Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
What they want to do and what they're trained to do are two different things; that's how armies work...Originally posted by nathan S.J.:but still, its not physically impossible to shoot while moving, and if 5 of my squad mates gets shot while we're moving from building to building, anyone would want to shoot back, even if they're running.
In the end, you have no business sending a squad running at a building unsupported.
-
Only part of the squad is running. The others are lying down and shooting. The figures that represent them are shown doing both at the same time. But the three figures on the screen actually represent 6 to 15 man squads. The standard drill is fire and movement - or one leg on the ground, one in the air. Some of the men lie down and shoot, to cover those moving. Then they switch off. This is simulated in CMX1 but not explicitly shown.Originally posted by nathan S.J.:but when I played the game, the ammo count clearly goes down when theyre running.
Sorry, which military did you do your basic training with? Just curious. On mine, they never taught us to shoot on the move.And I dont see what the problem is, its physically possible to shoot a gun while running. The point here is not accuracy as it is understandable that you'll be quiet inaccurate. but the point is that your shooting to suppres the enemy to prevent them from getting a clear shot at you... -
No they didn't. They only looked like they did because of the abstractions in the game engine.Originally posted by nathan S.J.:Before you grab my hair and slam my head into a bed of spikes, you should know that the previous 3 games (CMBB, CMBO and CMAK) infantry was allowed to fire on the move,
-
I know that Richard Burton (I kid you not) played Steiner in a movie called Breakthrough, which took place on the Western Front as a sequel to COI. From what I understand (and I saw it only once, like, 20 years ago so my memory is mostly what I read in a book) it was Godawful.
Heinrich's book was Crack of Doom. Would have been too weird to have two books become Avalon Hill boardgames!
-
Huh? On-map mortars are a MUST for the modern battlefield.Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Given the smaller maps of CM:SF, I don't think this is such a huge issue. The minimum ranges of an 81mm mortar may rule them out for inclusion in many CM:SF settings. I realize that is 80 to 100 metres for most models.
However, light mortars are still used by some nationalities. Canada still uses the M19 60mm mortar, for example (same one the airborne forces of the U.S. used in the Second World War). If they get added to the modern pantheon at some time, would be nice to see it included.
We have plenty of space on the maps and mortars are heavily used by both sides. </font>
-
They also look ridiculous with two badges on them.Originally posted by Lars:I never understood why Aussies took a perfectly good hat and folded up one side.
Must like a wet ear.
Wet ears are fun when the right person is giving it to you; but I always took my hat off for that.
By the way Number Three, I regret to inform you, but...Emrys has returned...better hide the liquor and the corn pads. Not necessarily in that order.
-
That's very reasonable of you, thank you.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We MAY look into what would be needed to keep CMx1 games running on Vista or whatever is killing them from working. However, I don't know when that may happen, if at all. We are now warning new customers that the games may not work if they upgarde.
Now, now, no one said free. That's like me saying "but Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve there are mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmilllllions of us who want to pay a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzillllllllllion dollars a piece for CMX1 - are you some kind of a lunkhead?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle.And as for the hubris about our decision to not lose focus and not continue to mess around with the CMx1 code... it's not a matter of not listening, it is a matter of not getting outselves entangled into something that we have ZERO incentive to get tied up in. Whatever business case can be made for revamping the old CMx1 pales in comparison with the business case for investing that time/energy/money in CMx2. If a customer says "I want your games to be free" and we say "no" it isn't because we aren't listening, it's because we don't think the request is worth doing.Steve
I know what it is like to lose focus; I admire yours. I have a dozen writing projects on the go. I actually managed to publish two books this year, neither of which will make any money (thank God I don't try and do it for a living - I'd starve). Kind of my own CMX1; I did them because I enjoyed the subject matter and knew they wouldn't sell. (I won't make you apologize for sucking my writing time away by making me work on your game project, and for free, either :-P)
So I guess we shouldn't push you too much, if you're anything like as weak willed or easily distracted as me.
Still, something in the back of my head says that if we could just somehow convince you that CMX1 Gold was all your idea...did I show you the new watch I bought, by the way? Look how shiny it is as I suspend it in front of your eyes. Concentrate on it, and breathe deeply, will you. Excellent. You're getting sleepy...sleepy...
[ August 21, 2007, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
I wonder if you could expand on this? (Hey, SOMEONE'S gonna ask(!))Originally posted by Battlefront.com:1. Full array of Marines equipment and organization. Should be a very different experience from a tactics point of view.
