Jump to content

Michael Dorosh

Members
  • Content Count

    13,938
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael Dorosh

  1. By an incredible amount, but I'm still towards the top of the list. However, the Members List is disabled so you can't see the comparative "scoring". It's just as well; number of posts means little compared to quality of posts, and I think I've contributed over the years at least as much as some, less than others as far as constructive contributions to the "on-topic" areas. wbs was asking just recently about my absence. Since I didn't get to give a proper "farewell" let me just say that I truly respected Steve's principled stand on adhering to his own forum rules. I thought the reasoning behind dropping the hammer in my particular instance was murky, but in the end I didn't feel hard done by. For those curious, it was more a personal matter between Steve and myself, and a personal contract between us I felt obligated to break for reasons that he did not accept. I am grateful the matter has not been discussed beyond that. I found it hard to argue with his logic. I don't imagine the fact my ban has slipped through the cracks is some sort of backdoor clemency so I will leave you in peace with this reminder to the gatekeeper to flip the switch on my account. I enjoyed my time here a great deal, and I wish the new forum good luck, success and long life. I'll see some of you over at Gyrene's.
  2. Are you willing to hold your breath until I reveal all about that evening in a Melbourne hotel? </font>
  3. To be fair, the Germans discovered that in May 1940, much to the consternation of the Matilda crews. P.S. That's me who just friended you on FB. </font>
  4. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=004065;p=1#000014 Read sentence one. Not much of an invitation. As much fun as it would be for you, Combatintman, to see Steve and I swinging our purses at each other, I recommend you get your jollies someplace else. You can accuse me of chucking grenades - by leaving - whatever sense that makes - but your own comments seem more provocative than mine at this point. It really doesn't matter; Steve and I have been back and forth on the same topic in a few threads at any event and I think it has all been said. You're new here so I don't blame you for not knowing that. I do blame you for judging people without knowing the whole story. Settle back and enjoy a few more threads and learn the lay of the land. Maybe read the Peng Thread and challenge a couple of the lads to a friendly game or two. Introduce yourself with a friendly hello, they like meeting strangers. (Steve is right about one thing; gamers can be vicious bastards when the mood strikes. )
  5. Me either, though I don't come into the CMSF forum much. He makes excellent points I happen to agree with a lot of the time. </font>
  6. http://dosomefink.com/phpbb2/index.php?topic=2851.0 Fixing the link for you, Steve. It's not a private club; you're welcome to join in there; you always have been. I don't see any reference to dicksucking as of late, just some concerned friends and customers of yours talking about stuff that interests them. To those that don't know about the Annex, it was started when the General Forum here shut down after 9/11, as a place to discuss current events without disrupting the GF here. Mostly BFC forumites there, a few outsiders. Not as much traffic by far. Definitely not a secret by any stretch.
  7. Well, that's the way the way the cookie crumbles every time. You're on the team, anyway. We now have half-a-dozen know-it-alls in primo position to make the most advanced 3-D level, squad-based, company-level tactical turn-based wargame EVER that will oustrip Combat Mission, Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Muzzle Velocity, Operation Flashpoint and Panzer Command COMBINED and the only thing stopping us is the fact we don't know how to code it, market it, make the models, advertise it or deliver it to the consumer. And we might have argued a little bit about what colour the uniforms should be, but only because dalem is a tight ass about such things AND TOTALLY DOESN'T OWN HIS OWN MANNEQUIN EITHER I MIGHT ADD. But aside from all that, we're golden. The only competition we have to worry about is...well, everyone who posts to this forum, really, since they're in about the same place as us. But we have a great logo picked out for the business cards. So we're a step ahead.
  8. Well, when JasonC, dalem, dirtweasel, Cpl Steiner and I start to work on the BEST GAME EVER, you are hereby invited to join the Beta Team. You can even be on the Alpha Team. In fact, you can write it for us, because I don't think any of us know thing one about coding. And if you know anything about 3D modelling, we'll need some help with that, too. And if you know any girls, bring them along. You'll also have to tend the bar, proofread the manual, and snake the toilets on occasion. But you don't get to name it. That's the one part we've got. In fact, we have 325 "perfect titles" ready for debate. We might let you vote.
  9. Huh? There is no "fight" and nothing "between us". I just wanted to know who wished that Steve was dead. I never read any such thing on this forum and was a bit surprised to see reference being made to such a thing. If the inference is being made that I suggested such a thing, it's false. Anyway, as per the topic at hand, suffice to say JasonC stated very well what would have taken me five times as many words to sputter out without getting across half the meaning, so I'm content to leave it there. Webwing - speaking in general, if a game doesn't appeal to you, why would you buy it? You don't need to own a Smart Car to realize that they don't deliver a family of four complete with groceries from point A to point B, so do you really need to own one before you can criticize it for being poorly designed for that purpose?
