Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
I'd have understood that a lot more if you would have done me the courtesy of putting that into a car analogy, but I suppose it is clear enough...Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Dorosh,
Uhm... I'm very sure that Mark started this thread to poke fun at the "I told you so" one by Flaco. I thought it was quite funny, actually, in that context.
Going off on Mark is not called for. He likes the game, he says so. I don't have a problem with that or (usually) with people saying the opposite. If someone gets abusive and what not, then we gots ourselves a bit of a problemo. I do tollerate people poking fun at Trolls to some extent, since that is what Trolls deserve (OK, they deserve worse, but this is a clean Forum
). But even so it has to be kept within limits. Since Mark does not fit into that category, I ask that you lighten up and let him express himself without worrying about retribution.Thanks,
Steve
I'll be pleased when the board is past the point of arguing how much it rocks/how much it sucks and just gets down to talking about the game itself. I actually think it's getting there mostly. I think we've found a worthy successor to the Bren Tripod debate in the Stryker debate, however.
-
Doesn't this ignore the 10,000 days of combat before it - or is that part of the "protracted political stuff" that set the table? :confused:Originally posted by JasonC:(Vietnam was won that way, to take a striking example. It was won in 1975 by a conventional armored blitzkrieg - protracted political stuff just set the table).
-
LET IT GO STEVE!!!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Just trying to broaden my horizons by not including another car metaphor
Steve
But in all honesty, to Phillip - yes, I think an honest examination of what is abstract and what is not would be good. I'll repeat my call for "Designer's Notes" here, as well as an appraisal of what is abstract in 1:1 and not. Hopefully the 1:1 training thread will be a start for us to sort through what we can expect from the engine in the months and years to come.
-
Good for you, birdstrike. Looking forward to seeing your scenario.Originally posted by birdstrike:Will start right away
Hope it will turn out to be fun.
Metalbrew is stacking the deck with contrived caveats the same way JasonC used to in the CM:BB scenario discussion forum, by the way. Seems like old times.
-
Dial it down, metalbrew. Aside from butting into something that doesn't concern you, you've taken swipes at Rob and myself in different threads in an unprovoked manner, not to mention you have absolutely no more authority or say in who gets banned around here than Rob, myself, or anyone else not on staff at BF.C. Based on your attack-dog style, I'd gently suggest you are in far more danger of being banned than Rob is.Originally posted by metalbrew:Are you really this stupid? You wandered into a thread and began pissing all over the place. You've been told to leave many times and you refuse. Next step, banned. Have fun with what's left of your life.
-
Migo441 - yes, these are exactly the kinds of issues I am wondering about.Originally posted by Migo441:What a great post! Between this and "Left Turn into the Uncanny Valley", Dorosh is doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing thoughtful, unique, and interesting discussions to the board.
Reading this made me think of the simple ways that ASL attempted to impart the "flavor" of various nationalities: Americans with a morale of 6, but 8 when broken so they were easier to break and easier to rally compared to German squads with a morale of 7 in both good order and broken states; British troops' immunity from "cowering"; Finnish self-rally (!); etc... As crude as these rules (necessarily) were, I think they did a good job influencing the "story" of the engagements without dominating it. As Dorosh points out, should we worry about training the virtual troops or training the players?
Assuming identical morale, armament, and fitness levels, would we expect squads from different training backgrounds (nationalities) to perform the same types of actions differently? Surely a conscript squad with minimal training would perform differently under a range of combat conditions than, say, Delta Force operators. This seems intuitive, again, even assuming equal morale, armament, and fitness. What about more subtle cases such as average first line British squads compared to average first line German squads in 1944?
It seems the 1 to 1 representation is an awkward spot. If the soldiers were controlled individually, well, exactly how a squad crossed the street would be up to us. WE would control the strings of the battle drill puppet. In CMX1, with abstract squads, any differences were limited to the various ratings, armaments, and our imaginations. However, with 1 to 1 representation and squad level control we might expect to see different battle drills (as distinct from ratings and armaments) played out before our eyes.
-
Ladies and gentlemen...The Lurker. *golf clap*
-
Battlefront did NOT invent 3D wargaming. digi4fun put Muzzle Velocity on the market before Combat Mission. It was an inferior game, very much a RT based game, and FP to boot, and very simplistic, but definitely beat Combat Mission to the punch as far as "serious" tactical 3D, as it combined a map-based interface with its 3D world.Originally posted by easytarget:anyone else think there's some similarity between id software and battlefront?
both companies came out with ground breaking products - id basically invented FPS w/ Doom/Quake and BF created 3d wargaming
M-1 Tank Platoon predated both as I recall, though the graphics were vector based. Accolade also had an M-1 tank sim at about the same time, which was also predating Combat Mission.
