Message for Ralph Tricky

[Simon Edmonds]

I may have some interesting programming thoughts/options for Toaw if you want to pm me.

[golden delicious]

Ralph's last post was in October so you might want to try emailing him- or more likely you'll get a response from Bob.

[sPzAbt653]

I should note that the community is actually the only thing doing any coding if we consider that Bob is working on TOAW on a constant basis while Ralph is in the oft visited Ralph-land. I like Ralph and have liked working with/for him in the past, but the way he has treated TOAW over the past 10 years is pretty much criminal. He should get up off it and let the game progress.

[parmenio]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


I should note that the community is actually the only thing doing any coding if we consider that Bob is working on TOAW on a constant basis while Ralph is in the oft visited Ralph-land. I like Ralph and have liked working with/for him in the past, but the way he has treated TOAW over the past 10 years is pretty much criminal. He should get up off it and let the game progress.

+1

[andy77]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


I should note that the community is actually the only thing doing any coding if we consider that Bob is working on TOAW on a constant basis while Ralph is in the oft visited Ralph-land. I like Ralph and have liked working with/for him in the past, but the way he has treated TOAW over the past 10 years is pretty much criminal. He should get up off it and let the game progress.

+2

[Hellen_slith]

TBF there are other ways to "progress" the game (other than getting into the coding trenches). For example, making more and better learning resources for those who are intimidated by the very steep learning curve of the nuances of fire and movement. Making more and better easier to read scenario briefings and play tips. More and better AARs showing YOUR tips and tricks for your favorite scenarios.

Etc. etc. etc. Just my two pfennigs.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

TBF there are other ways to "progress" the game (other than getting into the coding trenches). For example, making more and better learning resources for those who are intimidated by the very steep learning curve of the nuances of fire and movement. Making more and better easier to read scenario briefings and play tips. More and better AARs showing YOUR tips and tricks for your favorite scenarios.

Etc. etc. etc. Just my two pfennigs.

Those are all very valid points but, I think the issue here has become three fold:
a) people that used to drive content moved on / there are new games on the market that attract more attention for newcomers
b) there's a group that looks at the never solved bugs and has no faith on the system nor does it believe it will be sorted so, part have also moved, the rest is waiting to see if things gets fixed before becoming involved
c) there's a group that sees potential in what the game is but feels let down by the lack of development to incorporate new features that have been on that whishlist for years on end, but that due to pet projects being picked-up rather than more global and useful features being added, never will make it to the game

All in all my take has always been, if you're happy with the product as it is now, play and enjoy it, if you're not, there are many other wargames out there.

[Hellen_slith]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

TBF there are other ways to "progress" the game (other than getting into the coding trenches). For example, making more and better learning resources for those who are intimidated by the very steep learning curve of the nuances of fire and movement. Making more and better easier to read scenario briefings and play tips. More and better AARs showing YOUR tips and tricks for your favorite scenarios.

Etc. etc. etc. Just my two pfennigs.

Those are all very valid points but, I think the issue here has become three fold:
a) people that used to drive content moved on / there are new games on the market that attract more attention for newcomers
b) there's a group that looks at the never solved bugs and has no faith on the system nor does it believe it will be sorted so, part have also moved, the rest is waiting to see if things gets fixed before becoming involved
c) there's a group that sees potential in what the game is but feels let down by the lack of development to incorporate new features that have been on that whishlist for years on end, but that due to pet projects being picked-up rather than more global and useful features being added, never will make it to the game

All in all my take has always been, if you're happy with the product as it is now, play and enjoy it, if you're not, there are many other wargames out there.

All good counterpoints, to which I would respond (as just a player, I am a super klutz as far as creating or editing scenarios)

I have very rarely encountered any game-breaking bug, except the rare CTD in Next War Beta Update and I think once in D21. There may indeed be inconvenient and too clicky interface in editor, or bugs there, but it hasn't prevented those who love to design (and design well, and update scenarios well for IV) from doing their thing.

I was (and still am a bit) flummoxed by the interdiction routine (I think it is useless, except for annoying your opponent). My fix? House rule: NO INTERDICTION (or at least an agreed upon limit on use of same.) Issue solved.

You're right, if people enjoy the game (and there are many who do, given the many opponents I meet here and elsewhere) then by all means they should play and enjoy it, just as I do.

If they don't, then help CONSTRUCTIVELY to advance its development. And there are lots of ways to do that besides DEMANDING THE CODE BE "FIXED" before they will even VENTURE to TRY some very simple ways to MAKE PLAYING THE GAME FUN.

Just my two pfennings

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith
...

I have very rarely encountered any game-breaking bug, ...

Just a note re this, on the play testers board there are bugs, some around for years now, that do break the mechanics of some scenarios (anything with carriers for ex), some the human player will not see since they only screw the AI, etc. I was not really talking about interface glitches since those, as you correctly note, one can always work around if we really want to play the game.

TL;DR re this: I think, in broad terms, if you stick to what the game was designed for and around (Norm's Korea scenario, or similar operations and warfare) you are still on reasonably safe ground; if you venture into more 'creative' areas (like PTO operations) then the game is essentially beer and pretzels, which is ok if you do not expect good simulation from the engine.

[Zovs]

TOAW design was and is essentially operational warfare, primarily ground warfare with a limited air war component based on world war II, at 2-10 km per hex with battalion to regimental sized units at 1/2 day to 1/2 week turns with ranged artillery.

It was never designed for detailed naval and air operations, nor for pre 1900 level warfare. Also missing were obvious things that tactical and grand tactical games would need (ranged fire for non-artillery units, morale and command and control) and strategic level games would also need (political to name just one).

I think Norm clearly understood that TOAW can't be everything in war gaming.

So you can't really compare TOAW to Steel Panthers, War in the East, JTS Panzer Campaigns, JTS Civil War or Napoleonic games. They are all designed for different purposes. Saying that TOAW was or could be designed to be everything is not realistic.

[Zovs]

A prime example of the above is that TOAW has had a few scenario designed for the Civil War and or the Napoleonic's. At best these scenarios are beer and pretzels and really nothing more than a world war II scenario. To really feel immersed in a Civil War or Napoleonic war game you'd need something like JTS series for those two genres.

In the JTS series they have the most important component for those battles. Formation 'stance', that being either Line or Column. Without that component it's not a real Civil War or Napoleonic war game.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

It was never designed for detailed naval and air operations, nor for pre 1900 level warfare. Also missing were obvious things that tactical and grand tactical games would need (ranged fire for non-artillery units, morale and command and control) and strategic level games would also need (political to name just one).

I think that at the higher level (your typical division scale scenario at 15km/hex or greater), the game works fairly well as long as the designer uses the event engine intelligently- again provided one focuses on ground warfare in the mid-20th century. It's difficult to go up to the strategic scale without pulling in naval aspects, which are outside the "sweet spot" where TOAW is a simulation rather than just a game.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

In the JTS series they have the most important component for those battles. Formation 'stance', that being either Line or Column.

Not to mention facing. I played around with creating a tactical game in MS Excel with VBA (I know, I know), and one thing that became apparent very quickly is that units need to have a facing: it's not OK to be attacked from the rear just because there's no enemy to your front.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith
...

I have very rarely encountered any game-breaking bug, ...

Just a note re this, on the play testers board there are bugs, some around for years now, that do break the mechanics of some scenarios (anything with carriers for ex), some the human player will not see since they only screw the AI, etc. I was not really talking about interface glitches since those, as you correctly note, one can always work around if we really want to play the game.

TL;DR re this: I think, in broad terms, if you stick to what the game was designed for and around (Norm's Korea scenario, or similar operations and warfare) you are still on reasonably safe ground; if you venture into more 'creative' areas (like PTO operations) then the game is essentially beer and pretzels, which is ok if you do not expect good simulation from the engine.

Not to mention at least game breaking exploit. Thankfully not commonly known...I hope.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

TBF there are other ways to "progress" the game (other than getting into the coding trenches). For example, making more and better learning resources for those who are intimidated by the very steep learning curve of the nuances of fire and movement. Making more and better easier to read scenario briefings and play tips. More and better AARs showing YOUR tips and tricks for your favorite scenarios.

Etc. etc. etc. Just my two pfennigs.

