Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
It's unfortunate you lack the ability to read comments in context, MikeyD. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the underlying statement that barbed wire and prisoners was illustrating - if you were able to grasp it, that is. I can see at least four people who did.Originally posted by MikeyD:Would adding barbed wire to the foritication REALLY have made you people happy? Or surrendering prisoners? Or four different types of civilian car instead of two? Or a couple pages of penetration tables in the back of the manual? In another thread someone was ranting on and on about the game's endless flaws, then ended by saying he would refuse to purchase CMSF. Er... what game was he complaining about if he had never actually played CMSF? Sometimes this board reads like an OCD convention.
-
RPG elements aside, just getting back the capabilities that were in CMX1 would be a start - men that surrender (and the attendant need to guard them), for example; barbed wire; etc. Variety should come in what we can do with the units, not just what units are available. And if the stated policy is to have a limited amount of units, that becomes even more common sense, no?
Add to that the fact we have 1:1 modelling but no individual tasks. Anyone every see an entire squad do sentry duty? I haven't but I've done my fair share of sentry duty as an individual or at most in pairs. Would add variety to the kinds of missions you can portray. Putting out sentries on an airfield is a natural, but even out in the field, a two-man listening post connected by wire back to a company HQ would be a beautiful thing.
-
I think the limited amount of things we can do with infantry is the real culprit here, not the limited array of vehicles. In ASL, as in real life, infantry can do a lot of arcane things - wriggle through barbed wire, interrogate civilians, split into individuals and search buildings, swim rivers, take prisoners, climb cliffs, scale and rappel buildings, descend by parachute, fly in gliders, capture trucks and drive them around, close assault tanks, man enemy heavy weapons, dig foxholes, fortify buildings, engage in other imaginative labor tasks (search an HQ for documents, for example), send scouting parties out, wire something for demolitions, conduct a snatch patrol, etc. etc.Originally posted by 76mm:One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s (I'm not suggesting to add laser hovercraft, but I find the limited choice, well, boring).
In CM, infantry are severely undermodelled which I think may lead to some of the true boredom - were some of these capabilities in the game there would be far more to do than just advance, shoot and duck, which is basically what it is now. I've posted at length on the inability to engage enemy armour realistically with infantry, for example, or the absence of prisoners/surrendering. It's all very sterile. In CMX1 you could at least image the close assault against an enemy tank as it was actually depicted, so were surrendering units.
The fact that there is absolutely no campaign system in the game now is also a bit of a letdown, as the Operations at least gave some sort of context to individual games. But a good scenario briefing does that as well. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have a random briefing generator for quick battles - might provide some of that contextual experience and remove a bit of the sterility.
Otherwise, I think I can relate to what you are saying - variety is the spice of life - but I would say the problem isn't lack of units but the number of ways in which those units can be used. Even the limited number of vehicles are hampered by the "sameness" of the terrain in CM:SF though a good scenario designer like George can cure that. Trouble is, scenario designs are running to two hours, and I don't have time for that - some guys are lobbying for 7 hour time limits(!) - and map sizes are getting larger. No thanks. In CMX1 you could bash together a nice 30 turn QB on a computer generated map and have no problem with "sameness", and even if you got the exact same kind of tanks as you did the last time, it was fresh. You also had more ways to use the vehicles, what with seek hull down commands and a much more vibrant Tac AI that would keep the enemy doing interesting things.
-
Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I would say that "focus" is units, terrain, and weather, and that the limitations on these present in CMSF (and potentially the Normandy game) constitute too narrow a focus. Maybe I don't understand your point?Originally posted by 76mm:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities?
For instance, a post above hints that the Bulge might be a seperate game rather than a module. WTF? This would pretty much be the same units, with only winter terrain/weather effects thrown in. If a "game" is limited to Normandy, June 1944, I personally will lose interest quickly. </font>
-
These were present, in all their glory, in CMBB. They will never be seen again. Sorry, mate. </font>Originally posted by Childress:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cid250:
Will be minor countries forgotten?...
Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, etc... are very important for a complete russian front.
-
I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities?Originally posted by 76mm:Dorosh,
Of course you are right about the US unit types and the importance of additional terrain (and weather--winter, anyone?) for creating diverse and interesting scenarios, but my point remains the same: keeping a very narrow focus in the original games and not releasing enough modules to cover a wide scope of situations will lead to pretty sterile and unsatisfying (to me) gaming.
-
I think that will depend more on the terrain sets and the scenario designers than the units involved. Even CM:BO and CM:AK did not have a wide array of US equipment and infantry unit types (dalem posted extensively about this, for example). For the most part, it didn't need them, I don't think and of course to a degree, they simply didn't have the variety that the Germans had to begin with.Originally posted by 76mm:I totally understand why Battlefront went with the module concept and have no problem paying more for good content.
BUT, I've got to say that b/n the subject matter and lack of diverse units, I haven't fired up CMSF in months...I just find it terminally boring. A Normandy game limited to "US Rifle Battalion vs. German Kampfgruppe with four types of units" won't be much better.
I hope that for WWII the modules come out quickly and cover a wide variety of theaters/units, or I have to admit that the game is probably going to lose my interest pretty quickly. This from a guy who still regularly plays CMBB.
I just published a book on scenario design for Advanced Squad Leader with a detailed chapter on force compositions from company to division level for all the major nationalities of the Second World War:
http://canadiansoldiers.com/publications/sdh.htm
Take a look at the number of Russian infantry battalion types I could identify:
Red Army Infantry Battalion 1939-41
Red Army Reduced Strength Infantry Battalion July 1941
Red Army Infantry Battalion Jan-Jun 1942
Red Army Infantry Battalion Jul-Dec 1942
Red Army Infantry Battalion 1943-45
Red Army Reduced Strength Infantry Battalion 1943
Red Army Rifle Brigade Battalion 1941
Red Army Rifle Brigade Battalion 1942
Red Army Mountain Company 1940-Apr 1943
Red Army Mountain Company Apr 1943-1945
Red Army Mountain Battalion 1944-45
Red Army Ski Battalion Winter 1941-42
Red Army Ski Battalion Oct 1942-1945
Red Army Line Squadron (cavalry) 1939-41
Red Army Motor Rifle Company 1939-41
Red Army Light Cavalry Squadron 1941
Red Army Line Squadron 1943-45
Red Army Motor Rifle Battalion 1939-40
Red Army Motorized Infantry Battalion 1941
Red Army Infantry Battalion (as in Tank Brigade) Aug 1941-Dec 1941
Red Army Motorized Rifle Battalion Dec 1941-Jul 1942
Red Army Motorized Rifle Battalion Apr 1942-Nov 1943
Red Army Motorized SMG Battalion (as in Tank Brigade) Nov 1943-45
Red Army Motorized Rifle Battalion (as in Mechanized Brigade) Sep 1942-45
Red Army Parachute/Glider Battalion Nov 1940-Sep 1941
Red Army Parachute/Glider Battalion Sep 1941
Red Army Parachute Battalion 1943
and those of the US:
US Army Infantry Battalion 1942-45
US Army Armored Infantry Battalion 1942-43
US Army Armored Infantry Battalion 1943-45
US Army Mountain Battalion 1945
US Glider Infantry Battalion 1942-44
US Parachute Infantry Battalion 1942-45
US Glider Infantry Battalion 1945
USMC "D" Series Infantry Battalion 1942-43
USMC "E" Series Infantry Battalion Apr 1943-May 1944
USMC "F/G" Series Infantry Battalion May 1944-1945
And 30% of those are USMC and did not even fight in Europe.
So I don't think you will see any major variations in US infantry troop types, nor should you. The variations will come in scenario types, and hopefully this will be tied in part to things we don't have in CM:SF currently:
river crossings (think St. Goar, Nijmegen, the Rhine, etc.)
Bridges (Nijmegen Bridge, the Bridge at Remagen, etc.)
