TOAW Next Generation

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
larryfulkerson said:
I have an idea for a more superior PO. Maybe I could code some kind of, I donno, artificial life, into the TOAW clone so that the PO learns from it's mistakes and becomes more and more proficient as it plays.
Well as it is I think the problem is that the PO doesn't really consider the whole scenario at once- only individual formations. If you can fix that- and then put in the kind of neural net you're talking about- that would be great. However, it might take an awfully long time for the PO to learn to be a really great commander.

What would be really interesting in the respect would be to play ten or twelve First World War scenarios with the PO and then play a 1940 scenario.

And having the ability to save the PO parameters into a separate file so that you could use a "veteran" PO again and again so that it got better and better.
Yeah. You could save different PO identities.

That way you could just set the game up and let the computer play itself a couple million times and the PO that might result could, theoritically, be unbeatable.
Perhaps. It might also take up a hell of a lot of memory.

I think humans will ALWAYS be able to beat any PO that might be developed. Of course that's what Kasparov said about a computer playing chess. Would be interesting to code such a beast and see what actually happens.
Well Kasparov was able to beat the computer. Just that he was beaten more often than he won.
 

Amyrlin

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Oh, let's look at my list of desired additions to TOAW:

-The ability to launch a "skirmish" attack, that will last one round and ONLY one round. As it is, even minimize losses/limited attack CAN take up more than one round.

-The ability to order units to bombard an adjacent unit with artillery. I'd like to be able to have my entrench infantry divisions with organic artillery bombard opposing entrenched infantry divisions, without launching actual infantry attacks.

-The ability to put units on "reconnaisance" deployment. This would make the unit - ideally, one with a high proportion of units with the recon ability or motorized units - spread out, making all hexes within a certain radius "observed". The unit would then fight not as well.

-Allow units with the "transport" symbol (truck thing or wheel) to enable motorized transport of infantry units. This can either be like helocopter transport or on a one-to-one ratio, i.e. infantry unit moves onto transport units, mounts, then transporter moves and infantry dismounts.

-Have a "disengage" modifier to loss tolerances: units flagged by the player to "disengage" will automatically attempt to retreat from enemies, as opposed to standing and fighting.

-At lower scales, enable units to carry out an "ambush": the unit becomes hidden or harder to detect, and then carries out an automatic one-round attack at a high shock level on any enemy units moving into its hex. (Think Vietnam, company level)

-Multi-level order of battle. Have a separate "Force Management" window which would enable the player to graphically change the order of battle within certain constraints: a Wehrmacht player could assign units to an ad-hoc Kampfgruppe or Korpsgruppe, which would then be assigned as any other formation to a higher echelon formation, and so on. Allow the scenario designer to put on a "headquarters limit" on the number of headquarters units per force; all ad-hoc formations must have a headquarters attached; if there are empty headquarters slots a new one will be created; if not the player must use an existing one. One advantage to multi-level OOBs is that we no longer have distinctions on effect by "force", "formation", and "unit": a scenario designer can designate any effect to affect a certain formation at whatever level of the OOB - whether it be the topmost formation (think OKH or SACEUR), a middle one (think 6th Panzer Army which may contain LXVII, I SS Pz, and II SS Pz Korps), or down to a specific unit. The effect would then affect all units within the designated area.

-Multiple players! World War 2: one player controls UK/US/France/Poland/whatever, one controls Axis nations and allies, and one controls Soviet Union - that way, we can have the Winter War accurately modeled.

-A graphical force editor for scenario development. Designers would be able to create unit templates, create the formation structure, and drag-and-drop units onto formations as desired. Designers could set all unit & formation parameters easily through the editor. Here's my ideal situation for this: a kind soul creates an OOB for the German Army, 1944, down to regiment level or whatever. A designer would be able to import the whole OOB, highlight units/formations to delete to trim to his or her area of interest, and set the standard unit level to battalion - the editor would then pre-populate regiments with numbered battalions - and voila! the designer has a stress-free OOB for his scenario!

I'm sure I could think of things ad nauseum, but you get the idea.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Amyrlin said:
-The ability to launch a "skirmish" attack, that will last one round and ONLY one round. As it is, even minimize losses/limited attack CAN take up more than one round.
I'm not sure about this. Breaking off from combat is not normally that simple. Plus with the current game system this could easily be abused.

-The ability to put units on "reconnaisance" deployment. This would make the unit - ideally, one with a high proportion of units with the recon ability or motorized units - spread out, making all hexes within a certain radius "observed". The unit would then fight not as well.
Wouldn't this be the equivalent of splitting the unit up and moving the peices around?

-Allow units with the "transport" symbol (truck thing or wheel) to enable motorized transport of infantry units. This can either be like helocopter transport or on a one-to-one ratio, i.e. infantry unit moves onto transport units, mounts, then transporter moves and infantry dismounts.
I would say like helicopter transport.

-Have a "disengage" modifier to loss tolerances: units flagged by the player to "disengage" will automatically attempt to retreat from enemies, as opposed to standing and fighting.
This is a distortion. If those units are in the front line in the first place, they're there for a reason. Bear in mind that whatever your HQ unit was doing in that frontline hex, the other player's attack is occuring simultaneously with it in the real world.

-Multi-level order of battle. Have a separate "Force Management" window which would enable the player to graphically change the order of battle within certain constraints: a Wehrmacht player could assign units to an ad-hoc Kampfgruppe or Korpsgruppe, which would then be assigned as any other formation to a higher echelon formation, and so on. Allow the scenario designer to put on a "headquarters limit" on the number of headquarters units per force; all ad-hoc formations must have a headquarters attached; if there are empty headquarters slots a new one will be created; if not the player must use an existing one. One advantage to multi-level OOBs is that we no longer have distinctions on effect by "force", "formation", and "unit": a scenario designer can designate any effect to affect a certain formation at whatever level of the OOB - whether it be the topmost formation (think OKH or SACEUR), a middle one (think 6th Panzer Army which may contain LXVII, I SS Pz, and II SS Pz Korps), or down to a specific unit. The effect would then affect all units within the designated area.
Ideally, the designer would be able to define units at one level lower than their basic composition. Then, instead of breaking up into three identical fragments, they would divide into their real components- say three battalions and an infantry gun company.

-Multiple players! World War 2: one player controls UK/US/France/Poland/whatever, one controls Axis nations and allies, and one controls Soviet Union - that way, we can have the Winter War accurately modeled.
More or less. There aren't really any situations where there are three distinct sides in a conflict. One could seperate out the Allied turn into Western and Soviets like Axis & Allies does.

a kind soul creates an OOB for the German Army, 1944, down to regiment level or whatever.
The trouble is it's constantly changing. Not much use unless you're modelling a battle at that exact time. Plus, in different situations you'll want different OOBs. At regiment level you might want a bunch of light rifle squads with the artillery. At division, they shouldn't be in there.
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
Amyrlin said:
Oh, let's look at my list of desired additions to TOAW:

-The ability to launch a "skirmish" attack, that will last one round and ONLY one round. As it is, even minimize losses/limited attack CAN take up more than one round.

-The ability to order units to bombard an adjacent unit with artillery. I'd like to be able to have my entrench infantry divisions with organic artillery bombard opposing entrenched infantry divisions, without launching actual infantry attacks.

-The ability to put units on "reconnaisance" deployment. This would make the unit - ideally, one with a high proportion of units with the recon ability or motorized units - spread out, making all hexes within a certain radius "observed". The unit would then fight not as well.

-Allow units with the "transport" symbol (truck thing or wheel) to enable motorized transport of infantry units. This can either be like helocopter transport or on a one-to-one ratio, i.e. infantry unit moves onto transport units, mounts, then transporter moves and infantry dismounts.

-Have a "disengage" modifier to loss tolerances: units flagged by the player to "disengage" will automatically attempt to retreat from enemies, as opposed to standing and fighting.

-At lower scales, enable units to carry out an "ambush": the unit becomes hidden or harder to detect, and then carries out an automatic one-round attack at a high shock level on any enemy units moving into its hex. (Think Vietnam, company level)

-Multi-level order of battle. Have a separate "Force Management" window which would enable the player to graphically change the order of battle within certain constraints: a Wehrmacht player could assign units to an ad-hoc Kampfgruppe or Korpsgruppe, which would then be assigned as any other formation to a higher echelon formation, and so on. Allow the scenario designer to put on a "headquarters limit" on the number of headquarters units per force; all ad-hoc formations must have a headquarters attached; if there are empty headquarters slots a new one will be created; if not the player must use an existing one. One advantage to multi-level OOBs is that we no longer have distinctions on effect by "force", "formation", and "unit": a scenario designer can designate any effect to affect a certain formation at whatever level of the OOB - whether it be the topmost formation (think OKH or SACEUR), a middle one (think 6th Panzer Army which may contain LXVII, I SS Pz, and II SS Pz Korps), or down to a specific unit. The effect would then affect all units within the designated area.

-Multiple players! World War 2: one player controls UK/US/France/Poland/whatever, one controls Axis nations and allies, and one controls Soviet Union - that way, we can have the Winter War accurately modeled.

-A graphical force editor for scenario development. Designers would be able to create unit templates, create the formation structure, and drag-and-drop units onto formations as desired. Designers could set all unit & formation parameters easily through the editor. Here's my ideal situation for this: a kind soul creates an OOB for the German Army, 1944, down to regiment level or whatever. A designer would be able to import the whole OOB, highlight units/formations to delete to trim to his or her area of interest, and set the standard unit level to battalion - the editor would then pre-populate regiments with numbered battalions - and voila! the designer has a stress-free OOB for his scenario!

I'm sure I could think of things ad nauseum, but you get the idea.
GOOD IDEAS MOSIEUR! I especially liked the skirmish, and ambush, along with recon in force, meaning a recon, to find out a unknown units strength, and if it's a weakling, and possibly retreats, the unit follows it! Ofcourse, you will need veery good vehicles to do this, or small scale, where a company or platoon of inf can do it..


And for the air dimention, like with arty primary target's for interdiction, and combat support... meaning if these units do not need to be acted upon, the fly boys are free for other duties, also depending on how many dots, ie, one dot for this units CS and the two others for general purpoce...

And a cabrank, that the allies developed, where amongst a battle, you can ask, if you have the forward observer- the question comes, sqn 232 ready for support ok? Yes, no...


Also, areas for defence, say, this bridge, or general area of these beaches the more you divide in hexes the less percentage of protection it get's.

A much more clear way of defining the troops that get the asap supplies and re-inforcements in men and materiel.

Also,, a way of saying if a combat ensues, the trucks are ready for being in the back, I always find it stupid that i loose a third of my trucks, and a tenth of my fronline troops, what is the machine doing sending Bedfords into the fray???


Perhaps, the shock value, of troops could go away, with the incoming presence of the hq, and the finally awaited leaders! Yes, the famous one's!

Just like in Avalon Hills 'Panzerkrieg, von Manstein on the steppes of Russia', remember?

The best generals, had troop boosters, and so and so.

So that a red unit, that gets Patton next to it, turns two notches toward green automatically!

Also, the idea of strategic bombing, the wrekking of milages of railway, hexes can be pointed out like bridges....

Also, tank manouver, will they follow into retreating hex, this can be desided, and radio contact of every troop, so that the one's with no radio's, just get their orders and live with them like now, the ones with late war radio's in ww2, ask, for an advance after enemy retreat, ect...

ok enough, I have seen the vote, and TOAW is still the most loved pc game for strategy! Nooooooo guestions, cannot understand why someone doesnt make a toaw 2 soon?

All the gaming community's pages with patches, should tell them something!

Do we have grand feth auto patches? NO! *Because this is the place for strategy gamers, and you don have to change the terrain image, thus saving thousands in developement whith no snotty designer graphic bloke draining all the money into crap!

Only mathematics in the end, and that's so simple for a pc, c'mon! get it together!

TOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW 2!
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
17poundr said:
meaning a recon, to find out a unknown units strength, and if it's a weakling, and possibly retreats, the unit follows it!
Isn't this a retreat-before-combat?

Also, areas for defence, say, this bridge, or general area of these beaches the more you divide in hexes the less percentage of protection it get's.
Can't you already do this by dividing units?

Also,, a way of saying if a combat ensues, the trucks are ready for being in the back, I always find it stupid that i loose a third of my trucks, and a tenth of my fronline troops, what is the machine doing sending Bedfords into the fray???
This is based on your loss setting. Read the manual.

So that a red unit, that gets Patton next to it, turns two notches toward green automatically!
Definitely not. Patton was not capable of producing fuel oil by magic. You could have the red-light unit perform better with Patton, but once he's gone it'll be back to its old self. Of course, this all depends on your opinion of Patton anyway....

Also, the idea of strategic bombing, the wrekking of milages of railway, hexes can be pointed out like bridges....
Yeah. This should be fairly simple.

ok enough, I have seen the vote, and TOAW is still the most loved pc game for strategy! Nooooooo guestions, cannot understand why someone doesnt make a toaw 2 soon?
Because no-one buys these kind of games. They all buy Doom 3 and Grand Theft Auto instead. The cost of producing and distributing a game isn't justified by the small sales it will get. Plus TakeTwo are a bunch of....
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
Ben Turner said:
Isn't this a retreat-before-combat?
I WILL BRAKE THE BIG LETTERS BECAUSE MY ANSWER HAS TO STAND OUT OK? PLUS WE USE THEM IN FINLAND SO MUCH MORE THAT SOME PEOPLE (NOBODY HERE) ACTUALLY GETTING 'OFFENDED' BY WHAT IS ONLY ANOTHER KIND OF FONT... I DONT GET IT AND NEVER WILL.... TO THE ANSWER:

I MEANT A RECON, NOT MOVING ANY UNIT, A RECON COMES BACK AND TELLS WHAT IT FOUND OUT...


Can't you already do this by dividing units?
I WAS REFERRING TO AIR COVER. NOT GROUND UNITS.


This is based on your loss setting. Read the manual.
BUT IT'S TIED TO HOW MANY COMBAT LOSSES THE UNIT HAS BEFORE RETREATING, AND IF I REMEMBER ALSO TO THE ROUNDS OR COMBAT ITSELF. TO SEPARATE THESE TO ALL NON COMBATANTS RETREAT A HEX ONCE COMBAT BEGINS...


Definitely not. Patton was not capable of producing fuel oil by magic. You could have the red-light unit perform better with Patton, but once he's gone it'll be back to its old self. Of course, this all depends on your opinion of Patton anyway....
IM TALKING OF INTRODUCING MORALE INTO THE EQUASION. IE, LEADERS BOOST TROOP PERFORMANCE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORALE POINTS...


Yeah. This should be fairly simple.
YEP, I AGREE A FAIR SUGGESTION, YES?


Because no-one buys these kind of games. They all buy Doom 3 and Grand Theft Auto instead. The cost of producing and distributing a game isn't justified by the small sales it will get. Plus TakeTwo are a bunch of....
I SENT AN E-MAIL TO NORM, AND PLEADED HIM TO CONTACT ANOTHER COMPANY FOR TOAW-2. THE NAME OFCOURSE CAN BE WHATEVER SO TAKE-2 CAN BE LEFT SITTING ON A PILE OF OVERPRICED REPRINTS OF A GAME THAT HAS BECOME OBSOLETE!

I THINK THAT THE (WAS IT THREE VERSIONS, MEANING THE GAME SOLD SO MUCH THAT TWO FOLLOW UP'S WERE MERITED, THATS NOT SMALL PICKINGS IMHO.

GLAD TO GET THE CRITIQUE, AND RESPONCE THOUGH, MERRY AND WARM SPRING TO THERE TOO, I'LL BE COMING FOR THE SUMMER MOST PROBABLY.
:) :) :)
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
722
Reaction score
2
Location
tucson,az
Country
llUnited States
Pixels instead of Hexes for distance?

So um....hey you guys.....I'd like to bounce an idea offa you guys and see what sticks.

I'm designing this clone for TOAW see, and I've come across a situation where the aircraft in question has a range of only 12 hexes but can go another 1/2 of a hex after it runs outta range. So I'm thinking hey, if I based the range on pixels instead of hexes I can go almost 20 more pixels further ( since the hex has a width/heigth of about 40 pixels ). AND then it dawned on me that if we based all the gaming decisions on pixels instead of hexes we would get vastly greater granularity for distances that other units could move as well. Much more accurate wargaming could ensue.

Anybody got heartburn? What d'ya think guys?
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
larryfulkerson said:
I'm designing this clone for TOAW see, and I've come across a situation where the aircraft in question has a range of only 12 hexes but can go another 1/2 of a hex after it runs outta range. So I'm thinking hey, if I based the range on pixels instead of hexes I can go almost 20 more pixels further ( since the hex has a width/heigth of about 40 pixels ). AND then it dawned on me that if we based all the gaming decisions on pixels instead of hexes we would get vastly greater granularity for distances that other units could move as well. Much more accurate wargaming could ensue.
I believe someone raised this point on another thread- but it bears repeating. By going to the level of 1 pixel rather than 40x40 pixel hexes, you're effectively reducing the minimum scale to one fortieth of what it currently is, since you have to figure out how units behave at that low level. Two units might not be physically touching one another- but if they're 1 pixel distant at 2.5km/hex then they're only 62 1/2 metres apart.

I reckon you should stick to a hex-based system and live with it's shortcomings. The number given for aircraft range is an approximation anyway- the aircraft could fly further but it wouldn't be able to fight at the extent of that range.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
722
Reaction score
2
Location
tucson,az
Country
llUnited States
Ben Turner said:
I believe someone raised this point on another thread- but it bears repeating. By going to the level of 1 pixel rather than 40x40 pixel hexes, you're effectively reducing the minimum scale to one fortieth of what it currently is, since you have to figure out how units behave at that low level. Two units might not be physically touching one another- but if they're 1 pixel distant at 2.5km/hex then they're only 62 1/2 metres apart.

I reckon you should stick to a hex-based system and live with it's shortcomings. The number given for aircraft range is an approximation anyway- the aircraft could fly further but it wouldn't be able to fight at the extent of that range.
Oh....yeah, I hadn't thought of that. May it might be more appropriate for the larger scale games, but I do see what kinds of problems it could cause for the smaller scale map(s).
 

Reckall

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
135
Reaction score
7
Location
Milan, Italy
Country
llItaly
Siberian HEAT said:
It can't hurt to show there is still interest in his game system.
"Still interest" is reductive - I belive this is one of the most longeve games ever after chess :)
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
larryfulkerson said:
So um....hey you guys.....I'd like to bounce an idea offa you guys and see what sticks.

I'm designing this clone for TOAW see, and I've come across a situation where the aircraft in question has a range of only 12 hexes but can go another 1/2 of a hex after it runs outta range. So I'm thinking hey, if I based the range on pixels instead of hexes I can go almost 20 more pixels further ( since the hex has a width/heigth of about 40 pixels ). AND then it dawned on me that if we based all the gaming decisions on pixels instead of hexes we would get vastly greater granularity for distances that other units could move as well. Much more accurate wargaming could ensue.

Anybody got heartburn? What d'ya think guys?
You are absolutely right, then you could do the combat radius rings for various bomb loads (I hope you will invest this option into your air section, going for combat air patrol with just the machine guns, or rockets for catching a truck convoy in interdiction, or bombs for a pre fixed target ect), then you can put the different load range's in nice circles, and the 'so, so,' radius as an extra ring, before the no return ring.

Also, combat unit's should have the same kind of freedom of planned movement, but without the hexes, just that if you move your battalions movement path over mountainous terrain it is one third (or whatever your calculation is) less than clear land, ofcourse to compensate for the loss of hexes, way points are a must to plan a good advance (like toaw does, it automatically suggest the fastest route to the player who can ofcourse change his mind, the computer cannot think like that with pixels, but the player can go by waypointers).

Also in the combat planning box, not only arty (which could have more micro management, like how much of it's ammo goes into this attacks support, and how much is left for defencive, or other same div battalion commanders requests for fire missions).

But even the time of attack to produce the nasty combo of troops starting a 'holding attack', and the hookers can go in with disregard losses from the back after, this should be much more evident and a more forcible factor than in the toaw combat planning box.

Also, air units could be tasked to guard, say a certain bridge (hex) or area... (If pixels are used, then painting a circle of cap area, will be factored into how long the unit can stay, little circle long stay, big one, small stay period.

I know this is micro management, but if you truly are building on the still unbeated (although I'm defenatelly going to chech out decisive battles of ww2: batles in Normandy), TOAW, then what's the point unless you add to the detail of combat and supply management?

People already have and love TOAW.

But if word get's out that a true secuel (which means improvements, but not in the basic control method, that's perfect, left click selects the unit, right click has the options, so simple, an yet, such a great strategy game, like having dozens of old avalon hill games but the pc does the tables and the collapsing stacks, and the counting ect, perfect)!!!

So, some increase into the micromanagement is needed. also ships should have units that have the forward observer in them like in the real war, if he get's killed (this can be done by random chanche if command hq of a unit takes hits), then somebody not so skillful comes to give ship/cas commands, and sometimes when the dice goes really bad the unit looses all chanche of directed firesupport!

oh, you know, just try to add realism, that's all I'm saying.

by the way, if you really are doing this, I salute you and am willing to try it out, even a section of a bit.

About hexes, some guy's like me. Love them, so dont be so rash in taking the pixel route, there are unnecessary man hours you could be using to increase realism, that would go to changing into pixels... Still I'm not completely against the idea, just I started with boardgames in 79, and I know what works, and what doesnt!

Many a pc strat game has been a fiasco, with a 'novelty' screen and all that jazz...

keep the command style in toaw mold, but deepen the options for battle simulation.

And airpower, and seapower, and artillery.

I salute your project!

Mr Poundr. :)
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
722
Reaction score
2
Location
tucson,az
Country
llUnited States
great suggestions........

Hey, those were all great suggestions thanks.

They are already loaded into the TOAW clone wish list.

Here it is....
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
larryfulkerson said:
Hey, those were all great suggestions thanks.

They are already loaded into the TOAW clone wish list.

Here it is....
Looking good, looking very good! Remember, that the simple asshurance that any rounds on a ship or arty piece, or a tac air unit signed for loitering and attacking opportunity targets, or targets called for cas by ground troops, should be clearly visible, so one can plan how much to spend on the attacks and how much to save for enemy counter attacks,and attacks.

Also, one thing, the timescale. I find it incredible, that in a scenario where a turn is a week long, a stack of a fiew infantry regiments, and five specialist battalions, that are completely cut off, seem to last just as long as units cut off in game's with half a day turns!

In reality, a division sized unit that is completely (and this brings us to air supply, a must for a new feature, as well as strategic air bombing, and points given to complement the good ideas for air power) cut off for a week, is starving, and the morale is really low, plus if such a piece of action as 'harass' the enemy that is surrounded, to deplete the ammo, is included, then like in the winter war, in a couple of weeks seven finnish battalions destroyed two and immobized and neutralized one Soviet Divisions, that's how fast the depletion went in the cold!

Also desert is another reverce factor, there the cold(foodstuffs, heating, warmth-vehicles that have gasoline) isnt the supply cut off multiplyer, but the hot, a cut off unit, is pretty much done for very fast in the desert as water has to be constantly brought up,and even at a small oasis, water purifying agents are used up really fast!

So, remember to improve the cut off units downgrading with time, and weather conditions as very big factors...

There is ofcourse always something more to wish for, but your list looked already like a really nice expancion or version two game.

But please consider the things I just wrote from experience in seeing the most glaring un-realisms in toaw...

Keep on truking!

And I will wait with great anticipation for your product, if you pull off a good improved toaw style game, then I'm shure all the toaw fan's will buy it all around the world, so put in the work!

Remember toaw, went through three game's, with two extencions to the original, so that means it sold a lot in it's day!

Go for it! :)
 
Top