Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
Yep. Perception's the killer. Like we've all said before, the thing about computer games is that no one knows what goes on under the hood. Instead of just a good gamer's guide the way CM:BB had, I think the game would benefit from a good set of Designer's Notes, just like the old boardgames had - either included with the game, or done in articles in the hobby press - in which issues like that could be fully explained. It makes the game that much more comprehensible, and frankly, rich for those that desire that level of understanding.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:What we can do is educate you as to where those abstractions are and what to expect from them. This took about 12 months to do for CMBO, so I hope nobody expects that we'll cover all these things in great detail within the next couple of days
As with previous CM games, it is probable that we don't have all the abstractions tweaked the right way for all situations. We can play around with stuff when attention is focused on something specific and we see the validity of those observations. We did this for nearly 4 years with CMx1 so again, let's not expect everything to get identified and tweaked by next Friday
And it would give dalem something to do in the crapper.
-
One of my ASL Journals has a line or two about the Bren tripods found on the Universal Carriers. I'm waiting to pull that one out until (if?) the WWII version is made.Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
EDIT to add, though, that I'm looking forward to the 1:1 debates concerning the use of the Bren Gun on the defensive using the sustained fire kit.
-dale </font>
-
I hadn't thought of that LLF - Strome Galloway says the same things as SLA Marshall - that most riflemen really didn't do anything in combat. So how is THAT going to look in 1:1?
And yeah - what about the outliers? Berserkers and heroes. We have fanaticism in CMX1.
I was going to say that it will get as dull to see a squad enter a building the exact same way over and over, just as it is dull to hear the same .wav go "MOVE OUT, MEN" over and over. But, of course, you can have more than one animation for everything and simply randomize them. However, your point about outliers is very apt. Will all riflemen simply blaze away heroically? Because the anecdotal information - if one ignores Marshall - is that it is unrealistic to depict them that way.
Will we see national characteristics crop up? Squad Leader handled the US troops very differently than other nationalities - Greenwood mentioned in The General that even so, the troops in SL still charged with an abandon "that would make Kelly's Heroes proud."
-
We'd have to agree on what "perfect" means. I doubt we could.Originally posted by moneymaxx:To wrap this up I'd like to ask why would one want to stick with abstractions if there was perfect 1:1 representation.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the results would be more "accurate". Just the simple matter of getting squads into a building will be interesting when we get to WWII. There are specific drills for it now. Were there in 1944? What kind of animations will we see? I see that as an example where abstraction may be better than specific representation. Having 1944 soldiers doing 2006 battle drills would be unsatisfying.The combat results would be more accurate, the graphical representation more satisfying and you wouldn't, as a programmer, have to worry so much about the interaction of various types of abstraction.EDIT to add, though, that I'm looking forward to the 1:1 debates concerning the use of the Bren Gun on the defensive using the sustained fire kit.
[ August 12, 2007, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
This exists in the editor already - it is possible to penalize a player for destruction of property.Originally posted by Pinetree:This is my feeling too. CMSF,IMHO, does feel a bit like a WW2 game with a modern twist. As much fun as it is, I think there should be some sort of penalty for flattening half the neighbourhood...
-
Combat Mission is a combined arms game, not an armoured sim - you can spend a few hunny and get Steel Beasts for that, can't you?Originally posted by CommC:Quote:
"LOL. I have no idea what game you're trying to describe. Something with a 3 hour advance to contact perhaps?"
Michael:
A modern armored vehicle can easily travel at speeds of 60 km/hr or so ... thats only 20 minutes to cover the entire 20 km map.. on 6 km map, thats only 10 minutes to travel across the entire map. Where are you getting this 3 hour timeframe?
Game designers need to seriously think about what they want the player to do and what contributes to victory vs defeat. If you just line up two armies in front of each other and shoot it out, you will have missed much of the depth and essence of modern armored combat. Maneuver to flank and use of terrain is everything.
I hope whatever game emerges from CMSF development will consider these aspects of armored warfare.
I wouldn't be disappointed at all to see tanks in Combat Mission relegated back to their proper place in the scheme of things, and letting the infantry do more interesting things, as is the case historically. Tanks have always been over-represented in CM. Less so in CM:SF, given their prevalence in modern operations, but even so, infantry is dramatically uninteresting because they have so little capability.
Make the infantry more interesting and you don't need to advance to contact for 20 grid squares with the armour - that's a different game altogether.