European villages
Dense forests
As well as greater engineering assets, etc. Armour (sorry, armor) will not be too great a mixed bag either - M10s, M36s and M18s for TDs, M3s, M5s and M24s for lights, and progressively uparmored and upgunned Shermans with the odd Pershing late in the war as main battle tanks. Module sales will revolve around which German goodies are available or not.
As for the dull gameplay experience, I'm not worried so much about the subject matter as by the execution. The campaign simply isn't one; the player has absolutely no interaction or control over where his units fight, which units get selected to fight, or how the subunits are organized. None. It isn't a campaign, it's just a meek collection of unrelated scenarios. I recently went through the campaign in 1.07 and hit CEASE FIRE each scenario on turn 1. I got all the way through the entire campaign, managed to "win" a good proportion of the games in that manner, and came out at the far end, having progressed my task force all the way to the final objective. That shouldn't happen.
In-game experience is dulled by the lack of an interactive Tac AI. As was pointed out recently in another thread, if you managed to take an objective building, the AI will not counterattack to take it back. There are no event triggers - the enemy's movements are pegged completely and solely to the clock and its own timer. The game is an electronic shooting gallery. Shooting galleries can and are quite popular. But not for me.
Of course, the mix of armour in a Normandy title may also see a return to "asymmetric warfare" if we have large numbers of Panthers vs. Shermans scenarios...I would like to see the emphasis shifted back to the infantry, but the infantry need to be able to do more things, better, in CM before that can happen. Carrying out accurate 1944 battle drills will be important in that regard. Will we see "marching fire" as an infantry tactic for the Americans, for example? Will smoke grenade use be curtailed? Will we have the ability to change out small arms dispositions? Or even better, have the ability to start subunits (i.e. squads) at less than 100% manpower (as was the cae in CM:AK) since this was the historical norm in 1944?
Many things will need to change from CM:SF in order to correctly get the "feel" of 1944 captured.
-
The problem arises in satisfying elements of the fanbase that is not so willing. Currently, obtaining a third party package of scenarios for Advanced Squad Leader invariably runs one into trouble because there are exists a labyrinth of prerequisites - this module contained this and this board, that set of rules, and these counters, while that action pack had that board and that set of board overlays, etc. Newcomers to the system find themselves overwhelmed and ultimately in some cases turned off.Originally posted by z1812:Hi All,
I agree with "the wood". I have had many, many hours of enjoyment with CMx1. If it costs me more to build up "my army" in the future then I am willing to pay for it.
Regards John
The same would occur with third party CM scenarios (always the lifeblood of the game system - and moreso now that QBs really aren't as flexible or entertaining as in CMX1). Scenario designers tend to be hardcore and will certainly have all the "toys" - conceivably, we could imagine a CMX2 WW II "game" with five titles in it, and the desire to include bits from all of them, precluding anyone who didn't own all five titles from playing it.
A huge issue? Time will tell. Probably not, but something to consider.
-
Well, I'm a scenario designer, and while I agree that the AI as designed can only operate up to maximum in the hands of a competent scenario designer, that maximum is still not comparable to the AI designed for CMX1 - in my opinion.
Which isn't to say it is worse, or better, just not comparable. They are apples and oranges.
The AI in CMX2 is scripted; you can write multiple scripts, but at the end of the day, all forces are reliant on what they are told to do before the first shot is fired or the first move plotted. Individual scenarios will work better with this system than others, and individual players will have differing thresholds as far as willing suspension of disbelief.
In neither case - CM:AK or CM:SF, for example - will the AI use fire and movement effectively on the attack, for example, though in the latter it can be partially programmed in a most general, scripted sense to do so. In CM:SF, there are no "triggers" and at no time will the AI respond to actual events on the battlefield rather than the timed sequence of events preplotted before the game starts. The Tac AI, however, will carry out limited tactical self-preservation moves in either game.
-
I really don't get this complaint, which I've seen before. Why does it matter, what's so damned awful about going to Gamershell or such?Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:
What I do have an issue with is the proxy servers used by BF to update its own game. Surely they should offer the BF patch on the BF site and not some of sites it is on?