-
I predict that MarkEzra will play at least one game of CM:SF in the next month, and will have a really enjoyable time and think to himself how glad he is that someone took the time to create such a game. I'm sincere when I say that I think it's great that such a thing will happen.
I just don't want to have to read about it. :mad:
I predict I will have the exact same experience, actually.
-
That didn't make must sense to me either; why would releasing the code imply a need to support it?
And why trash it if the number of people who could benefit from it is so abysmally low as is claimed?
If you make it freeware you are guaranteed that no one can compete against you with it.
No reason not to do it, although further products such as CM:C might be an incentive to hang on to the rights to it. Steve is technically correct that CMX1 is not being developed, but it would seem at least one other related project is.
Nonetheless, a fan-made Pacific version or early war version or Korean War version would be interesting. At least as much as DF:DR, particularly if some talented 3D modellers and statisticians got their hands on it.
I think the real headache might be the proprietary rights to call whatever resulted "Combat Mission" which would be a no-no for anyone but BF.C.
-
yes but it gives u a trend and the trend goes into average 60% to 70% right now. </font>Originally posted by fritzthemoose:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rob Ross:
Dunno Michael - it just came up as one of the first reviews in Google. I thought it was interesting, but personally take all review 'scores' with a bucket of salt. If anyone wants to argue against its validity then I won't be defending it.
-
There's an entire thread about the arsgeek review. It's a blog, but then, you've included some other blogs in your other review scores. I believe the owner posts here as Cavscout. The question is, are you going to include blog postings as legitimate reviews or not.
-
But Phillip, it goes deeper than that. How close is the enemy? If you're being ambushed, you immediately go into your ambush drill, which is much different than a simple contact drill.
And once you're on the ground, you don't just start shooting back blindly until the firefight is over; at some point you listen to your squad leader who is assessing the situation along with the platoon commander, and somewhere down the line someone is telling your fireteam to try a left flanking or maybe throwing smoke and pulling you back to that gully 50 yards behind you, or whatever - but the training is more than just a simple reaction to fire, it is everything that happens after that, from threat assessment to neutralization of the threat/avoidance of the threat. The rabble doesn't do that - doesn't know how to do that, wouldn't even think to do any of that, and why would they? It is alien to them, just the same as walking off the street into the offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys and hearing the play called and not having a clue what he's saying and just standing there as the ball is snapped. You have a sense of what is about to take place, but to get from A to B is somewhat murky...
-
I asked very specifically if training is better represented by specific drills and the way the troops carry them out, or better by morale considerations, i.e. how quickly they panic and do nothing at all (or even run away/disintegrate) butyou haven't addressed this question in favour of speaking in generalities. I'm not sure if that is, perhaps, my answer or not.Originally posted by Kineas:All of the thing you mentioned can be programmed into an AI, be parametrised by a certain set of skills (not necessarily independent), be parametrised by player commands issued runtime etc.
For example, should an "elite" squad ever "disintegrate" (i.e. have individuals rendered hors de combat without being actually physically wounded? Is this a training issue at all? For that matter, what does "Elite" really mean - I think in CM it has always meant a combination of training and morale, but do the lines need to be less blurry in the new engine?
I'm thinking very specifically of what a 1:1 Russian infantry squad is going to look like in 1941 when we get to that point. Assume rudimentary training and low morale. Assume the player orders them to attack a building. We see how the Stryker brigade does it in CM:SF.
Given our 1:1 representation, what should we expect to see happen when a squad of Frontoviki are told to storm a house? And for that matter, what would we have seen in real life? I'm hoping it looks radically different from Fallujah, as I'm sure it must have been in the real thing. We may yet see some national characteristics come into CM yet.
-
I can add that modelling of Collective Training is basically what the player brings to the game - though stuff like command delays can certainly be used to model stuff like unit cohesion. In multi-multi-player, you can have actual collective training simply by getting together and doing real rehearsals and battle drills. As it stands with one player commanding a force (be it against the AI or another human), the in-game variances in training methods seem to be sparse, but I wonder if by necessity this isn't so. One can see the need for lesser variety between two first world nations, as we had in say, Normandy in 1944 (though more anon) as opposed to the US Army vs. Syria.
But looking at "training" in the German Army in 1944, simply because I am most familiar with that era, we see that basic training fell from I believe 16 weeks to less than 8 by that time, and that advanced (trade) training was also restricted. The question becomes, then, how do you reflect this in CM terms? Simple firepower and morale hits? This works for the 1944 German, but how then do you model a unit which was highly motivated but incompletely trained? Especially if firepower is no longer just a sum total of the squad's weapons, but individually modelled?
Doesn't firepower involve not just the rifle calibre but the willingness of the operator to use it? And moreover, the ability to maneuver himself into a firing position? This brings us back to the basic "battle drills". In the Commonwealth, the action on taking effective enemy fire was DOWN CRAWL OBSERVE FIRE. An untrained troop would be inclined to carry out this drill at the first sight of muzzle flashes, being unable to distinguish "effective" fire from "ineffective" fire. I think John D Salt has had some amusing things to say about the difference between the two.