This is what I'm still curious about; the Module comes out - it is an "add-on" for the Title of Shock-Force, yes - meaning that it does just that - complements Shock Force by adding more kit. So that it would be possible to create a scenario or campaign with US Army, USMC, Syrian Army, Syrian Uncon, Syrian SF, and Syrian Airborne forces all represented in any combination? You don't have to pick one force set or another?3. Some new game features. This is TBD but there won't be a radical change in the core game system over what we've patched between now and then. Large feature changes won't happen until the WWII game is out. -
I noticed in one scen when setting an area fire command at close range, my US squad would huck grenades like there was no tomorrow. Though they did it AT a tall wall instead of over the wall.
-
Originally posted by Becket:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by drtechno:
Kevin, I wish you had a touch option.
Gold, Jerry, gold! </font>Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:Stay away.
-
There is one game by another company that is being discussed now on their forum; it was derided as a CM-ripoff and certainly didn't have the scope of CM. I didn't like it as much as CM and removed it from my hard drive; I see they are adding more features to the second title in the series though.Originally posted by Renaud:I played a few games of CMBB this weekend, 600 point QB's, attacking with german infantry vs. +50% Russian infantry July '41. CMx1 is truly the best wargame ever made. We will probably never see a WWII tactical game of this scope, detail, accuracy and breadth again in our lifetimes.
Remains to be seen if future WW2 CMx2 module(s) can take the crown, granted on a much smaller scale, but we have to hold out hope.
I'd definitely like to see something of the same scope as CMX1; Steve admits there is a market for theatre-wide games - he just can't make money at them! Fair enough. Then again, maybe CMX2 will develop along the same lines given enough Modules for each Title. I guess only time will tell, but I wouldn't say "never".
-
The taxpayers.Originally posted by Truppenfuhrung:With Javelins, who need mortars !
-
Given the smaller maps of CM:SF, I don't think this is such a huge issue. The minimum ranges of an 81mm mortar may rule them out for inclusion in many CM:SF settings. I realize that is 80 to 100 metres for most models.
However, light mortars are still used by some nationalities. Canada still uses the M19 60mm mortar, for example (same one the airborne forces of the U.S. used in the Second World War). If they get added to the modern pantheon at some time, would be nice to see it included.
-
Highly unlikely that CM:C and CMX2 will be compatible, given that CM:C was presumably coded with CMX1 as the intended interface. The two engines are completely different. Won't happen.Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:MD -- or, they could be planning to do it using an engine they can continue to sell for several years -- CMx2 -- rather than using an engine that is well beyond the end of its life, for which the effort might take just as long as it would to start afresh.
Besides, I don't see CMX2's design philosophy supporting battalion-sized MEs.
-
If they're serious about CM:C, though, I'd have thought such a project a natural - especially given Steve's comments about CM:BB being anathema to the market because of the lack of American coverage.
-
I don't see how; you'll have to explain that one to me. I haven't seen Iraq mentioned in any advertising; in fact, my understanding is that the advertising has been explicitly careful NOT to make comparisons to Iraq.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:As for Syria, give me a break. CMSF is capitalizing on the mess in Iraq.
Iraq's conventional war was over years ago. CM:SF represents conventional conflict, not counter-insurgency. If YOU don't see the difference, then perhaps we really are through here.
-
BigAl, I've stolen your idea and posted in the CM:SF forum, you may want to weigh in there.
I'd advise against the angle you're taking here though. All the good intentions in the world won't put bread on the table. I don't think anyone has to agree 100 percent with the design philosophy shifts in the CM line to understand why they were made. It's easy to judge when our livelihood isn't on the line; for us, CM is just a lark and a pastime.
-
If they could somehow do a merge of BB and AK, you'd have the BB KTs in game, though, right? Basically you'd have almost everything you need for NW Europe with a handful of exceptions, notably Pershing and Cromwell as mentioned above. I think Ram Kangaroo is another one, but AK had the Priest Kangaroo, which is an acceptable substitute in game terms. I think the M18 is another?Originally posted by Redwolf:Forget about my japanese remark, although I was just talking a couple smallarms definitions and a new helmet.
But lifting that 1600x1200 limit is most likely a no-brainer.
I also don't see why the CMBO King Tigers would have to be upgraded to the new model standards. Just leave them as they are.
I dunno - how long would the least really be? I can't think of any German stuff that was in CM:BO but was not in either AK or BB.
-
YES! Exactly. And with such a product in place, you have expanded your market for CM:C at the same time. Even if we had to lose bocage/hedgerows because they are not in the CMAK/CMBB game engines, I think that too would be acceptable since the Culin hedgerow device was overmodelled anyway. Would love to see the BB and AK terrain sets merged, though, and have factories in Normandy/Italy if possible.Originally posted by SteveS:I agree with Michael. I would pay for another version of CMX1 which simply had the ETO units in CMBO within the CMAK engine. And I say "simply add" ...