BFC doesn't have to pay for bandwidth, Gamershell gets you to drop by, you get to download at a good speed from a fairly local server. Why isn't everyone happy? :confused: </font>
-
That was Attack Of the Mutants...</font>Originally posted by Mord:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
For once, DaveH, you and I may agree. Was that the one advertised in comic books with a drawing of an M-16 being fired in a college hallway by an automated machine of some kind?
-
They've already stated that keeping their "main audience" is not a concern, so your concerns seem misplaced. CM:SF's change of focus was a deliberate attempt to attract a broader consumer base with the admitted sacrifice of existing customers, so why stop there? </font>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:
I would vote for continued realism vs sci-fi. If they could produce a sci-fi title without taking anything away from their main audience, I would say go for it though. However, they would likely not be able to do that, as any dollars and time spent on the one, by the nature of the business, probably come from the other.
-
They've already stated that keeping their "main audience" is not a concern, so your concerns seem misplaced. CM:SF's change of focus was a deliberate attempt to attract a broader consumer base with the admitted sacrifice of existing customers, so why stop there?Originally posted by abneo3sierra:I would vote for continued realism vs sci-fi. If they could produce a sci-fi title without taking anything away from their main audience, I would say go for it though. However, they would likely not be able to do that, as any dollars and time spent on the one, by the nature of the business, probably come from the other.
-
For once, DaveH, you and I may agree. Was that the one advertised in comic books with a drawing of an M-16 being fired in a college hallway by an automated machine of some kind? I vaguely remember such an advert but can't recall at all what the ad was for - just remember how well drawn the M-16 was and how the artist was obviously a "rivet man" given the number of expended 5.56mm shell casings he chose to depict...
-
With all this fuss about the manual, I have to ask - what exactly is in it that you would even want to spend a lot of money printing it out? Aside from the fact it was developed, as noted, for v1.01, it is certainly far from anything like a complete "gamer's guide". I guess it is more satisfying to throw an incomplete manual across the room than it is an incorrect mousepad due to the aerodynamics involved.
What information is it that people think they will find themselves referring to often enough to need it? About the only thing I consistently forgot from my CMX1 manuals over the years was the shortcut to pull the briefings out of the scenario editor. I think for the CM:SF designing, I printed off a page on building construction shortcuts but beyond that, the rulebook wasn't of much use to me.
-
Interesting points Peter. I would add that it is far easier to come up with new technologies than it is to come up with realistic tactics to use them credibly. Just ask George Lucas. Or for that matter, any commissioned officer who fought in the US Civil War.
-
In the US that Great Patriot and RightWing closet Queen, Matt Drudge...picked it up from an Australian Woman's Mag, ignoring the Obvious risk it placed British troops. I truly despise lapel-pin patriots like him. [/QB]</font>Originally posted by MarkEzra:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
the big mouths in Australia and the United States shot their gobs off about him. The British press showed admirable restraint, as they're capable of on occasion, in letting the prince serve with quiet dignity and fulfill his destiny with the troops. A shame that the foreign press thought their own profits were more important than the war effort.
-
I may have been hasty in my comment - yes, designer's notes would of course help in eventual understanding of what is going on during the game, but I meant to say the only time you really need to have that information at hand is when the game is in progress. If you can memorize the pertinent data, so much the better. If not, better to have mnemonics or visual references in game and on the screen than a 500 page manual (ASL anyone?) to which one needs to refer.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Adam1:
I can't say I have any trouble acting on information in CMSF. It's a pain to have to do my own tests - it'd be a lot easier to have a more obvious indication of penetration abilities, but fas.org can help with that and alt-tab and CMSF are compatible.
For me more notes on what is going on under the hood is enough. I don't expect the armor model in CMSF to be as accurate as the CMx1 series because info on the exact performance of modern armor is unavailable.
Some of the data will be intuitive, and one doesn't need to "know" the exact rpm of a machine gun to know it fires fast. But what you're talking about is the point where, for example, the 3D models in a playback fire 5 round bursts with an M240B, but the game engine is allocating 30 rounds or more to the resolution and having in game effects at wide variance with the type of fire that is being displayed - something non-intuitive, in other words, that is only being discovered via testing. </font>
-
I support GS´s request for the folowing reason:Originally posted by __Yossarian0815[jby]:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
we need to do is ask you, simply "why"? Even a link to previous discussions would do. And there have been many. Official Requests™ generally have some form of rationale...
Playing maps take much longer in realtime than WEGO.
I have found that most scenarios turn into a "mash the pause button every 20 sec" fest, when played RT.
As for realism, I find it hard to believe that obectives such as taking small towns take only 30 - 60 min in real life... </font>
-
In addition to MikeyD and gibsonm's excellent points (I recall an extended discussion of this with them previously), perhaps what we need to do is ask you, simply "why"? Even a link to previous discussions would do. And there have been many. Official Requests™ generally have some form of rationale...Originally posted by General_solomon:To BFC,
This is my official request, when you have the time to allow for a unlimited or 6 to 7 hour limit option.
thank you in advance.
General_solomon
Given the available map sizes and forces sizes, I can't see a need for it. I'll also add that in the Second World War, there were usually no vehicles to replenish ammunition from for many of the combatants, so resupply becomes an even hinkier proposition in later modules of the game system.
-
Not really "latest" news, as Cpl Steiner accurately reported that in the first post...of course he is being withdrawn, now that the big mouths in Australia and the United States shot their gobs off about him. The British press showed admirable restraint, as they're capable of on occasion, in letting the prince serve with quiet dignity and fulfill his destiny with the troops. A shame that the foreign press thought their own profits were more important than the war effort.Originally posted by handihoc:Latest news is he's now being withdrawn.
-
Doesn't the fact that you have to ask suggest there is a problem?Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:Isn't that what this is?
I don't see that icon on my mousepad. Or for that matter, in my manual.
Is that "map size" or "scenario size"? It was never intuitive in CMX1 and I haven't paid any attention to it in CMX2 (apparently, neither has Goody.Bruce 70(requesting BFC to provide map sizes and "stuff")) is who I responded to...accurately it appears. There is a good deal of info available from the game when a scen is hi-lighted. Here's a scen I'm working on and have added the map size.
)[ February 28, 2008, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
I'm aware of that, Mark, but once again, despite the original poster's mistaken belief that map size generated the comment in the scenario list, the fact remains, the "size" comment in the scenario listOriginally posted by MarkEzra:Hi Michael: IF memory serves CMx1 size relates to number of units and not map size.* The same applies to CMx2. That is why it is incumbent upon the designer to note map size. It's a good idea and I'll will start doing it
* (I no longer have CMx1 installed so if anyone cares to verify here's how to do it: Take an exisiting "large" scen, rename it and in the editor take the units out and save it to scen file. It should now be listed as "Tiny")
a) was useful in determining how long a scenario would take to play and moreover how demanding on the player's computer, at least in general terms, and
prevented you from having to open each scenario individually in order to determine this informationI think the more features one includes in the scenario listing, the better - I'd love the ability to be able to sort by date and - when we get around to the Second World War - by nationality/campaign. Make it like an excel spreadsheet with the autofilter - want to find a Kursk scenario? Click on "Russians" in the nationality column and "July 1943" in the date column, and everything else gets turned off - voila! Then you can pare down from there.
Being able to filter out Huge or Tiny scenarios would also be useful, ditto those "recommended for AI play", "PBEM only", etc.
-
)
prevented you from having to open each scenario individually in order to determine this information
a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I know Dan isn't the type to take offence, but it certainly hasn't passed unnoticed by others that you have insulted him by not even acknowledging all the great work he has done for you here on the public forums. What could be more embarrassing than watching someone you know rushing in to assume credit for work that someone else does far better than he is capable of? The only trouble with lobbying for Dan to be the public face of the company is that he would probably be too smart to accept the job if offered. :eek: