a series, following the general pattern, than that is, well, a series. If TOAW II wasn't a topical expansion then I'm an unky's muncle.

As for direction and progress, I think we're talking on different levels entirely. To be sure, many changes have turned blue. But these are nearly all mechanical aspects of the game (calculations, unit behavior, graphical tweaks, fixes). Important, no doubt, but decidely not the direction indicated by scenario designers, IMO. I'm looking at what scenario designers have tried to construct using a system that is just not up to the task. And I've already listed some of those areas which have seen little or no evolution.

At any rate, I've said my piece. Ruffled some feathers. I'll return to my own projects and, maybe every once in a while, play TOAW ... until something better comes along.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:45 am
by Jo van der Pluym
It's now 6 days for Xmass. it's that there is mayby no
Xmass release. But with Oberst Klink

https://www.change.org/petitions/matrix ... -supported

I have hope that there is a future.


RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:59 am
by Rodia


Hey, I signed as well.

Maybe we should aid promoting the game by adding some reviews and scores in the Matrix TOAW page.

Anyways, Oberst_Klink, did you contact with "Punta de lanza"?

I'm not registered there but I ask because I can translate to language of Spanish TOAW compadres. [:D]

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:34 am
by Cfant
Signed the petition. To buy TOAW was some kind of a hit into the heart. Didn't have that in years. Civ was such a thing and Wing Commander. Back in the old days...

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:39 am
by josant
ORIGINAL: Rodia



Hey, I signed as well.

Maybe we should aid promoting the game by adding some reviews and scores in the Matrix TOAW page.

Anyways, Oberst_Klink, did you contact with "Punta de lanza"?

I'm not registered there but I ask because I can translate to language of Spanish TOAW compadres. [:D]


Yes "punta de lanza" is informed, I put a message in this forum yesterday.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:36 am
by Oberst_Klink
ORIGINAL: josant

ORIGINAL: Rodia



Hey, I signed as well.

Maybe we should aid promoting the game by adding some reviews and scores in the Matrix TOAW page.

Anyways, Oberst_Klink, did you contact with "Punta de lanza"?

I'm not registered there but I ask because I can translate to language of Spanish TOAW compadres. [:D]


Yes "punta de lanza" is informed, I put a message in this forum yesterday.
Muchas gracias compañeros!

I am trying to figure out how to display the signatories; but hey. A petition can be done here as well. I am sure there a re 100+ forum members who got TOAW and who LOVE it! Remember the Ardennes AAR of the Year from Korfax at Punta de Lanza?

Klink, Oberst

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:15 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: BearFlag

Of all the things to single out and declare false, you chose the one most easily defended, ... That said, tweaking an engine does not a new game make. There is no better argument that TOAW is indeed a series, following the general pattern, than that is, well, a series. If TOAW II wasn't a topical expansion then I'm an unky's muncle.

Then consider yourself one. The differences between the combat engines of TOAW I and TOAW II were profound. And let's not forget that your statement - which you think is so easily defended - was: "Add some new scenery, some new scenarios and some new equipment and re-release it." That doesn't even allow for engine "tweaks". It was, and is, a complete falsehood.
As for direction and progress, I think we're talking on different levels entirely.

No. We're really not. We just differ on the right way to get there.
To be sure, many changes have turned blue. But these are nearly all mechanical aspects of the game (calculations, unit behavior, graphical tweaks, fixes). Important, no doubt, but decidely not the direction indicated by scenario designers, IMO.

Clearly, what you considered to be the high priority task list differs from the direction development has taken so far. But those priorities are just your opinion, and not a very well thought out one. To pursue "blue sky" expansion into areas TOAW had never been intended for before addressing the miriad of problems it had in areas that it always was intended for would have been insane. This is especially the case when you understand that the expansion that you want is so difficult a task it was mostly beyond the entire coding budget TOAW III has so far expended. Had we followed that path, we'd still be working on it without a single update. What has come before it was more important, more beneficial, more cost effective, and, contrary to your opinion, just as desired by the fanbase.

Honestly, I'd ask anyone to compare the change list for TOAW III and compare it to WitP's. There's no comparison, and WitP must have sold x10 to TOAW III. For anyone to suggest that we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph is just absurd.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:01 pm
by Panama
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
For anyone to suggest that we haven't gotten our money's worth out of Ralph is just absurd.

George the mechanic built me a very nice car. It has beautiful wheels, great paint job, power seats and windows, fabulous sound system. The motor sounds great. And he did it all for a very small sum. However, he left off the drive shaft, the brakes, the transmission and the windows. I don't have the knowledge to finish it even if I had the rights. Did I get my moneys worth?

I guess it makes a great outdoor sound system. If it had any wiring.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:08 pm
by governato
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

It's now 6 days for Xmass. it's that there is mayby no
Xmass release. But with Oberst Klink

https://www.change.org/petitions/matrix ... -supported

I have hope that there is a future.


+1 Let's focus on what could actually help speeding up things a bit or to at least improve communications.

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:27 pm
by Oberst_Klink
The Swedish Defence College uses TOAW for training; I just hope they don't use AAA equipment in non-AAA counter units... <pun>

The IMPORTANCE of TOAW (and therefore support of it) can be found here:

Unexpected game calculations in
educational wargaming:Design flaw
or beneficial to learning?

http://www.digra.org/dl/db/11310.31521.pdf

Klink, Oberst



Image