Zero effort seems to be what is available from BF in which the discussion is moot. This seems to be a question of policy, not of will.
-
Now there would just need to be endless fighting over what that tweak would be. </font>Originally posted by C'Rogers:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PS. Michael, it would also be far more feasible to aim at just one tweak, such as Relative Spotting, to update CMX1.
-
What part of NO NEW FEATURES is hard to understand? Seriously? The whole reason for the engine rewrite in the first place was because relative spotting wasn't a "tweak" but a major alteration that COULDN'T BE DONE in the old engine. Good grief.Originally posted by kipanderson:Michael, it would also be far more feasible to aim at just one tweak, such as Relative Spotting, to update CMX1.
I'm not asking for new 3d models. Not asking for new features. Don't need new resolution, or interface, or music. Hell, I even love the CM:BO intro music and video. Just gimme all three theatres in the same package. I have no idea how much effort it would take to code. I know I would pay 75 bucks for such a thing. Maybe 100.
I'd volunteer to test it. I'd help write extra scenarios. Got a million ideas that never had time to do for CM:BO before it got obsoleted by CM:AK, and it never seemed "right" to do it for an Africa module. If Steve asked, I'd organize the beta team and whip them like rented mules as we tested the main game interface just to see if we could pick and choose between the theatres. I'll write the manual, or at the least proofread it. Whatever it took. I bet the HSG and some of the other scen designers out there would love to have their creations on such a compilation - and not just any old scens; there are hundreds of quality scenarios out there that would beg for inclusion. Franko's reappearance in the CM:SF forum brought back all kinds of recollections of classic scens for CM:BO - an update for CM:G would be warmly received. Ditto I am sure for Andreas' stuff, Kingfish, et al.
And I would not put forth hare brained ideas for tweaks that are not tweaks but in fact major engine rewrites. Don't need any changes. Wouldn't get 'em anyway.
I'll even let it go that there are Sten Guns in Italy. Isn't important. Let's just be clear on what is being asked, that's all.
AND I REITERATE the advantage this has with the interface to CM:C - since I presume there will be some form of code changes in order to create an interface between the two programs, why not do it with a product that includes all four theatres (NW Europe, Italy, Africa, Eastern Front) and expand your market for CM:C by that much more?
[ August 20, 2007, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
I don't see how your criticism can be seen as anything but a little over the top given that you didn't express the same qualms about the Second World War titles - which did depict real people risking their lives, and given the fact in evidence that Syria is clearly a fictional offering. So who is it that you know is "risking their lives?" I admit, we worked like dogs on some of those scenarios but I am happy to report our lives were never in danger.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:Michael, I didn't say I was offended, I said it was in poor taste. And the fact that something is accepted doesn't make it not in poor taste. The fact that the game is set in Syria does change the fact that it is capitalizing on current events.
I find a game portraying events that people I know are risking their lives (and in some cases dying) to be in poor taste. Its a perfectly valid criticism.
-
Well, Grunt was published by Strategy & Tactics in 1971; was a company level board wargame. No great backlash ensued. Wasn't a great game. Was the first wargame ever in which the basic unit was the squad, but it used a standard odds-based CRT so was a bit of a tactical hybrid as far as game mechanics. Seach & Destroy replaced it in 1974. but most U.S. troops had left the country by them. Had to wait for Squad Leader in 1977 to get true tactical firepower based goodness.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:I have a similar feeling. To be honest, I find the subject in poor taste... kind of like a Vietnam wargame would have been in 1968.
I'm not all that offended by CM:SF's subject matter; given that it is ostensibly set in Syria. The violence in the game is not done to titilate in the manner of other games and is all treated very matter of factly. That may be a point against it in the eyes of some, but the focus is on the tactics, not the "pornography of violence" one finds in FPS.
I don't think it is a valid criticism; certainly other wars have been simulated in many mediums during the conflicts and those depictions were considered acceptable. Gulf War I comes to mind.
-
hell no he should concentrate on pitching. as long as he gives up 5 in 6ip he has a computer ban as far as i am concerned </font>Originally posted by fritzthemoose:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sequoia:
The only way I see this happening is if Curt Schilling's Advanced Squad Leader interests have crossed over to Combat Mission and he decides to fund it. It would take a sugar daddy with his kind of bucks to finance it cause Battlefront won't do it on their own.
trigger fingers disapper when on the move?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted