Semi-official 'work in progress' report

[Banquet]

Slapaho, thanks The music is called 'Don't fade away' I got it off a royalty free site. I can't find mention of the author.

[Sneaksie]

Originally posted by Banquet:

Partly, probably, due to lower expectations this time around, and partly because I can see the game has a future now, and is heading in the right direction.

Everyone has an image of a perfect game, and TOW problem imho was that many people expected it to be perfect WW2 tactics game. Thus, because TOW is not perfect (there is no perfect game), after release almost everybody did not found something they wanted badly (enterable buildings, quick battles, etc.). We are trying to make it as more enjoyable as possible, while keeping it's unique features intact.

[Sneaksie]

Banquet, very good job:) I liked unusual (for TOW videos) and surprisingly fitting choice of music.

[Slapaho]

Originally posted by Sneaksie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Banquet:

Partly, probably, due to lower expectations this time around, and partly because I can see the game has a future now, and is heading in the right direction.

Everyone has an image of a perfect game, and TOW problem imho was that many people expected it to be perfect WW2 tactics game. Thus, because TOW is not perfect (there is no perfect game), after release almost everybody did not found something they wanted badly (enterable buildings, quick battles, etc.). We are trying to make it as more enjoyable as possible, while keeping it's unique features intact. </font>

[Banquet]

Thanks Sneaksie

I agree that ToW is better than CoH. It has the makings of a classic. I hope the work being done now brings it closer to that point. It sounds like the entering buildings is being done very well.

I hope the random battle wizard works out ok. I would love to see ToW at the point where I can set a force 'point' size.. then pick my units and play a random battle. The individual control of single soldiers is great and I would love to try some single squad engagements once the enterable buildings comes in.

Then further expansions could be released with more countries and units!

[StkNRdr]

This thread is encouraging. When I started playing, I too thought the game was too difficult. After sticking to it I am able to beat most scenarios on the hardest level. The problem is with no withdrawal command the fighting to the last man just to move the campaign along is unrealistic and gets boring. As mentioned at least a hundred times, it also needs an easy mission generator (Sid Meier's Gettyburg for example) I have since put the game on the back burner until some of the new enhancements mentioned in here are implemented. I think this could easily be a classic and set the bar for future games.

[FinnN]

Originally posted by Sneaksie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Banquet:

Partly, probably, due to lower expectations this time around, and partly because I can see the game has a future now, and is heading in the right direction.

Everyone has an image of a perfect game, and TOW problem imho was that many people expected it to be perfect WW2 tactics game. Thus, because TOW is not perfect (there is no perfect game), after release almost everybody did not found something they wanted badly (enterable buildings, quick battles, etc.). We are trying to make it as more enjoyable as possible, while keeping it's unique features intact. </font>

[CharlieMike24]

Sometimes I think that the tagline for the game should be 'Theatre of War: Greatest Defeats of Many Nations - Experience at first hand the terror, desperation and hopelessness of being ordered to attack an entire panzer division with a rubber chicken'.

Excellent idea!...now do we know the penetration values for a rubber chicken at 500 yards!

[boog2006]

The disaster defeats wouldn't be so bad if they were worked into a branched campaign structure, ie make it ok to loose sometimes and not fail the whole campaign.

The mission builder gives the ability to link to a different next mission depending on if you win or fail, so long as you enable the "ignore campaign loss". So far, I haven't seen that utilized, ie win and fail both link to the same next mission so the campaign is always linear.

For example, if you had a mission to attack, victory would result in continuing the attack in the next mission on a new map. Defeat may mean going on the defensive in the next mission instead.

May take more work to build, but I for one would prefer a shorter campaign with a branched structure. Would add to the replay value as well since the campaign could go differently (to an extent) each time you play it.

[nachinus]

Originally posted by FinnN:

Sometimes I think that the tagline for the game should be 'Theatre of War: Greatest Defeats of Many Nations - Experience at first hand the terror, desperation and hopelessness of being ordered to attack an entire panzer division with a rubber chicken'.

This made me laugh for a while, thanks for it!. Good to see that we can face discouraging flaws with a healthy dose of sense of humour.

[Banquet]

I agree with Boog. It would be nice to not have to win every scenario. Some of them are clearly very difficult. In some cases they probably should be historically hard to win.. but the problem is you have to win them to continue with the campaign effectively.