Those are all very valid points but, I think the issue here has become three fold:
a) people that used to drive content moved on / there are new games on the market that attract more attention for newcomers
b) there's a group that looks at the never solved bugs and has no faith on the system nor does it believe it will be sorted so, part have also moved, the rest is waiting to see if things gets fixed before becoming involved
c) there's a group that sees potential in what the game is but feels let down by the lack of development to incorporate new features that have been on that whishlist for years on end, but that due to pet projects being picked-up rather than more global and useful features being added, never will make it to the game

All in all my take has always been, if you're happy with the product as it is now, play and enjoy it, if you're not, there are many other wargames out there.

All good counterpoints, to which I would respond (as just a player, I am a super klutz as far as creating or editing scenarios)

I have very rarely encountered any game-breaking bug, except the rare CTD in Next War Beta Update and I think once in D21. There may indeed be inconvenient and too clicky interface in editor, or bugs there, but it hasn't prevented those who love to design (and design well, and update scenarios well for IV) from doing their thing.

I was (and still am a bit) flummoxed by the interdiction routine (I think it is useless, except for annoying your opponent). My fix? House rule: NO INTERDICTION (or at least an agreed upon limit on use of same.) Issue solved.

You're right, if people enjoy the game (and there are many who do, given the many opponents I meet here and elsewhere) then by all means they should play and enjoy it, just as I do.

If they don't, then help CONSTRUCTIVELY to advance its development. And there are lots of ways to do that besides DEMANDING THE CODE BE "FIXED" before they will even VENTURE to TRY some very simple ways to MAKE PLAYING THE GAME FUN.

Just my two pfennings

Unfortunately there have been things that have been asked for over several years that are ignored. Then there are things that have not been asked for that have been tacked on. Fixing bugs is a routine part of software maintenance. Shouldn't have to demand that.

But as I've said before it can be a simulation or a beer and pretzel game. Looking at the Wishlist you can see that some want it pulled more towards the simulation end. At the same time I sincerely hope it's still able to be a beer and pretzel game also so it can be fun as well instead of a complex pain in the butt that requires a 500 page manual.

Regarding interdiction, moving units through airfields is begging to get interdicted. As a scenario designer keep the airfields off the roads and rails and interdiction should be reduced if that's what you want.

Other than just being annoying it is useful for impacting an opponents supply [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

TOAW design was and is essentially operational warfare, primarily ground warfare with a limited air war component based on world war II, at 2-10 km per hex with battalion to regimental sized units at 1/2 day to 1/2 week turns with ranged artillery.

It was never designed for detailed naval and air operations, nor for pre 1900 level warfare. Also missing were obvious things that tactical and grand tactical games would need (ranged fire for non-artillery units, morale and command and control) and strategic level games would also need (political to name just one).

I think Norm clearly understood that TOAW can't be everything in war gaming.

So you can't really compare TOAW to Steel Panthers, War in the East, JTS Panzer Campaigns, JTS Civil War or Napoleonic games. They are all designed for different purposes. Saying that TOAW was or could be designed to be everything is not realistic.

This is about on a par with declaring that man can't fly and therefore refusing to look up as a jet roars overhead.

Plenty of TOAW scenarios that work fine outside of the limitations you've listed. And that's discounting what future features may be on the drawing board.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster


Not to mention at least game breaking exploit. Thankfully not commonly known...I hope.

Honestly if you don't trust your opponents not to cheat then you're stuck. Just play people who aren't complete strangers. There are only about five people who play TOAW anyway.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is about on a par with declaring that man can't fly and therefore refusing to look up as a jet roars overhead.

Plenty of TOAW scenarios that work fine outside of the limitations you've listed.

My MS Excel game "worked fine". It wasn't a simulation. If you want simulation, stick to what TOAW was designed for (which you can find in the Volume I manual)

And that's discounting what future features may be on the drawing board.

I eagerly await you making my housekey into a better screwdriver.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I eagerly await you making my housekey into a better screwdriver.

In burglar parlance a screwdriver is called a master key. [:D]

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
... a complex pain in the butt that requires a 500 page manual.
...

A 500 page manual does not a better simulation or game make, in some cases it just means you have to click in a lot of things. Plenty of examples around.