Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
Well, if you WERE more of a monarchist, you would have realized this is nothing new under the sun. Military service has always been a royal family tradition - peace or war. But I agree, it is definitely worthy of commemoration, in a Pat Tillman kind of way.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:Anyway, I'm no big monarchist but I admire the kid for wanting to take the same risks as the men he trained with, and no doubt making sure a few arms were twisted to make sure he got his chance to serve.
-
Why not kill two birds with one stone?Originally posted by The Louch:Actually all the "decent" Scifi franchises I can think of already have a Strategy Game associated with them ... perhaps Space Lobsters it is...
Create your own sci-fi backstory to interest new fans to the CM line.
And at the same time, introduce elements into the storyline to explain away the deficiencies in the CM engine. Sounds perfect. Why do my space lobsters run around their hovercars three times before getting in? How come the space lobsters won't go in through the windows? Having a sci-fi theme means you can explain away all that stuff a lot more elegantly than is the case currently. I mean now, we all have real world experience that tells us it is dumb to see troops shooting through walls, or into berms, or running straight into machine gun fire, or whatever, but in a fictional environment, you can make up explanations for all that which won't assault anyone's intelligence.
Should make it a contest, really. I'll look forward to seeing some ideas posted here.
-
I had all the TSR redos of Sniper! except for Bughunter. I did have Wreck of the BSM Pandora, though, which I seem to recall was something similar?Originally posted by Sequoia:Say that the third game will, in fact, be science fiction. Maybe Battlefront hasn't decided, but I know they're thinking about it. What sort of sci-fi setting would you like to see? Something like Drop Team? Something based on a license such as Starship Troopers? (The book, not the movie). Any one ever play the board game Bughunter Sniper, something like that? Please no Star Wars of Star Trek suggestions. Such licenses would cost a fortune and the ground combat in those was dumb anyway. What other science fiction that you know of gave a good ground combat model?
-
More likely than seeing the sons and daughters of the members of the House of Lords or Members of Parliament in a war zone.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:Anyway, I'd just like to say "Well done Harry, you've made us proud". How likely would it be to see a senior US congressman's or even the President's kids in a war zone?
Care to wager?
-
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 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.
-
It's not about designer's notes, and everyone knows it. It's about passing on crucial game information to the player during play and giving him the ability to act on that information. It's always been about that, from the first decision to have see-through buildings in CM:BO and the first time BTS had to explain why the tree depictions didn't really block LOS. What you show and what you get need to correlate, and if not, there needs to be some intuitive reason why, and some workaround to understanding how the game actually works as opposed to what it looks like is going on. The two don't need to correlate exactly, but the player needs to be able to grasp at a certain basic level what is going on and why.Originally posted by Adam1:Well, he's right that if you were more forthcoming about the details "under the hood" (remember numerous requests for designer "notes") we'd be a happy group.
-
I've mentioned many, many times that Steve's problem is that all the detail he keeps insisting we are too stupid to appreciate was put into CM:SF "under the hood". And CM players are like Missourians. I couldn't care less whether or not the actual weight of the web gear is modelled, and if the cyclic rate of the M-16 was off by even 300%, it wouldn't bother me, in comparison to some of the now "missing" features you describe, such as building damage tags or our favourite old commands, or the ability to actually use the windows as entry points.Originally posted by Lurker765:Sigh...I've been trying not to post, but I couldn't let the "oh Please" comment earlier in this thread go by and now I am in the middle of this and can't stop myself.
Anyway, I would agree that CMSF's artillery has the potential to be better than CMx1,but it isn't right now. The AI can't use it against you in the middle of a battle so if you play blue vs blue or blue (AI) vs Red it is far worse than CMx1. In addition, there are no on map mortar teams and no artillery smoke in the game in CMSF and for some reason you can't call in arty in a non-LOS spot in CMSF either.
I don't understand how you missed the Unit Encyclopedia in CMx1. You can click on a unit and see the stats for it. Can you do that in CMSF? No. What are the penetration/armor values for a unit -- or what special equipment is it carrying? I believe that range values for ATGMs are finally in the game, but they weren't until just recently. The stuff in the manual is nice, but it isn't much fun trying to toggle back into the manual while the game is running and printing out the PDF sucks due to the piracy protection system.
CMSF has "Far more detailed terrain and tons more terrain combinations"? Really? It has water? Snow? Rain? Deep Mud? Terrain impassable to vehicles but not soldiers? I agree that you can place the number of trees in a tile, but that isn't as good as having a bridge or a river in my opinion. From what I can tell many people think the terrain in CMSF is not as good as CMx1, but I could be wrong.
"Soldiers have individual equipment, weight, and the stuff that goes along with that" -- does that stuff include carrying more ammo than they could physically move with? Or sending soldiers back for ammo pick ups while leaving the rest of the squad in position? Or sharing ammo with another squad? Or dropping ammo? I agree that in theory this sounds great, but as it is currently implemented it doesn't seem like THAT great of an improvement over CMx1 and the weapons held within a given squad in that system. Once the CMSF system gets fully realized it will be much better, but as it sits today it doesn't really help me enjoy the game much more.
The CMSF separation of Morale and Suppression is true. But I actually liked it when soldiers surrendered in CMx1. I actually think the morale/suppression system in CMx1 worked better, but perhaps that is just me. I see CMSF and think the morale/suppression system still needs work.
I don't understand the knock on CMx1 pre-battle briefings? CMx1 did have pre-battle briefings.
CMSF does have deformable terrain, but it doesn't have foxholes. And the WEGO replays with the terrain take the immersion factor out of the game for me. The graphic display of deformation isn't as important to me as having fortifications that I could place where I wanted to in the setup.
I don't think you were EXTREMELY honest about CMSF. I think you were somewhat honest, but given the WEGO TCP/IP on the box, the lack of quick battle support, etc I don't think you can claim total honesty.
And while it doesn't really matter, since you asked. I have done software for multiple companies over the last few decades. Some have six month long development cycles, my last one had weekly builds with releases into the wild every Tuesday (internet website). I understand short development cycles and the pressure it creates. My software has included everything from computer games through GPS satellites (not brain surgery, but rocket science) with a lot of stuff in between working in companies from 5 to 3000 people.
I still do not understand how you could discover a bug that would detrimentally impact almost every game played and still release it. That is the point of having a small company where you ship when it's ready -- you can stop the process at any time.
I understand your aggravation with us customers bitching, but your comments about us giving you two hours slack isn't true. I personally purchased five copies of your games, not one $45, did not get mad after two hours (still not truly mad yet), and the issues present in CMSF haven't been around for only a couple months (7 so far and still have CTD bugs for multiplayer).
I understand you think you gave us too much with CMx1. I agree with you. But that is part of the honesty. If you thought you gave us too much then why include a non-working QB system in CMSF rather than saying it would be fully implemented in a later module that I could buy. Instead it is tease that is guaranteed to annoy people who bought the game thinking they could do quick battles against another person and not have the units start the game in the same setup zone. Or have the computer AI actually move and try to accomplish a victory condition in a quick battle?
I don't see how we can both read the same links and come to opposite conclusions. The first one I provided still has not received an answer to his problem, the second link has another poster agree with the original and also talking about additional problems, the third link has another poster agreeing with the original (and no answers), and the final one is the one I talked about in my earlier post. How is this the "opposite" of what I claimed?
I think this is out of my system for a while again. It is just tough to watch someone heckle another poster when that original poster actually listed legitimate gripes. The spin on this is still tough to watch. I would be a happy camper if v1.08 worked and I could play another human in an enjoyable CMSF game. I don't want to complain about these things. My post count is low since I never complained about CMx1 despite being in on the ground floor and living through every one of it's patches.
Like you say - if there is no pop up menu for unit stats (weights, penetration, ROF) etc., what good is all that detail? Saying CM:SF is "better" than CMX1 is a value judgement. Clearly, just because something was packed with more detail, if the interface with that detail is faulty or missing, you cannot possibly have a "better" game. The model may be better, but who cares? Models sit on shelves and get looked at. Games get played.
-
Last I checked, rivers were major obstacles in the Ukraine.
Dniepr
Dniestr
Bug
Donats
Prut
Kip is the fellow who tried to expound on this very forum that advanced landmine warfare would be the way of the future - until I reminded him about the Ottawa Convention. Should we now burst his bubble with the need for water crossings in his Ukraine campaign?
Or did we think that 500 metre patches of steppe would somehow take on strategic importance? Oh wait, I forgot - Kip is the one who needs entire brigades on the map, so change that to a 2km x 2km map. Umm...same question. What will your forces be fighting for? Farmer's fields? Seems unlikely.