Let's see infantry properly breaking down into fireteams, fight from (and assault) two-man trenches, scale cliffs, send out scouts and flankers, patrol for the enemy, snatch prisoners, and so all that stuff the infantry is supposed to do - instead of just being window dressing for the tanks.
-
LOL. I have no idea what game you're trying to describe. Something with a 3 hour advance to contact perhaps?Originally posted by CommC:Many of us have dreamed of a combined arms company level sim...
I think 1:1 and RT are essential for such a sim...
We need a 3D engine that doesn't bog a computer down and can represent both larger maps, at least 20 x 20 km...
Carry on... please and don't be discouraged by the whiners...
-
I think Steve's point though is that it wasn't bringing the money in. CMX1 lost customers with every title.Originally posted by SKELLEN:The old cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" springs to mind here from the posts I've read. I think people wanted/expected more of CMX1 with added improvements and why not give the customer more of the same if it brings the money in?
-
On the flycrap and pepper front, Britain does not have a Royal Army and never has. While the British Army has never had the appelation "Royal", many individual regiments and corps have.Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):Are the Buff Howards part of your regiment or just have a similar name?
I always loved training with the Royal Army.
As for your point about reserves changing since the 90s - wars tend to do that, don't they!
-
Well look at CM:SF - pretty much anything can be called Combat Mission.Originally posted by track:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You reach a point at which the game could no longer be 'Combat Mission
But such a game/simulation is not that far away anymore. Just wait and see. </font>
-
That's exactly the kinda game that is goign to be the next hit in tactical gaming. A seamless integration of a shooter and tactical decision making. And it was discussed and trashed during the developement stage of the CM:SF on these forums. Heavy board game traditions still is the burden I guess. </font>Originally posted by track:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes… you remember correctly, I have no interest in what I would call a “company commanders game”. I like to see the battlefield from the perspective of the squad leader/AFV commander
-
I am feeling old. I have t-shirts older than that kid.Originally posted by Feltan:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
...The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile)....
Regards,
Feltan </font>
-
reminds me of my grandfather. he was a paratrooper and in WWII from the first day till the last. has no clue what really happened in WWII. Does not even know exactly where he fought. Somewhere in the south of the eastern front is the type of answer u get. but he knows that he defended his country against its enemies.Originally posted by fritzthemoose:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />KID?
Yeah, I'm a 28 year old kid with more combat experience than you will ever have. Instead of manning a desk, dreaming about panzers and playing war with cardboard counters I'm actually out there firing rounds in anger at the enemies of my country.
he would make a great guy for evaluating a computer game lol </font>
-
Canadian reservists are all volunteers, so the requirements are different than in Europe, I think. We're required to do a minimum of one training session per month to avoid becoming NES (Non-Effective Strength). That said, most units parade once a week during the training year (September to May) with one weekend exercise a month, sometimes two. Individual training takes place in the summer with courses, and there is usually a brigade concentration for a week at some point in the year. All of this training is effectively "optional" since we do not have job protection legislation.Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):How often do you guys who are reservists in other than U.S. armies train? I know a lot of countries use a smaller standing but a larger reserve component so I was just wondering what the differences are between our systems.
Canadian reserve units are skeletal - infantry "regiments" usually have a battalion headquarters and one or two rifle companies, understrength. That said, our unit in Calgary is doing pretty well. We had 26 soldiers in Afghanistan in the last calendar year from a strength of about 200 on paper, and currently have 60 or so in training or on their way to deployment in Afghanistan. We just had another fellow decorated for his work in training African Union soldiers in the use of infantry fighting vehicles. Lots of opportunity for individual employment overseas, but to date, no reserve unit has been activated for overseas, simply because we don't do things that way here.
Between 10 and 20 percent of overseas deployments by Regular units are typically made of up individual augmentees from reserve units, so that is one of the focuses of reserve training. Nonetheless, reserve units do the normal cycles of individual and collective training, with different focuses each year. Our unit has done defensive training one year, amphibious stuff the next, heliborne the year after, then mountain ops, then Three Block War with an urban focus (even did a combined anti-terrorism exercise with the local railway police), etc., so they've been good about mixing things up and keeping them interesting.
Training is done to the Regular Force standard, usually in the summer (full time for 2 or more weeks) on standardized courses with Regular instructors. Basic training and NCO training is being done these days in the units on weekends during the training year.
