TOAW Wishlist: What would you like to see changed or enhanced...

General Staff

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
2
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
Originally posted by Redwolf
From what I know the biggest obstacle with bringing in new Norm Kroger changes is the Safedisk copy protection.

Norm Kroger cannot place patches on his own account because they wouldn't be encrypted. Take2 had to do the encryption which would take them resources to do. There might also be a heavy license payment to Safedisk involved for re-encoding a game's executable after such a long time.

It's a shame. I have seen quite a few references about unpublished work Norm Kroger has already done on TOAW and there's no chance we'll ever see it. (Never bothered him to find out details, though).
Safedisk cost I don't think is a major issue for T2- it's shareware and even a license ain't going to be that onerous.

But Safedisk is going to be a problem if T2 try to bring a version of TOAW out for anything 'above' Windows ME since from Safedisk's own Web Site: ""SafeDisk" is intended to work on Windows 95/98/ME.". Not XP, 2K etc...

I also understand that compatibility issues aren't to do with Windows per se (TOAW works with all Windows versions)- it's rather that the version as 'wrapped' with Safedisk is causing the problems- i.e. Safedisk itself is the problem. And most problems seem to go away if you 'unwrap' it. The only problem I find remaining with Win2k and both ACOW/TOAWI unwrapped (I paid for both so don't see anything wrong in doing this) is the high memory requirements for the Scenario Editor and an inability to load/dump some scenarios.

So T2 either have to find a replacement for SafeDisk to bring another TOAW patch/upgrade to an 'updated' Windows market (Win 2K+) or they're going to have to distribute it 'unwrapped' or with some other copy protection scheme.
 
Last edited:

General Staff

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
2
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
Actually a correction to the above. Looks like TOAW uses Safedisc (NOT SafeDisk) which makes a big difference here.

SafeDisk is shareware, but SafeDisc is owned by Macromedia and is BIG (commercial) and costs some. Comments about the 'wrapping' causing the Win problems I think still are valid though.
 

Red

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
Location
Western Norway
Country
llIsrael
Originally posted by Redwolf
It's a shame. I have seen quite a few references about unpublished work Norm Kroger has already done on TOAW and there's no chance we'll ever see it. (Never bothered him to find out details, though).
Could someone maybe do just that?

It would be interressting to know just what we're missing... :rolleyes:
 

Cowboy

Recruit
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Jefferson State
Country
llUnited States
Options

I realize I'm reopening an old thread here, but I thought I might add something to the discussion.

First a short history. I'm an old cardboard wargamer from long who had given up after first SPI then Avalon Hill went under. Computer wargames that followed were typically one scenario in which either the mechanics were unknown to the player or the "AI" was numbskull.

So I've had a lot of fun lately with COW which I picked up for 12 bucks. It is interesting that the game has a loyal following (but understandable).

Now to the dilema of continued developement. Norm is making no money from the game as I understand it and Take 2 owns it. Little wonder that he has trouble justifying time spent on it.

You have three optons:

1) Convince Norm/Take 2 to allow volunteer programmers to contribute under non-disclosure terms.

2) Pool resources and buy the rights to the game. If you actually managed this you might then develop under a Linux/GNU model. Possibly Norm could spare enough time to put his stamp on 'official' releases much as Linus Torvalds does Linux.

3) Recreate the game from near scratch. This is not as daunting as it sounds since the existing game forms a benchmark. Tehcnically, it is violation of copyright to reverse engineer, but it is not illegal to duplicate functionality ('look and feel' et al).

Food for thought if you REALLY want a wargame that evolves.
 

BradSK

Recruit
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Cosmetic

1) Make reports within the game printable (scenario description, combat results etc.).

2) Replace abstract attack and defense strenghts on unit with something more concrete like perhaps # of infantry squads- #armour pieces -# of artillery pieces to give a better idea of actually what you have going against what. Even if I didn't know what squads, armour or artillery the enemy had in a unit a
12-4-1 (squads-armour-artillery) designation would at least give me some idea of the units capability.
 

LOK

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llGreece
Re: Options

Originally posted by Cowboy


3) Recreate the game from near scratch. This is not as daunting as it sounds since the existing game forms a benchmark. Tehcnically, it is violation of copyright to reverse engineer, but it is not illegal to duplicate functionality ('look and feel' et al).

Food for thought if you REALLY want a wargame that evolves.
I would love to do something like that but my graphics skills are rather limited. What I'd like to know from some experienced programmers is just how much effort would be involved in doing the graphics.
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Re: Re: Options

Originally posted by LOK


I would love to do something like that but my graphics skills are rather limited. What I'd like to know from some experienced programmers is just how much effort would be involved in doing the graphics.
Sprites are straightforward and easily done in a Win32 environment. I wouldn't be too worried about that. You could, for example, write a little test program that displays the TOAW sprites sitting on some TOAW terrain hex graphics in under an hour.
 