Is there any scope in the editor for delays or withdrawals? That would help somewhat. It would be nice if you could exit some units via withdrawal points so they didn't all get destroyed. Or have a scenario where your job was to delay the enemy for a certain time, rather than an all or nothing defense.

It's great that units carry forward experience gains, etc.. but most of the benefit seems wasted when you come across a battle that wipes out 90% of your force.

[boog2006]

There are ways to at least abstract withdrawing units using the trigger system.

[nachinus]

There is already a toggle in the options menu so you don't have to win every scenario, it's called 'Ignore Campaign Loss', in the main Settings screen. I've not tested it, but I guess it works.

[chanss]

Originally posted by nachinus:

There is already a toggle in the options menu so you don't have to win every scenario, it's called 'Ignore Campaign Loss', in the main Settings screen. I've not tested it, but I guess it works.

No it does NOT work properly. In the free Russiam campaign that came with the patch i cant use this feature. Clearly buged.

[Banquet]

Originally posted by chanss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by nachinus:

There is already a toggle in the options menu so you don't have to win every scenario, it's called 'Ignore Campaign Loss', in the main Settings screen. I've not tested it, but I guess it works.

No it does NOT work properly. In the free Russiam campaign that came with the patch i cant use this feature. Clearly buged. </font>

[boog2006]

chanss, I've not had that problem at all. There was a mission in that same campaign where I was eliminated to the man, but took the loss and went on to the next mission. Yes, I lost two elite T-34s, as Banquet said would happen, but I absorbed the loss.

Banquet, I think the best way to save veteren units would be to have retreat built into the missions themselves. There is no built in retreat, but there are ways to abstract a retreat. Oudy's Yavno (sp?) mission had such a feature where the mission ended if all your units went into an area on the edge of the map.

If you get your butt kicked there should be consequences, I think, but it shouldn't end the campaign. What I would like to see, as I've said, is an entirely different next mission depending on if you win or loose. This is possible with the campaign editor we have and is only a question of campaign design.

[Banquet]

That sounds hopeful boog.

If scenario's can be designed to incorporate a retreat there may be less of a feeling that the player has to keep repeating the same scenario over and over until they find a way to win (I personally don't like doing this, and prefer a more dynamic structure)

[chanss]

Okey, nice for you boog2006, but I AM having that problem anyway. Cant finish the scenario because the enemy troops will not enter the map and i cant "ignore loss" because it does not work. It just puts me back again at the same corrupt mission in the campaign.

Its beatiful!

[boog2006]

Which mission is it? It's possible to undue the effect of "ignore campaign loss" for individual missions from within the campaign editor. Doesn't mean the feature is buged

[chanss]

Is the only way to use "ignore campaign loss" to be wiped out to no men left?

[Flanker15]

Yo Sneaksie, any plans to add the FLAK88 in the addon?

[Sneaksie]

Yes, 88 will be in addon.

[Markus86]

Hi Sneaksie,

could you think about adding more infantry anti tank weapons?

(Tellermines as at-infantry weapon only, Molotov Cocktails, satchel charges, magnetic anti tank mines - for example the german Hafthohlladung)

Thanks

[Stimo]

Hi Sneaksie,

I do love ToW, it's the greatest game I played, but my love is half made of hope about further developments. All your posts clearly go the right direction, but I still have some doubts :

First, I'd like to have some infos about this stand-alone addon : reading what you posted, I now figure it will be some sort of ToW 2 making our copies of ToW useless ?

Something else I'd like to ask devs : I read somewhere that in MP, the max number of independent units on the field is 100.

It means that in a 8 players game, each one will only be allowed a 10-men squad and 2 vehicles. Is that right ?

[Sneaksie]

I don't understand how addon release will make original TOW useless. Why? For example, release of CMBB surely did not made CMBO useless;) As i said in another thread, we plan to patch some new systems from addon into original TOW after it's release. And no, it will be not TOW2 just like CMBB was not CM2:)

About your second question - in general, something like that. 8 player engagements typically are 4x4 (and in that case each player commands part of considerably large force) or 8 player DM, or 2x2x2x2, etc. I've played a number of 8 player DM during testing, and i must say it's quite a blast, especially with alliances. You typically have 2-4 combat vehicles and squad or two of infantry (depends on what army you choose from army list defined for each map) - don't know how you will handle them, but i had my hands full trying to survive and prevail:)