  10. Even if you had anything at all to do with it, Steve would never admit it. You're welcome. PS - did you ever get that beta team slot you so stated that you so richly deserve? *wink*
  11. /yawn Now that all your hysterical ranting about me is over, name one person who feels that way and has expressed same. Just one, Steve. One person who has told you to "drop dead on the spot." You can't do it. And even if so, it certainly wasn't in this thread, so why bring it up? Emotional blackmail? Can't win a fair fight? /yawn
  12. Bingo, Ken. It's like viewing an actor's face close-up on a HD digital screen instead of one derived from an analog source; the blemishes, wrinkles and razor burns really stick out. Pitiless, but there's the dilemma. </font>
  13. Poisoned, dirty water guaranteed to make you sick in a city that's water and sewage lines have been bombed. Great thinking. How about cheat codes so you not only have unlimited time to make up for your limited tactical abilities, but an "instant win" button too? And an end screen that gives you the Medal of Honor after every scenario?
  14. Sounds like a Conspicuous Gallantry Cross to me. More likely a Military Cross, if that. The press are always quick to jump on any rumour of a VC being awarded. Not to say it couldn't happen, but the standard being applied recently seems to require death in action or prolonged/multiple instances of bravery or exposure to danger. Not to diminish his actions, but the press have erroneously reported on VCs in a couple of cases with regards to Canadian servicemen in Afghanistan also. No such awards appeared and possibly no recommendations had ever been made. It's really irresponsible of the press to report on such things in my opinion. The guy did it to save the lives of his comrades - not "win" a medal, or for that matter, have some jackass like me judge him in absentia with regards to his relative level of worthiness. At least those comrades who are buying his beer for him know what he did and what it all means; they may be the only ones. The reporter who scribbled that story likely doesn't any more than I do.
  15. There will be no "CM:BB revisited"; it will be small battle-oriented modules, just as the other CMX2 modules will be. Even CM: Normandy won't be, really. It will feature US and German forces and that's all - maybe even just Heer, not Heer, Luftwaffe and Waffen SS. Less is more; that is to say, Less Content is More Money. For the eastern front, who knows? Panzer Command seems to be starting with the arcane subjects - Winter Storm, Kharkov, Mtzensk so would CM really duplicate that effort? CM is tank heavy so Kursk would be the prime consideration for CMX2's eastern front debut, given that, say, Stalingrad seems unsuited to the CMX2 engine at present with its focus on infantry. July 1943 is a time of rough parity as far as tanks go. But if I was a betting man, I would have lost my shirt betting on "Winter Storm" for PC and "Syria" for CMX2...
  16. Ah, so it's just an attempt to cash in on the brand name then. Thanks for confirming that. I knew that the CM in CMSF stood for something, I just wasn't sure what. Sorry, what slot do you fill at BF.C Inc. again?
  17. No, not at all. If it is well designed it may very well be possible. BF.C is essentially a one man operation and may not be the company to expect to do it. And I know you can look at the staff roster and insist there are more than one person there, but really, you have one idea man, one coder, one 3-D modeller, one sound man, what looks like two skinners if Dan is still performing double duty, one business end/writer and one scenario lead. That's one dude for every major facet. Not that there are huge corporations pouring tons of money and manpower into wargames out there; other than Matrix and Panzer Command I'm not aware of anyone else working on tactical level 3-D turn based stuff, but I have no inside knowledge of how they do business either. Oh, I don't have followers, just opinions like everyone else. I think I agree with JasonC and Cpl Steiner on some points, definitely with dalem on a lot of points, but as you can see, those opinions get met with hostility in some quarters which is why dalem doesn't post anymore, and you can see some of the personal attacks on Jason in past posts. Those kinds of attacks only highlight the weakness of the position of anyone making them. I think everyone would like to see CMX2 become a winner, but at present, I think the reasons that many feel it isn't are easily explained. You make some good points. What happens from here is anyone's guess. Sequels have historically failed to capitalize on the success of games that have gone before, usually by an attempt to add complexity or make use of technology. Again, this is nothing new. In a perfect world, the vendor wouldn't have to chase wider audiences but unfortunately, that isn't the reality.
  18. I completely agree. Over at gamesquad, they are talking about Microprose coming back to life. At consimworld, James Werbaneth is talking about wargames - the board variety - and I ventured the opinion that sequels rarely live up to the originals because technology usually gets in the way. I don't think technology is at fault so much as expectations on the part of the audience for the developers to use it - or perhaps those are simply perceived expectations on the developers part. Whatever. It's not my money or ass on the line so I can spout off all I want. It's quite liberating. But I never enjoyed M-1 Tank Platoon II half or even a tenth as much as the original, so the CM experience is nothing unique. Even in the realm of boardgames, cramming all those rules into ASL didn't necessarily make the game more "fun". AH's FIREPOWER vs. SNIPER. There are dozens of examples in PCs and boardgames one can illustrate this with. CMX2 v. CMX1 is nothing new. The earth still turns.
  19. Actually, I am a supporter of the President, and feel that the US military has been doing a hard job in Iraq well. Guess I got lost in my own rhetoric. Maybe I was just picturing Steve in one of his camouflaged jumpsuits. Many critics never realized that the President actually qualified to wear a flight suit by doing his military training and becoming a fighter pilot. You were right to take offence; I offer my apologies for the unintentional slur on the President of the United States and the United States armed forces.
  20. Not true, at all. It would by hypocritical if anyone was making that argument. Um. They're not. It's also possible to dislike something because it is flawed or poorly designed. CMX1 was a success because of its simplicity. For one, it didn't have a hotkey array where "J" stands for "clear" and "M" stands for "reverse", but I digress... The soldier drones in CMX2 are more abstracted than in CMX1. Because they represent individual soldiers, you expect more of them, and yet they do less. They all look identical, they have a library of what - a couple dozen motions - walk, run, throw grenade, get wounded, hit the dirt, reload their weapon - and they tend to do everything as if they were underwater (i.e. very slowly). They don't look lifelike, they don't look realistic, and far more importantly, their group behaviour is positively herd-like. They don't look around corners (latest generation FPS have the ability to "lean" around corners, on the other hand), go through windows, they have no ability to throw grenades over walls, say, close assault tanks, take prisoners, send a guy back for ammo (not even in an abstract way), and if you want to get sublime, they don't use hand signals, talk, or in any way visibly communicate with each other. Oh, but don't worry, because that can all be dismissed by saying that there are "abstractions." That's great up to the point the abstractions ruin the fidelity of the modeling. The argument isn't that you took a wrong turn with CMX2 so much as weren't able to implement the new direction correctly. Taking a new turn is fine as long as you can get to the destination with a minimum of problems. As was posted before, CMX2 players currently do business in an informational vacuum - the informational relay and user interface is poor compared to CMX1, and it would appear these aspects were sacrificed at the expense of development of under-the-hood elements that no one sees (notice the comments above about invisible or inaccessible firepower ratings, for example). I can only guess that that is what explains the backtracking to retroactively fit gameplay features since release. And it wasn't about my singular vision, it was about your customer's vision. If that wasn't the case, then you tell me why we now have the spacebar activated menu in the game. Oh, I'm sure everyone will be happy once the trip is over (I sense another car analogy), but you have to put the car in the driveway before you can announce "Mission Accomplished". Though I know there are one or two of ya in the States who like to hang the banner on the deck of the carrier a little bit early. But you still have dudes milling about the streets and all the goofy things killing immersion that the first poster has discussed - and you can talk about "superior" engines all you want, the fact remains, saying it till you're blue in the face is only a matter of semantics and it remains only an opinion. The silly thing is that if you didn't agree with me, you wouldn't insist that you're working on these kinds of things for future releases.
  21. I would say misemployed, or rather, creatively employed, rather than misnamed. The problem with North Africa was that no one wanted to send enough troops there. Certainly Hitler didn't; he had a war in Russia he was planning for in early 1941, when he wasn't bailing the Italians out of Greece and Yugoslavia, and was none too happy to bail the Italians out of North Africa as well. So he sent as little as he could to Africa. Troops in theatre had to make do with what they had. Sometimes it worked out better than anticipated. The British found the 25-pounder made a good anti-tank gun; the Germans found the FlaK 88 made an even better one. The terrain in Africa also required that all units employed there have mechanical transport - i.e. they were all "motorized" in more than just name. German trucks, particularly early in the war, were ill-suited for the desert (lacking oil and fuel filters, notably) and captured trucks were often preferred. I don't believe this is reflected in CM:AK. So it is no surprise that machine gun units may have been employed in an assault role - anti-aircraft units were employed as anti-tank artillery (on purpose by the Germans, unintentionally by the British IIRC), armoured divisions were extremely tank-heavy and would bear little resemblance to the more balanced tank-infantry formations that eventually did balance in,say, NW Europe in 1944-45. I don't think it was a case of misnaming anything. Doctrine was evolving throughout the desert experience, trying, as had been the case in the First World War, to catch up to the technology. The British started out with Infantry and Cruiser tanks that lumbered forth at walking pace with 2-pounder cannon and ended the campaign with Sherman tanks racing about at 23 mph and lumbering Churchills impervious to the guns of the PzKpfw III and "Mark III Specials" with high-velocity 50mm guns; the Germans began the campaign with handfuls of PzKpfw III and IV as their main battle tanks and managed to field Tigers in Tunisia two years later. Technology and doctrine chased each other's tail for two years, and shaped the way battle would be joined on the Continent. British infantry sections were increased officially by two men over the course of the North African experience, the rifle battalion was reorganized to remove anti-aircraft assets and include a "Support Company" under command. Everyone was kind of making things up as they found out what worked and what didn't. [ March 29, 2008, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
  22. Yep, the thread was called "the The Uncanny Valley." I obviously agree with c3k, and he's articulately identified what quite a few people are experiencing with the new game. Steve wonders why we want levels of detail in the game, but until such time as there are great levels of detail, the promise of 1:1 rep simply doesn't pay off in any meaningful way. It's an empty promise - sort of like empty calories. All the reams of firepower and ROF stats built in under the hood don't mean anything if, for example, there are only two stock animations for guys running into buildings, and frustrated players see them just standing around doing stupid things a lot of the time. [ March 29, 2008, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
  23. Peter would have obliged, but his dates don't let him take pictures of them. Too creepy to take piccies on the first date - and Peter doesn't get to the 2nd...
×
×
  • Create New...