-
I was thinking more like "slicks" - troop carrying helicopters making in-game landings and disembarkations.Originally posted by mike_the_wino2:Can't such things be recreated with the tools all ready in game? i.e. reinforcements (random or otherwise) dropped on the map at various locations, like the 'Red Parachutes' scenario from CMBB plus throwing in some minor modifications on the fixed wing aircraft to mimick helo strafing runs?
Of course, I have zero programming skilz so any 'minor' modifications are really easy to do. Chop, chop you lazy pricks.
On a related note, I wasn't aware that heterosexual marriage was absolute proof of a person's tendencies; in fact, I've personally known cases, and we've all heard of others, that proved beyond a doubt it isn't. Homosexuals get involved in heterosexual marriages all the time - it's not proof of anything. Not trying to be snide, just honestly trying to understand why every thread in which M1A1 posts becomes littered with photographs of himself and lists of his turn ons and turn offs. If he's trying to attract someone, there have got to be better sites to do that on. I'm almost positive that the majority of respondents here would be like Thomm - slightly appealing in an überbitchy way, but then you get the photograph via email three months into the hot and heavy and suddenly - well, it's a shock is all. So seriously, M1, if you're trying to find a little action on the side, probably something more subtle is the way to go - email behind the scenes works better than self-referential barrages in every thread, especially when you're dragging them off topic by doing so.
And THIS is how to subtly start things off, M1 - no resume of his life's achievements, just a tasteful offer to send you a gift. Exchange email addresses and carry on your affair discretely. Good luck to both of you.Originally posted by handihoc:TC, when you set up your new home (presumably) with your new wife, can I interest you in a finely crafted, authentic, luxurious English kennel for the family pet?
-
Not to put too fine a point on this, but having seen all the photos of you and the self-referential comments of the last few days, I have to ask - you really are aware this isn't a homosexual dating site, right?Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:I always love to play any wargame that has soldiers speaking my native language-Russian.
I grew up behind the Iron Curtain watching old black and white movies about the Great Patriotic War, and how we beat the Nazis. Thats why my favorite game will always be CMBB
-
I appreciate the time you took to counter my post, but my next serious question, then, is - if a Belarus game would have terrain so close in concept to that used in western Europe, what would the appeal be to the "average" gamer who doesn't speak Russian and already owns the Normandy module? It would be just more of the same, wouldn't it, with different sounding guns and funnier looking tanks?
I think you've already answered that in your last paragraph, naturally.
I am not sure why these discussions seem to hinge on theatres and army-group level operations since the game is a tactical simulation and any real differences seem to be driven by two things; hardware and terrain. Hardware was constant across the front, generally speaking (with the exception of such units as ski battalions, mountain troops and Aerosan battalions - and how fun would those be to see?) and so you're left with terrain.
Stalingrad was marked by terrain, and for that, some pretty distinctive stuff - Mamayev Kurgan, The Grain Elevator, The Barrikady, The Tractor Works, etc. Suitable for a squad-based company game? It would certainly be distinct from Normandy, but "Normandy" could mean anything depending on which units you focus on
a) Airborne Divisions - flooded terrain around Carentan, street fighting, opening causeways
Armored Divisions - tanks fighting in open fieldsc) Armored infantry/regular infantry - fighting it out in the bocage
If CM:SF is any indication, you'd have a "campaign" of interlinked scenarios following one battalion from one of these types of units - though you could have one of each I suppose for multiple campaigns, if there was enough talent in the gene pool to generate them. Given the fascination with tanks abundant on the CM:SF disc, and looking at past CM titles, I think we can guess what kind of "campaign" to expect from a "Normandy" title...
If one really had to come up with an idea for an Eastern Front "game", my suggestion would be to pick a specific unit (as was done with Task Force Thunder), find a situation they fought in with some unique terrain and units, and possibly a semi-famous one.
My suggestion would be 101 Jäger Division in the Taman Peninsula.
What's so famous about them?
Well, they were the real life inspiration for the book The Willing Flesh, which was published in English as Cross of Iron, and later inspired the movie with James Coburn.
The military situation itself is unique enough; the Germans are fighting a withdrawal towards ports opposite the Crimea, forced to abandon the Kuban bridgehead - the fighting was recognized eventually by the award of a campaign shield for wear on the uniform sleeve by any German soldier who took part in the defence of the bridgehead, a rare distinction.
The divisional history offers some good glimpses into a variety of combat actions, including urban and hill fighting, and the award of the Knight's Cross to Johan Schwerdfeger, the inspiration for Sergeant Steiner.
But, of course, there are no King Tigers, no JS-IIs, no Pershings, just brave men and cowards thrown together in a chaotic situation and told to make history.
This is why I object to really irksome behaviour on the part of some forum members (not you), spouting off about "Russian Front" this and "Bagration" that - the words have no meaning unless you've studied them, and even then the meaning will be hugely diverse across any group of individuals. Selling a "Russian Front" game is a hopeless proposition. CM:BB sold because it was more or less guaranteed to at least touch on each individual's perception of what the Russian Front might be like because it WAS so all-encompassing. We won't have that anymore, with the limited focus aspect of the new Games, so any dude to whom the Russian Front means "Stalingrad" who goes out and buys a "Russian Front CM" and finds Finns scrabbling in a pine forest and that's all is bound to be disappointed.
Or for that matter, expecting to find Stalingrad, Moscow, Brest fortress, the Pripet Marshes, partisans and Sturmoviks, and instead gets Operation Winter Storm with bald-ass prairie in the middle of winter, or perhaps Belarus which is obscenely similar to Western Europe, will be equally disappointed...
I think anyone suggesting "Eastern Front" topics is pretty much obliged to name a specific formation and location, or just admit they're not in a position to make suggestions.
Your suggestion has the advantage of specificity, which I admire. Personally, you and I know that all other things being equal, we would both buy ANY Eastern Front CM right after a Normandy one regardless of its focus just to get the new units (funnier looking tanks), but as has pointed out on this forum, the poor grogs are no longer the core fan base and they no longer set the marketing agenda.
[ February 25, 2008, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Good answer! I'll also add that the coloured bars on the user interface give a good indication of penetrative and protective abilities of the guns and armour in the game at a glance, also, as does hitting the Unit Info key.Originally posted by mike_the_wino2:Wow, kinda harsh JoMc67.
FragerZ,
L/71 has to do with the barrel length, the higher the number the longer the barrel. The longer the barrel, the more accurate the gun. All approximations of course.
SP arti units are a mixed bag. The 150's are great against soft targets but not so good against armor. Think high explosive and generally not so accurate. You need to look at ammo type to see if you have a chance against armor. But the game chooses which ammo type to load so that part is really out of your hands. Generally the 75mm and 88mm are your most effective anti-tank weapons but 50mm can be used with caution.
Hope that helps.
Welcome to the forum, by the way, FragerZ. Always good to see new fans of the franchise here.
-
The real answer, I think, lies elsewhere.Originally posted by Sgt.Joch:personally, I would love a CM:Vietnam game.
The type of company to regimental type action in Vietnam would perfectly suit CMx2 and despite the commonly held belief, U.S. forces did not win every battle.
My understanding of BFC's reluctance is the worry that there may not be a market for a CM:Vietnam game. There does not seem to be a lot of interest in the Vietnam war outside of the U.S. and even in the U.S., there does not appear to be great interest in remembering it.
Looking over the list of BFC's programming abilities and what have and have not been included so far and what is conspicuous by absence, how well do you think they would do at things like spider holes, tunnel complexes, or helicopters interacting realistically with the tactical battlespace? And it's not as if those things would be outside the scope of a tactical game - the base camp and AO of the 25th Infantry Division at Cu Chi as I recall was pretty much right on top of a huge tunnel complex.
Opposed helicopter landings were probably as rare as opposed parachute landings were in the Second World War, but the famous ones in both cases (Ia Drang Valley/Crete or Ste Mere Eglise respectively) would call out for inclusion and be conspicuous by absence.
You wouldn't need such things in the game, of course, but the constant whine of people on this forum begging for them as if it was life or death would simply deter from the other aspects of the program and probably make the whole project seem not worthwhile.
-
Interesting. I find this surprising.Originally posted by YankeeDog:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by vincere:
I recall BF saying east front GAME is pencilled in for after Normandy.
I mean, really, once you've done Normandy, you've done 90% of the German TOE for Bagration, plus a good 20% of the Russian (Lend-lease). And the terrain isn't all that different. Need some new building skins, and change the species of trees in the forests, but that about it.</font>
-
You'll have a job; it's only available on line...I can vouch for the author though...Originally posted by Bigduke6:Appreciate it. Next time I'm in an English language bookstore I'll definately look for it. Meanwhile, the on-line search continues...
-
This would have answers to all that, save engineering information:Originally posted by Bigduke6:Hi guys!
I am searching for the following, need it to be on-line:
US Armored Division, circa Nov '42 - March '43
US Infantry Division, circa Nov '42 - March '43
US Corps assets, circa Nov '42 - March '43
US Ranger Regiment, circa Nov '42 - March '43
Most interested in CM-related combat equipment type and count, tanks, mortars, AT guns, artillery, bridging, infantry crew-served, stuff like that.
Line and bloc organization is also useful. If I have to pick I guess I would want to look at 1st Armor, 1st Infantry, and 75th Rangers.
Thanks guys.
-
-
Mmm...not even close.Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:No, I think Michael was simply making one of those "ya had to be there for the last 8 years" running jokes (e.g. "whose grass mod is that?", "Bren tripod")
The definition of truly unfunny is when you have to explain the joke multiple times. My bad. 
-
Wow, Michael you're approaching a JasonC level of crankiness.Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Wrong forum, lunkheads. :mad:
Btw, I suggest rubbled buildings to simulate patches of large boulders and crags impassable to vehicles. Decent cover too, unlike other nonbuilding terrain. </font>
-
Wrong forum, lunkheads. :mad:
-
He wasn't just talking about vehicles - he meant all the different weapon systems - from a bayonet to a B17. IIRC He argues the significant factor in land operations was men, and how they were organised/trained, supplied and led. </font>Originally posted by Londoner:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Our perception of land operations in the Second World War has...been distorted by an excessive emphasis upon the hardware employed.
- John Ellis, "Brute Force"
It's too true. We can see that CM:SF has focused on vehicles
-
I'll have to show this to Company Sergeant Major Woods tonight.Originally posted by Melnibone:
-
The beach landings hold pretty much zero interest for me personally as far as tactical interest goes; maybe in a naval simulation I could see the point, but in a game where you are ostensibly an infantry company commander, why play something where everything should rightfully be out of your hands and command range to start with?Originally posted by Rankorian:Times have changed since CMBO. I don't see how they don't have beaches--from a marketing perspective.
If you tell most people/gamers you are building a Normandy game/simulation, and then don't have the beaches, I think you will get some head scratching.
Even myself, when I bought CMBO years ago, had to keep repeating to myself "Beyond Overloard", "Beyond Overlord", to understand what was going on.
Even then, weren't there people trying to build custom scenarios which looked like beaches?
What percentage of the population, if you just walked up on the street to them and said, "Overlord" would know what you are talking about? "A demon in a fantasy game", would likely be the number one answer of most gamers, and you would draw a blank on....the overwhelming part of the rest?
So, you might as well put "Normandy....But Not the Beach Landings" on the box if they aren't going to do the landings, or endure some incredible accusations of false advertising.
-
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss lack of participation as lack of guts, necessarily. I think it is simply human nature to mill about - I mean, that's what the training is for, to minimize that tendency. If we believe Marshall's assertion that 10-25% of men are "natural fighters", and believe what you will about Marshall's flawed works, I think he may have had something as far as that goes, then it is probably normal for fellows to really not participate in any meaningful way in any fight unless specifically told what to do, particularly in an environment where targets are invisible and there is a lot of noise, smoke and confusion.Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:As usual, Michael is thinking well ahead of the curve.
I've ranted previously about the "union road crew" effect in combat in which a few guys seem to be doing most of the dirty work up on the line at any given moment while the rest of the squad looks on from relative safety. This is partly a function of (in no particular order):
(a) threat perception (how hot is it out there)
(
individual motivation (guts)© leadership and C4I
(d) training and experience
(e) (lack of) LOS and situational awareness
To take this already excellent game to the next level, BFC will need to think down into the basic building blocks of soldier and unit behavior and leadership (which doesn't just come from the "leaders"), and how they can be mixed and matched to create realistic and interesting UNIT tactical behaviors.
I think that may even be why we have the emphasis on smaller fire teams today, and the notion of the 'strategic corporal' and greater reliance on both low-unit leadership and firepower in the hands of the average rifleman.
Armored Divisions - tanks fighting in open fields
Hello battlefront
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
He was expressing his preference for being able to see the edge of the map more clearly. It is sometimes indistinguishable, depending on monitor settings, display settings, etc. - particularly in the map editor when fooling around with bare terrain. If you're suggesting this was brought up among the beta team, then I think that is the answer he was looking for.
As noted by MikeyD this is in the hands of scen designers...As a designer I will pay more attention to this detail in the future. </font>