I have no idea what the contact drills for the Syrians in 2007 or the Russians in 1941 were, if indeed, the latter had any at all. So how do you model a rabble in 1:1?
-
I was soundly criticized for my comments about blog reviews when I stated, basically, who cares what they think, good or bad. I may draw some fire also were I to say who gives a crap about game awards since outside of long-estabilshed ones like, say, those presented at Origins, they have pretty wildly diverse weights behind them.
But you know what bothers me the most? Uninformed commentary of any kind, pro or con. That's what the "debate" regarding CM:SF has largely revolved around, and Mark, excuse me for saying so, but your comments in recent days have been just as unconstructive as any of the fellows trashing the game. I am pleased as punch that you enjoy the game (I do too) and feel so secure in your purchase that you have no qualms about defending the game in public. I just don't see what good you're doing by spouting off pollyanna even in the face of well-reasoned, informed and objective discussions - I won't even say "criticism" because often you leap in to defend CM:SF even when it isn't even being attacked or subjected to criticism, but only to mere scrutiny.
Will it win an award? Who knows? And who cares at this point? We all have our opinions - and far better we spend our time discussing constructively the things that matter the most right now, such as technical issues, and perhaps even scenario design tips, tactics and strategy, maybe some specific comments for map and scenario designers (there hasn't been a great deal of that, and I know there were a lot of pretty talented people working on the campaign scens that still haven't received much due here in public - if anyone can show me a better map than one of George's, I'd love to see it), bug reports, etc.
I don't like the word "fanboy" because it is usually used dismissively, and I certainly don't mean to dismiss your enthusiasm out of hand. But let's lay off the rosy predictions and put them in the same category as the dire predictions of battlefront's downfall and maybe settle in to some informed commentary on the game itself.
-
Not that I disagree with your conclusions, Kip, but come on - you've been a fixture here for how many years and you honestly don't know not to draw conclusions from the in-game graphics vis-a-vis what goes on under the hood?Originally posted by kipanderson:As we cannot see the fire power figures CMSF is using for different weapons narrowing down the problem is difficult. However, just from the graphics of the firing it is clear that in Assault US forces pour out hugely more, many times more fire.
I note that Steve side-stepped my suggestion in the Uncanny Valley thread completely about a Designer's Notes document. I think such a thing would be of enormous benefit to people outside the parameters of a simple "how to manual", though of course a gamer's guide would be good to, and I suspect on the list of things to do in the months ahead.
-
Reading the trench thread led to some very interesting issues that were hinted at towards page 3 or 4 of the "Left Turn into the Uncanny Valley" thread.
What exactly do we mean when we talk about "training", as far as the depiction of same in CM:SF, and what does this mean in 1:1 representation? Some people seem to be confusing training, morale and fitness which are all interrelated to be sure, but they are not the same thing, and the subtle differences in the state of all three are a cornerstone of the infantry modelling in Combat Mission. I'd love to see a discussion of how this is going to evolve in the new engine and how the new 1:1 system will portray it.
Training
Training refers not just to the method of education by which civilians are converted into soldiers, but can also refer to the state of knowledge that those soldiers possess once converted. Training is the method by which soldiers are shown how to do things, from brushing their teeth (I remember fondly Warrant Officer Waterhouse instructing us all on this in our armoury basement back in 1988) to eviscerating someone with a bayonet.
Training includes Individual Training (generally Basic Training which includes general knowledge stuff such as rank structure, military law, organization, how to wear the uniform, military courtesy, and basic weapons handling and fieldcraft, and Trades Training, which teaches a soldier how to perform a specific task in a field unit, be it infantryman, artilleryman, driver, etc., and leadership training, which qualifies a soldier to hold command ranks from corporal to colonel) and Collective Training (which is where you perform as a unit to carry out combat-related missions; in the infantry this might be a patrol (recce patrol, fighting patrol, contact patrol), relief in place, deliberate assault, hasty ambush, passage of obstacles, etc.).
Morale
Morale includes several key factors but can basically be described, for want of a better term, as happiness, or satisfaction. How motivated are your soldiers? Do they want to be in the military? Considerations that have an effect would be whether or not they are draftees or volunteers, whether the war is seen as righteous, how long the soldiers have been in the military, how many days in combat they have seen (the longer, the more fatigued they are, but also the more experience - for the ones that live), how good the self-perception of the unit is (a Republican Guard or Airborne unit will generally have higher morale than perhaps a Militia or National Guard unit), and even the state of training will have an effect - a well trained unit will feel self-confident. Some of these are double-edged swords; a unit that has won recent victories may have high morale because it is confident, or it may be resentful at being volunteered too often for hazardous assignments.