LOK

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llGreece
Re: Re: Re: Options

Originally posted by MikeJ


Sprites are straightforward and easily done in a Win32 environment. I wouldn't be too worried about that. You could, for example, write a little test program that displays the TOAW sprites sitting on some TOAW terrain hex graphics in under an hour.
Thanks Mike. That's good to know.
I am decent C programmer and can probably deal with most of the game algorithms except the graphics. I've stayed away from DirectX & VisualStudio simply because of the steep learning curve.
It would be great if we had an "open source" wargame :)
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Re: Re: Re: Re: Options

Originally posted by LOK


Thanks Mike. That's good to know.
I am decent C programmer and can probably deal with most of the game algorithms except the graphics. I've stayed away from DirectX & VisualStudio simply because of the steep learning curve.
It would be great if we had an "open source" wargame :)
An open source wargame would be great. Particularly since wargames tend not to go obsolete with every new generation of CPUs/GPUs/graphics engines.

This is actually an idea that might be worth pursuing. I think the only difficult kind of talent to get from a wargaming community would be artists, but that's just a wild guess on my part.

Even then, drawing map graphics and 2D symbology would not be overly difficult for anyone even remotely artistic (although, those of us who have difficulty drawing straight lines with a ruler might still consider it a hopeless task ;)) and only the TOAW equivelant to 3D units would require anything more than a shred of artistic ability.

Coding up a game like TOAW would not be difficult in the sense of proficiency required. Off the top of my head the AI would probably be the most difficult part, unless it was really generic (and consequently really bad). It would be more exhaustive (timewise) than anything else.
 

Cowboy

Recruit
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Jefferson State
Country
llUnited States
Open source wargame?

I'm also proficient in C, but primarily in the DOS/UNIX environs. Graphics programming is mechanical, labor intensive, but not particularly difficult. The bulk of it is block transfers between disk, memory, screen. I'd be willing to give it a go. But...

I would not forego the first two possibilities which potentially saves alot of effort. If someone has a line to Norm/Take2, this should be investigated even if it is felt to be only remotely likely.

Finally, if the full project is to be undertaken, some organization is required. One person, or a small committee, should be responsible for determining what standards will apply and what constitutes an 'official' release.

Very broadly speaking, you'll want to traverse these steps:

1) Establish design goals (TOAW-as-benchmark partly serves here), standards, conventions, protocols.

2) Establish general program architecture (three or four pages of pseudo-code), file and data structures.

3) Nittly-gritty programming.

Steps 1 and 2 need not be 'written in stone' but should evolve only slowly if consistency is to be maintained. Maybe a new WarfareHQ forum is in the making... ;)
 

LOK

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llGreece
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Options

Originally posted by MikeJ


Coding up a game like TOAW would not be difficult in the sense of proficiency required. Off the top of my head the AI would probably be the most difficult part, unless it was really generic (and consequently really bad). It would be more exhaustive (timewise) than anything else.
Speaking for myself now...
At the beginning I would not even start with an AI capability and design a game for PBEM/hotseat. The AI can either be added later if there is enough demand.
The graphics could be simple 2D NATO standard icons (just like TOAW which is what most people use anyway - 3D doesn't add much to a wargame) and the maps could be satellite images or other map images (there is plenty of public data). The user could easily import a bmp, jpg file and superimpose a hex grid. Then they can just "define" the terrain hex by hex (I had a little test program that did that). Or one can even use a DEM (Digital Elevation Model - there are public sources of those too down to 1 km grid). The elevation will be automatically defined and all the user has to do is add roads/bridges etc.
Personally I am much more interested in designing a game that is realistic and playable as opposed to one with beautiful 3D graphics.

If Take2/Norm can not or are not willing to continue to improve TOAW I'd be willing to participate in an open source project...hard part would be to agree on the specs and overall design :cheeky:
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
I've been giving this some thought and I have concluded that by far, the greatest wargame that one could possibly make would be a spin-off of the classic, Text Based Pong found here.

Ok, maybe not. But Text Based Pong is inexplicably addictive ;).
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
As I stated repeatedly, I am looking for a wargame to implement a programmed opponent for.

I'll post some OpenSource thoughts later when I have more time, but the first thing to realize is that they are not born from a group of people and the manpower that voluntary labour brings. All successful OpenSource projects that have not been started by inserting an already existing sourcebase have been started by one single or at most a pair of very dedicated individuals who got it started and up to a point where it was usable enough.

I am not aware of a single successful OpenSource project that has been started by a group.
 

RhinoBones

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
571
Reaction score
0
Location
San Juan Capistrano, Ca.
Country
llUnited States
Among the things I would like to see are:

1) Being able to delete an event from the event list, i.e. the opposite of the inserting an event. Especially handy when you make an Oops.

2) Making the effect "Enable Event" work on Theater Options.

