Imagine that you can ask questions to .....

[jlbetin]

Matrix CEO, Ralph Trickey Jamian, for TOAW & General Staff for the scenario choice part by instance

What would be your questions.

This is not an innocent request, I will try to get the 10 most asked questions and submit them to those folks

I hope they will accept to answer, and those interviews if any will be posted in the TOAW game site

I wait for yyour most favorite questions Gentlemen

Der WanderModerator

[jlbetin]

I will post this question

What was the most difficult bug to analyse and to correct

Der WanderProgrammer

[JAMiAM]

What was the most difficult bug to analyse and to correct

Oh...that's an easy one! It's the one we never found. Made it impossible to correct, as a matter of fact. We'll rely on the eyes of the buying public to hunt it down for us, so we can promptly squash it, though. Thank you. Next question!
:laugh:

But seriously, when you get your set of interview questions together, I'm sure that Ralph and I will be more than happy to give you some more serious answers.:)

[jlbetin]

Oh...that's an easy one! It's the one we never found. Made it impossible to correct, as a matter of fact. We'll rely on the eyes of the buying public to hunt it down for us, so we can promptly squash it, though. Thank you. Next question!
:laugh:

But seriously, when you get your set of interview questions together, I'm sure that Ralph and I will be more than happy to give you some more serious answers.:)

James,

The shadow bug is still hunting the hollow shells permitting 0.5 MG to kill König Tiger (remember this one).:clown:

Very seriously, we have posted a list of bugs in october IIRW, are all of them corrected? If yes I can remove the bug list from the matrix TOAW forum

And from all those crazzy enhancement request, which are the ones that ralph had implemented, I read the pdf you posted, it is amazing but I prefer to reffer to a list and to quote done or RFV ( reserved for future version)

I'm like you I wait for SZO folks to ask questions, wake up gents

Der WanderCorrespondant

[ralphtrickey]

James,

The shadow bug is still hunting the hollow shells permitting 0.5 MG to kill König Tiger (remember this one).:clown:

Very seriously, we have posted a list of bugs in october IIRW, are all of them corrected? If yes I can remove the bug list from the matrix TOAW forum

And from all those crazzy enhancement request, which are the ones that ralph had implemented, I read the pdf you posted, it is amazing but I prefer to reffer to a list and to quote done or RFV ( reserved for future version)

I'm like you I wait for SZO folks to ask questions, wake up gents

Der WanderCorrespondant
If someone could review both those after release, I'd appreciate it. This was meant to be a quick release, so not many of the enhancements made it, although most of the bugs were fixed. I cherry picked the easiest ones from the list.

[Veers]

After we all buy the initial release, to support Matrix and to get a game free of bugs, does Matrix plan to implement a lot/several/a few of the features that we asked for?

I have heard that Matrix has good ongoing support for its games, but as far as I know, ongoing support usually means bug fixes, does it mean something else this time?:)

This Gentleman is awake, though barely, it is awfully early for me.

[ralphtrickey]

I think it's pretty cool that nobody has questions.:lier:

In fairness to Jean-Luc, until the question counter gets to 10, the oracle is closed. Once it gets to 10, I'll do my best to answer questions to the best of my ability.:blab:

So, start asking, anything and everything is fair game.

[larryfulkerson]

I think it's pretty cool that nobody has questions.:lier:

In fairness to Jean-Luc, until the question counter gets to 10, the oracle is closed. Once it gets to 10, I'll do my best to answer questions to the best of my ability.:blab:

So, start asking, anything and everything is fair game.

So um..........why doesn't Matrix Games have an AAR sub-section for TOAW III yet?

[Telumar]

What are the minimum/recommended system requirements?

[JAMiAM]

What are the minimum/recommended system requirements?
From the manual:
Minimum System Requirements
OS: Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
Processor: 800MHz or better
RAM: 64MB (128MB for XP)
Video Card: 32MB
Sound Card: Any Windows compatible
CD-ROM: Yes, for CD-ROM versions only
Hard Drive: 450MB (600 MB recommended) of free,
uncompressed disk space
Microsoft DirectX 9.0+

I ran it on an old Win98SE box I passed down to my kids, years ago. It has an AMD K6-2, 400 MHz processor, 256 MB RAM, 16MB Voodoo 3 Graphics, and an Aureal Vortex soundcard. It was slow, but it ran.

[ralphtrickey]

I haven't tested it, but I'd expect TOAW 3 to run fine under emulators too, for the Unix/Mac crown.

[Telumar]

Thank you for the fast answer, so it will run even on my old notebook, not just only at home.. fine...:)

I ran it on an old Win98SE box I passed down to my kids, years ago. It has an AMD K6-2, 400 MHz processor,...

Funny, had one of these also once. I cursed it, usb was always a problem even with additional drivers to fix problems (had a VIA chipset). Didn't it have 450 MHz? Whatever...

[JAMiAM]

Thank you for the fast answer, so it will run even on my old notebook, not just only at home.. fine...:) You're welcome, and yes, you can show it off to your friends, or annoy co-workers (as the case may be) wherever you go! It's very laptop friendly, and won't require the cd in it to run.

Funny, had one of these also once. I cursed it, usb was always a problem even with additional drivers to fix problems (had a VIA chipset). Didn't it have 450 MHz? Whatever...
Don't recall what chipset it has, but it's on an Asus board. IIRC, the K6-2 chip was released at 300 MHz, and went up to 550, by the end of its production run. It was mildly overclockable, too.

[General Staff]

Matrix CEO, Ralph Trickey Jamian, for TOAW & General Staff for the scenario choice part by instance
Der WanderModerator

Sorry, but I just want credit to go where it's absolutely and utterly due here. For scenario selection it's Daniel McBride (Stauffenberg).

[jlbetin]

Sorry, but I just want credit to go where it's absolutely and utterly due here. For scenario selection it's Daniel McBride (Stauffenberg).

Thanks for Correction, So if there are question for Daniel feel free to use this thread

No volunteers ???

My 1st one on which basis the choice of selection was made ?

Der WanderWonderWhy

[Menschenfresser]

QUESTION: I'm not sure if it's been posted elsewhere, but what are the combat routine alterations made by Norm in his farewell patch? I realize it deals with anti-armor and weak side armor noted in the change list, but what does that mean for your average attack/defense. A mildly technical answer, if possible, would be appreciated.

[JAMiAM]

QUESTION: I'm not sure if it's been posted elsewhere, but what are the combat routine alterations made by Norm in his farewell patch? I realize it deals with anti-armor and weak side armor noted in the change list, but what does that mean for your average attack/defense. A mildly technical answer, if possible, would be appreciated.
Without going into too much technical detail, essentially what happens is that there have been some new routines inserted into anti-armor combat.

As before, it is determined whether shots from various pieces of equipment actually hit their targets. Then, for each hit, the following new routine is added.

First, there is an angle value generated by a special distribution, that ranges from 0 to 89 degrees. It is skewed heavily toward the low end of the range, by the distribution. This angle value determines two things, the angle that the shot will actually strike the target, and the range for which a random number is checked against to determine whether or not a side hit has occurred. If a side hit has occurred, the armor value is halved. If it is halved, call the armor value A1. If not, then call it A2. Then, the shot angle is plugged into the following formula to determine the final armor value of the target:

AF = Int([Arcsin(Deg) * An])
Where AF is the final armor value, An is either A1, or A2, from above, and Int(x) is an integer function.

Then, of course, the usual anti-armor penetration calculations are performed for each hit, based on this new armor value. Those calculations can be found in the CoW appendices and haven't changed.

How this will play out is roughly a wash, at this time. There will be times when you hit from the front, but the angle will cause the armor value to be 3 times as great as it was before, and you'll have more ineffective hits. Then, there are times when you'll only get the side armor and minimal deflection, so equipment that had little to no chance to penetrate will now be able to.

After the initial release, we will be looking at further enhancing this feature, to incorporate more of a numbers driven bias toward side shots. That, and possibly driving the distribution by flank attacks, as well (since flank attacks are utterly inconsequential against pure hard, active defender, targets). That will allow superior numbers of inferior equipment to force more side shots, hopefully doing away with some of the problems inherent in TOAW where a small hard target, can hold their ground for round after round of 100-1 attacks. Experiences like German StG battalions holding off three Soviet Divisions, in GiO, spring to mind.

[expatyanqui]

I haven't posted on this forum in a long time, I don't even know what my name is anymore.

About engineering; in the system a unit had a particular engineering value for building bridges, etc. Including some random factor, the bridge either got built or it didn't. There are some units with low engineering values that will sit in a hex for many turns and never build any bridges.

Shouldn't there be a way of keeping track percentage of the work done on that hex? If a unit, for example, wasn't able to finish a bridge, it did do some work. Maybe the bridge is 50% complete and that value could be retained for following turns. Using the same logic, shouldn't two units with 50% engineering value have "about" 100% ability to repair a bridge instead of two checks at 50%?

[JAMiAM]

Shouldn't there be a way of keeping track percentage of the work done on that hex? If a unit, for example, wasn't able to finish a bridge, it did do some work. Maybe the bridge is 50% complete and that value could be retained for following turns. Using the same logic, shouldn't two units with 50% engineering value have "about" 100% ability to repair a bridge instead of two checks at 50%?
You've never seen contractors work, have you?...:laugh:

Imagine two groups, building a house, a bridge, or any other engineering related task. If they were to suddenly stop and switch to the other group's task, it would certainly take them longer to finish the job, with a significant chance of them screwing something up along the way, than it would to have the initial team continue its work. Though this example might well be argued against in some situations, in many others it remains valid.

In short, this is a scenario design issue, more than a game engine issue. If a game designer wants to assure a certainty of completion on arbitrary engineering tasks, then he needs to make engineering units sufficiently well equipped for the task, and in the number that he feels appropriate.

[viridomaros]

i'm with expatyanqui here,
the engineering % is not really a good system. sometimes you want an army to have a modest engineering capability. if you give 1 engineering unit with 99% it will repair a bridge each turn, not really what one can expect from the bridging capabilities of let's say the russian army in WW1.
If you put several units with a lower % let's say 30 it's possible you'll have a unit trying to repair a bridge and failing to do so even after a very long time.

not that a big deal but it could add something to the game.
" Maybe the bridge is 50% complete and that value could be retained for following turns" can't this be easily implemented?.

"shouldn't two units with 50% engineering value have "about" 100% ability to repair a bridge instead of two checks at 50%" here i agree with jamiam.
I'll add that: the more people you assign the faster the bridge will be built has a limit. That would be bad for the game since armies with low bridging capabilities could mass their engineering units and play blitzkrieg style, a bit unrealistic.

[Secadegas]

I'm not sure this the place to ask this but...

I was playing a game on ACOW where i was suffering from heavy enemy interdiction. The result was i had some bigger units (divisons) getting undigged (go mobile status) and smaller units beeing reatread when attacked. Only once i had a artilery unit destroyed. So far everything normal results...

I continued exactly the same game under TOAW 3 and the interdiction starts routing my divisions (instead of just undig them) and the general effects of interdiction became much stronger.

Nothing changed in terms of enemy interdiction level or my air defense.

Any special reason to this phenomena?

[Kraut]

Some issues I have with TOAW that aren't resolved in TOAW III as far as I can tell, therefore my question: are you considering working on some of these issues in future patches?

- encircelment: encirceled units should actively try to break the encircelment when attacked, often a 1/3rd AA unit cutting off the retreat of an enemy corps is, well, strange :blab: Based on the encirceled units proficiency and readiness it should try to break out towards its own rear, identifying the weakest spot to do so. The reason why it's still often necessary to use this 'cheap' tricks brings me to my second complain:

- the sticky ZOC. The scenario designer should be able to set the ZOC penalty for either side and change it during the game via events, aswell as the 'moving into enemy controlled hexes' penalty. In many cases (Barbarossa) to simulate the early chaos and confusion on the russian side and the fast german penetrations, it would be best to set the ZOC cost very low (that would finally allow infantry units to close encircelments, instead of having to use dummy units as not to burn movement points whioch will be needed for advances).
In other scenarios, such as WW1 for example, the 'movement into enemy controlled hexes' cost could be upped as to simulate the difficulties of keeping up with the supply and communication etc.

- air superiority: there should be an interception modifyer, based on the air surveillance ability of each side. This could be a new percentage based modifyer, which represents each sides ability to track enemy air activity and direct own nearby fighter to engage. So far I have a feeling that's more based on random behavior than anything else.

- endless retreat of 'ants'. We all know it, we all hate it, the 4 150mm howitzers with all transport equipment destroyed and 0 mp left continue to retreat and retreat over 100's of KM in a few days, that should not be possible, after they failed their moral check and decided to retreat before combat, there should be a second check to see whether they'll succeed, or, if they fail, they should evaporate. This check should be based on speed (horse drawn howitzers escaping from fast panzer or mechanized inf? unlikely, especially with destroyed transport equipment).

- passive only equipment defending too good. I experienced this more than once, a lonely artillery unit caught in the open and is assaulted by an infantry unit, only to see the inf. suffering heavy casualties. If there is no active defender to defend the guns, they should be overrun quickly and not being able to defend themself so well, this might even be a slight bug, as passive equipment is only considered under direct attack in a flanking attack, so a direct assault will see the inf with no active targets to shoot at, while the passive defenders (the arty) keeps on inflicting casualties on the attacker.

- fortification offering no additional protection, only making digging in easier should be fixed. If there are fortifications in a hex, they should aid the defender, no matter in which status he is. How long does it take to jump into prepared trenches to gain additional cover? See, please fix :)

- destroying railroads/bridges. Destroying bridges should cost mp's to do so, and destroying RR shouldn't happen automatically by the attacker moving over it (unless the scenario designer wants that behaviour), but only by the defender issuing an order (similar to destroying bridges) or by combat in that hex. RR should also be targetable by strat. bombers.

- retreated units (as opposed to routed ones) should be able to dig in again

- the amount of supply lost through combat should be propotional to the attacker. recon unit attacking a division = only 3-4% supply loss for the division. Division attacking division: 20% supply loss. something like that.

- formation highlight should also immediately tell the support scope, from free to internal, maybe by changing the color of the sub-units from now silver to other colors, depending on the support scope.

Soo, theses are my 10 issues for today, I could probably bring up more, but I'll spare you for now :devious:

[JAMiAM]

Soo, theses are my 10 issues for today, I could probably bring up more, but I'll spare you for now :devious:

Is this thread becoming a wish-list thread? If so, I'm sorry to say that I won't have time to keep up with it, for the next few weeks, at least. However, I'll address a couple of incorrect assumptions, in an otherwise thoughtful and well-reasoned post.;)

- fortification offering no additional protection, only making digging in easier should be fixed. If there are fortifications in a hex, they should aid the defender, no matter in which status he is. How long does it take to jump into prepared trenches to gain additional cover? See, please fix :)

Units in Fortified Line hexes are treated by the code as being equivalent to units in a fortified deployment, thus are granted very significant defensive bonuses. This was true in CoW, as well, but the manual was incorrect on many items in the terrain and deployment bonuses scection


- retreated units (as opposed to routed ones) should be able to dig in again

They are, and were able to before. We've just legalized the existing behavior, and specified the attack/cancel technique, as the prescribed method for doing so. In general, if it is stated in the revised manual as a feature, and the feature works as described, then it is not a bug.

We are going to more elegantly implement this feature in future revisions, so that you don't have to use the prescribed work-around. We didn't bother with it for the initial release, because there are more sweeping changes coming, and this feature along with others will be changed as part of a larger-scale, integrated package.

[JAMiAM]

I'm not sure this the place to ask this but...

I was playing a game on ACOW where i was suffering from heavy enemy interdiction. The result was i had some bigger units (divisons) getting undigged (go mobile status) and smaller units beeing reatread when attacked. Only once i had a artilery unit destroyed. So far everything normal results...

I continued exactly the same game under TOAW 3 and the interdiction starts routing my divisions (instead of just undig them) and the general effects of interdiction became much stronger.

Nothing changed in terms of enemy interdiction level or my air defense.

Any special reason to this phenomena?
This is the first I've heard of this. We'll look into it. Thanks.

[Panzer-War]

Don't recall hearing about this, has the f4-f5 oob text import/export issue been resolved in TOAW III

[JAMiAM]

Don't recall hearing about this, has the f4-f5 oob text import/export issue been resolved in TOAW III
F4/F5 does not export and import the full OOB information, and some icon information is lost, as well. This is a known issue, left uncorrected from CoW, and we'll be addressing it in future revisions.

[Panzer-War]

Thank you JAMiAM

As long as it is in the plans that is good enough for me, its Important to me as I use this function more and more.

[JAMiAM]

Thank you JAMiAM

As long as it is in the plans that is good enough for me, its Important to me as I use this function more and more.
You're welcome. We have several active scenario designers on the testing team, and trust me, this is high on all of their lists, too!

[Menschenfresser]

Just now getting back to the forums after a scotch binge Monday night...

Thanks for the detailed answer, James. Sounds like a very interesting change. And I guess we'll have no idea of the long term effects until a bunch of the old hands work through scenarios they know very well.

[FJ88]

Some parts of the new armour routine worry me.
Some units like the Abrams and Leopard tanks and to a lesser extent the T-80 and tanks for Israel, Britian and France should mostly be able to ignore angle of impact.
Those guns can penetrate just about any other tank (except each other from the front) no matter the impact angle.
They also fire HEAT rounds as well which ignore impact angles.
Are those tanks still just as deadly?

Also, are their any improvements to the way Anti Tank missles are modeled?
I never found them as powerful as I think they should be. And they miss alot.
Also certain tanks and APCs from advanced western nations should be almost immune from them thanks to ERA cells, defensive measures and armour which resists HEAT weapons.

[JAMiAM]

Some parts of the new armour routine worry me.
Some units like the Abrams and Leopard tanks and to a lesser extent the T-80 and tanks for Israel, Britian and France should mostly be able to ignore angle of impact.
Those guns can penetrate just about any other tank (except each other from the front) no matter the impact angle.
They also fire HEAT rounds as well which ignore impact angles.

Are you trying to tell me that a shot from one of these tanks, or a HEAT round when fired at an off-angle is suddenly going to veer off and go perpendicularly through armor? You might want to review this claim and elementary ballistics.

[Boonierat]

Are you trying to tell me that a shot from one of these tanks, or a HEAT round when fired at an off-angle is suddenly going to veer off and go perpendicularly through armor? You might want to review this claim and elementary ballistics.

Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was the gunner :devious:

[FJ88]

Are you trying to tell me that a shot from one of these tanks, or a HEAT round when fired at an off-angle is suddenly going to veer off and go perpendicularly through armor? You might want to review this claim and elementary ballistics.

If one of those rounds has enough angle to 'bite' then it will punch right through no matter how much energy is wasted because of the angle of the impact.
Of course rounds that strike and bounce off before biting are not going penetrate.
But those rounds carry so much energy from their extreme velocities that they can almost ignore off angle shots.
Add to the fact that the optics and fire control systems are so good they can choose what part of the target they want to hit instead of trying to hit any piece of it they can.

[JMS]

Some parts of the new armour routine worry me.
Some units like the Abrams and Leopard tanks and to a lesser extent the T-80 and tanks for Israel, Britian and France should mostly be able to ignore angle of impact.
Those guns can penetrate just about any other tank (except each other from the front) no matter the impact angle.
They also fire HEAT rounds as well which ignore impact angles.
Are those tanks still just as deadly?

Also, are their any improvements to the way Anti Tank missles are modeled?
I never found them as powerful as I think they should be. And they miss alot.
Also certain tanks and APCs from advanced western nations should be almost immune from them thanks to ERA cells, defensive measures and armour which resists HEAT weapons.

Actually any anti-tank weapon bigger than a heavy machine gun, and in some cases those too, can penetrate the rear, and most, the sides of any modern tank, where armor is concentrated at the front. Off the top of my head, the results from operational research showed that 60-70% of hits were in the frontal quarter, 25% on the sides and the rest on the top and rear.

Now, from my experience with the Modern.exe for ACOW, there's still a lot of work to do on the database, both with the values currently there and with equipment missing, which shouldn't break any scenario currently existing, but updating the DB is not my call, it's Matrix. In the meantime I have collected and collated the info, just in case...

[JMS]

If one of those rounds has enough angle to 'bite' then it will punch right through no matter how much energy is wasted because of the angle of the impact.
Of course rounds that strike and bounce off before biting are not going penetrate.
But those rounds carry so much energy from their extreme velocities that they can almost ignore off angle shots.
Add to the fact that the optics and fire control systems are so good they can choose what part of the target they want to hit instead of trying to hit any piece of it they can.

Things are rarely that simple in combat, since the unexpected plays a large part, from restricted visibility, weather conditions, equipment failure, etc... to enemy cleverness.