Fitness
Fitness in CM refers to physical fitness - what kind of raw material is the army receiving; starving farmers from a Depression, fat bankers not used to hardship? For units in the field a long time, have they been eating well? The troops in Stalingrad or at Bataan were on starvation rations and their ability to exert themselves was severely curtailed. What effect should this have in the game?
1:1 Representation
So how should all this manifest itself with the new 1:1 rep?
One of the first things a soldier learns how to do is fire his nation's service rifle. Firepower factors in CM would naturally reflect cyclic rate of fire, calibre and other technical details of rifle and LMG as found in the infantry section/squad.
What about SLA Marshall's assertion that infantrymen often didn't do much in a firefight? he revised his estimates by Korea, and SLAM was slammed in recent years for his faulty methodology. Other writes such as Galloway (and Grossman?) have echoed some of his writings, certainly with respect for Second World War infantry.
We see that infantry in CM:SF get Rattled, Panicked etc. Is it too frequent? Not frequent enough? Are the squads too homogenous with regards to this treatment? Or has BF.C gotten this right?
What kind of marksmanship do the individual riflemen have? Should this matter, or has this been abstracted in CM? Should the player know, or care, how well PFC Jones can shoot? I suppose if it was possible to detach PFC Jones as a scout, it might matter, but given our inability to do this, it probably does not.
What other aspects of training should be simulated? What about familiarity with captured weapons? It has been suggested that soldiers should be able to pick up dropped weapons, either enemy or friendly. Personally, I wouldn't pick up an enemy rifle that may very well be booby trapped and most certainly had not been zeroed, but should this be included in a 1:1 rep?
What about deeper issues? Stacking up to clear a house - the U.S. Army has certain drills. Should we be able to design our own drills, and implement them? Not in-game, but perhaps before the game begins, by pre-programming certain squad routines or formations we want them to use during play of a scenario? Say we want them to ASSAULT by always using an inverted-V formation.
Or would it be more realistic to have some squads unable to perform these drills to perfection? Particularly, say, a squad that has recently absorbed new replacements, and doesn't know his place in the stack. Would this be too much realism and simply detract from the game?
Another issue that Andreas reminds us of in the trench thread is that of command delays - a device used in CMX1 to simulate training states. So what exactly do we do in CMX2 to represent the differences between "good training" and "bad training" aside from firepower factors/marksmanship and perhaps poorer pathing representing a conscript who hasn't rehearsed battle drills.
Are the differences in "training" really that tangible at the battlefield level?
Or would they be more morale related - i.e. the poorer trained soldiers would actually be more likely to do nothing than the wrong thing?
These are just some issues; the 1:1 rep opens a lot of cans of worms - what are some others?
[ August 14, 2007, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
You may want to tell that to Lars.Originally posted by Lord Peter:I am number Two.
-
It was in the bible first... or are you suggesting that Al Murray was right all along when he stated that God is indeed British, which is why we dont have earthquakes in this country... </font>Originally posted by Nero's Cat:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The_Enigma:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
"Mark" is a British word
-
eh?Originally posted by thewood:We all know the bible was written in American, something that will shock our Canuck brothers (who won't admit they speak American too)
-
The rounded Panther mantlet is also modelled such that 75mm AP rounds ricocheted off the underside of same can be sent through the thin armour over the driver or co-driver's head. I believe this is called a "shot trap".
-
It was in the bible first... or are you suggesting that Al Murray was right all along when he stated that God is indeed British, which is why we dont have earthquakes in this country... </font>Originally posted by The_Enigma:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
"Mark" is a British word
-
Good points in the rest of your post. Wanted to zoom in on this. I'm already at work on a book on the history of tactical board wargaming covering 20th Century subjects, from inception to 2000. If nothing else, it lets me write off my collection as a business expense.Originally posted by The_Capt:Michael,
Very nice opening, you should write a book on the history of wargaming...start with chess and boxing.
As to your rest - yes, clearly if the desires of CMX1 players were the only driving force behind the development model, things might be different right now. That's all fair enough. There is still lots of flex room and many things can happen in the upcoming months and titles.
). But even so it has to be kept within limits. Since Mark does not fit into that category, I ask that you lighten up and let him express himself without worrying about retribution.
Strykers Part II
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Many nations are having problems convincing people that they should join the military. A friend of mine is the S3 for the Belgian Para/Commandos and I've heard a lot about their recruiting problems over the years. That and funding cutbacks.
The Germans, as you correctly point out, had to ration their men and make up for it in firepower. Anybody playing a late war sceanrio in CMx2 games can see that. Going up against an intact 1944 Squad is tough going, but if it starts out short a few men or is hit with some mortars, it becomes rather easy to route or wipe out. At some point headcount makes the equation between firepower and the ability to use it sustainably tip in a negative direction.
Steve </font>