Regards, RhinoBones
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
I posted the same suggestions on the 'sister thread'. I think the two should be combined. anyway here goes:

1, units must have preferences on arty support. ie. if ammo low, support this hexes if under attack foremost.
2. air support. certain hexes must be allowed to be pointed out as having cap all the time (for example that bridge you dont want to have the enemy bomb). sign a fighter unit or two to protect it, also one could put air cover on advancing armour units.
3. leaders of somekind that can have somekind of effect on the capabilities of their unit. ie. good in defence... ect.
4. minefields pointed out.
5 forward air controllers.
6. sea automated commander. also settings like if under attack on the other players turn how to act... retreat. skirmish. ram them! ect...
7. the allocation of replacements. a commander should be able to give a certain unit preference on all others in replacements.
8. much higher bonuses for high ground and units with arty or tanks if scale permits, must have a better go at enemy units below them. Look at cassino in toaw, one can get it in one turn... In reality, troops defending doog in mountain have incredible defencive bonus.
9. extra heavy defended hexes. pre prepared ground must be something heavier and needing specialist units than a regular inf unit fortified.
also the timescale. on one day turns it takes three days to get fortiryed. on one week turns it takes three weeks to get fortified!
10. somekind of understanding which way the unit is facing, this would make a flanking attack, or even getting behind more deadly.

I have had more ideas when playing that slip my mind, but as you can see these could be put under a sub menu from the actions menu. and usually be automated, only when the player needs to specify he can change the norm.
 

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
just some observations:


2. air support. certain hexes must be allowed to be pointed out as having cap all the time (for example that bridge you dont want to have the enemy bomb). sign a fighter unit or two to protect it, also one could put air cover on advancing armour units.


Already in the game, place a fighter unit near the bridge in question and set them to AS. Than they'll defend all hexes in range if they pass the communication check.


3. leaders of somekind that can have somekind of effect on the capabilities of their unit. ie. good in defence... ect.


Too tactical for an operational game, if you want to generally improve a units capabilities simply improve it's proficiency.


5 forward air controllers.


Needs to be totally integrated, say if a unit has some of these unit, air attacks on surrounding hexes rescive a bonus, everything else would be to tactical.


7. the allocation of replacements. a commander should be able to give a certain unit preference on all others in replacements.


Is already in the game.


8. much higher bonuses for high ground and units with arty or tanks if scale permits, must have a better go at enemy units below them. Look at cassino in toaw, one can get it in one turn... In reality, troops defending doog in mountain have incredible defencive bonus.


again, too tactical, this might come into play with 2,5km/hexes but everything bigger than that needs to be abstracted or can already be pretty good simulated with minor/major escarpments.


10. somekind of understanding which way the unit is facing, this would make a flanking attack, or even getting behind more deadly.


Nop, far to tactical! How long does it take an infantry squad to turn around 180° in case the enemy comes from the rear? Having a penalty here because you are facing the wrong way is rediculous at everything above platoon level. It would only make sense for fortifications such as the Maginot Line for example.
 

viridomaros

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
1
Location
liege
Country
llBelgium
Kraut said:
just some observations:


7. the allocation of replacements. a commander should be able to give a certain unit preference on all others in replacements.
[/b]

Is already in the game.
may be i'm wrong but i think he wants that the player can control this himself, now only the designer of the scenario can do it IIRC
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
Kraut said:
just some observations:


2. air support. certain hexes must be allowed to be pointed out as having cap all the time (for example that bridge you dont want to have the enemy bomb). sign a fighter unit or two to protect it, also one could put air cover on advancing armour units.


Already in the game, place a fighter unit near the bridge in question and set them to AS. Than they'll defend all hexes in range if they pass the communication check.


3. leaders of somekind that can have somekind of effect on the capabilities of their unit. ie. good in defence... ect.


Too tactical for an operational game, if you want to generally improve a units capabilities simply improve it's proficiency.


5 forward air controllers.


Needs to be totally integrated, say if a unit has some of these unit, air attacks on surrounding hexes rescive a bonus, everything else would be to tactical.


7. the allocation of replacements. a commander should be able to give a certain unit preference on all others in replacements.


Is already in the game.


8. much higher bonuses for high ground and units with arty or tanks if scale permits, must have a better go at enemy units below them. Look at cassino in toaw, one can get it in one turn... In reality, troops defending doog in mountain have incredible defencive bonus.


again, too tactical, this might come into play with 2,5km/hexes but everything bigger than that needs to be abstracted or can already be pretty good simulated with minor/major escarpments.


10. somekind of understanding which way the unit is facing, this would make a flanking attack, or even getting behind more deadly.


Nop, far to tactical! How long does it take an infantry squad to turn around 180° in case the enemy comes from the rear? Having a penalty here because you are facing the wrong way is rediculous at everything above platoon level. It would only make sense for fortifications such as the Maginot Line for example.
unfortunately aircover comes where the enmy attacs first, and your fighters might be resting or even worse re-organizing before the critical point for the player comes into play. i'm thinking about air war when outnumbered.
And as for the scale thing, well it is an eternity question for there are games of all kinds of scale. what i cant get is how on a game with one week turns an unit seems to deteriorate at the same speed with a 12 hour turn game...?
 

shadow

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Location
Arizona, USA
Country
llUnited States
It would be nice to see the supply loss be based on the size/length of a battle; instead of 10%(?) loss per "battle", regardless of size, maybe 1%/combat round would be a little more realistic. BTW I am sure that this has been covered repeatedly in many discussion boards but I figured I would say it again :confused:
 
Top