-
-
But none of that means you know anything about making a company-level wargame. In fact, our past discussions on the board over the years has convinced me you couldn't, mostly because you have no interest in doing so. You've confessed to being interested in brigade-level operations more than battalion level tactics, unless I've been reading you wrong all these years?Originally posted by kipanderson:Hi,
Michael Dorosh posted,
“That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.
You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.”
That made me laugh
… as Grogs go I doubt any here could equal me… including Michael. I was working out armour penetration equations twenty years ago and getting them right… I know the archives of Tank Museum better than their curator . And can do the same for any era of armour. Have a collection of over five thousand photos from the Eastern Front and hundreds of books/manuals on the subject. But no matter…. And I love the game… CMSF is all I wished for
. A more detailed CMX1…perfect!However, it was released prematurely… there are too many bugs. But Steve has now been upfront about that and why it happened. It will be fixed.
CMX1 will go down as the greatest series of wargames ever, because they were so ground breaking. But happily fro me… CMX2 is a far better engine.
All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.
-
That's apples and oranges, though, isn't it? I thought Dan was the 3D modeller and Charles the guy coding what the models do. If you have the time to make the models, go for it. They look great.Originally posted by thewood:One of things I am still preplexed over is the fact that the interior of vehicles are modelled in such detail, yet BFC says they had to leave many things out to satisfy financial and contractual committments. Why spend so much time on the interior of a Stryker, when that Stryker can't find its ass with a flashlight and two hands.
Once again, the same complaint I had about TOW.
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting a "sell-out", but you admit yourself the pitch is to a different group of gamers now. I suppose I am guilty of associating RT with less mature gamers, which isn't necessarily true. I just wonder what long term effects that might have on the franchise as a whole. Ruminating, is all.Originally posted by Sirocco:I don't think for a moment that BFC are looking to pitch their games at a different market. Will CMSF pull in RT people who wouldn't have touched WEGO? Of course it will.
But if BFC were to release CMx2WW2 in twelve months time with the engine improvements we're promised the reaction here would be markedly different.
-
I don't agree that's the case. BF were obviously at least considering cross-over into the mainstream market, but I don't think that was the principal objective. The problem was that delivering (what I "get" to be) the game as envisioned was simply too onerous a task. Had BF done so, I think even the 'grog' diehards would have come on board very quickly.Originally posted by Hertston:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.
Most of the problems with CMSF are common to virtually every RT game I've ever played, to some degree or another, and design teams blessed with far more personnel and larger budgets have failed to solve them. With a grog-RT crossover over, the same faults are just rather move obvious. You lose the 'grog' discussion not so much because the grogs have gone as that at this stage of the game's development the grog issues are relatively trivial compared with basic gameplay issues. If/when those are sorted, the grog stuff will return. </font>
-
Yeah. Kid. You act like one. Every time you post. Your combat experience hasn't enabled you to provide thoughtful, insightful commentary to the forum. Your only contribution to the other thread was to angrily reply "bite me" when someone tried to point out you had missed the entire point of the conversation.Originally posted by Angryson:KID
Your combat experience only matters to anyone here if you're able to parlay it into something more interesting to say than a comparison of dick sizes. I will stipulate that yours is bigger than mine. What does that leave you to say, then?
-
That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy.Originally posted by dalem:Sandy-
What if the game is selling like hotcakes though?
-dale
You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.
-
Check the Kharkov forums. He's baaaack... </font>Originally posted by Pinetree:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The presence of a certain bulldozer dude on their forums was a turnoff too, but I think he's been banned now.
-
I suppose we can pay attention to Matrix and see what is following on in the wake of Panzer Command: Operation Winter Storm. I bought that one but didn't like it much, mainly because of the camera. The presence of a certain bulldozer dude on their forums was a turnoff too, but I think he's been banned now.
They did seem open to suggestion, but everyone seems open to suggestion up to the point you start telling them how to run their business. 
-
Is that 2-5 limit tied to specific time frames, though?
With a turn based system (I realize TCP had optional time limits), you have as much time as you want, so the constraints become one of how perfect the information you are assessing is, rather than how fast you are transferring data within the system - no?
What was the colloquial German name for a Mark IV ?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
"Mark" is a British word - the Americans may have used it also, but the Germans emphatically did NOT. 'Panzer 4' or "P4" seems more likely. Where is Dandelion when you need him?