Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:
It was obvious to many in the German army that the infantry that worked with the tanks was the elite of the infantry arm, by the time of the fall of France certainly. These had been designated "panzergrenadier" from the get-go, and the designation made some historical sense because it refered to picked men for a special duty. .
I don't believe this is true. They were Schuetzen Regimenter until 1942-3, when the title Panzergrenadier was bestowed.
Grass green piping was granted in 1943 as well.
I knew a vet from Panzergrendierlehr Regiment 901 who showed me his shoulder straps. Schuetzen troops wore rosa, same as panzer troops, until 1943 when all panzergrenadiere were ordered into grass green.
The change was not popular.
-
Originally posted by russellmz:
dude, your sig is mucked up.
You're the only one that's bothered to click! LOL! Thanks - fixed. I hope!
Incidentally, speaking in general, personal attacks of any nature are self defeating and stupid and I would rather not see any such attacks, no matter whom they are directed at. If you don't like the way someone posts, my suggestion is to ignore them.
Slapdragon, I happen to agree with your outlook on things. Are you really a professor? What kind of history do you teach? I got one of my BAs in history, but couldn't specialize in military history, though I wanted to.
------------------
-
They don't even know how to spell El Alamein? And D-Day and Iwo Jima took place in 1942? And is the medic performing a modern form of CPR?
(How's that for nitpicky?)
I've seen awesome screenshots for games that were utter crap. They sure don't go into detail into what this game is supposed to be - see my posts in the thread on graphics for further feelings on games that sell themselves by touting their graphics and not their gameplay.
Interesting to see, though, thanks for the link.
-
So Slapdraon, explain to me how I "trot over to Usenet"....I'd love to see some of the whining that people are doing about this forum and the predilection people here have for substance over form. I've been to a lot message boards, and this one has rapidly become my favourite - not just the subject matter, but the high level of discourse. This thread, and in particular the last two posts involving you and Chupacabra, are proof of that.
I remember inhabiting a Saving Private Ryan mb that no longer exists - and having Jon G., a respected author on WW II GI uniforms, come on and rant and rave and scream at people because they didn't know what kind of obstacles the Germans had on the D-Day beaches. The reason they were posting was that they didn't know this info and wanted to learn more. He told them if they didn't know it already to stop wasting everyone's time by asking. That mind set makes no sense to me - and this was a supposedly "learned" gentleman and scholar.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Originally posted by Roborat:
One other point is that foos dont usually stand up and look around the battlefield. They hide, in the bushes, or in a hole, with cam or other cover on top and in front, so to see them more than about 100m away, or even 50 m, when they are not moving, would take the eyes of an eagle. And the radio is usually hidden further back, with a long handset. The same goes for the hiding and shooting thing. There is no reason for the change in accuracy when firing. The foos pick their position so they can see their target from concealment, without having to move. So in game terms, they should be firing while hidden, no change in accuracy.
But this comment, and Annalist's, presuppose that the FOO has one magic spot on the battlefield from which he can see all, and never has to move. This was not always the case, especially on the attack. You can set up on a hill, but once the infantry goes forward into the valley or town, the FOO doesn't know what to shoot at! He has to go forward with the company, and as the platoon commanders check in with the Company commander, he can get an idea of where to drop his shells. He's pretty useless on top of a hill. Blackburn, in the book "The Guns of Normandy" talks of FOOs riding in Universal Carriers much of the time, usually as part of the headquarters of an infantry company.
-
Where do I start?
I'm too prolific here anyway, so I'll keep it short and stick to one point. I sent an email already, but I'll say it publicly too - thanks to BTS for including the Canadians. They may have gotten some tiny details wrong (we didn't wear British uniforms and sergeants didn't lead our "squads") but I am thoroughly impressed with the fact that they got our flag right, the web equipment is perfect to a T, they got the vehicles right, the order of battle of a battalion is terrific and dead accurate, and they didn't give us British accents! In all, I am very grateful we weren't once more lumped in with the Brits. I have no interest in the Poles or French, but think it was great that they were included too - they really went the extra mile to give a full representation of the forces that fought in Normandy.
To my knowledge, no other game has represented Canadians any differently from the Brits, or worse, didn't bother to include them at all.
-
The big deal is the old timers who whine when something has been discussed somewhere back in the 5 million different threads. Just ignore them when they jump up and down and demand that you search and you will be fine. That's what I do.
As for the topic at hand - I really do think that computer owners DO replace every three years. I haven't wanted to, but I have - simply because the software I run demands it. Not just games, but graphics programs, the software for my video capture and digital camera, etc.
I lease, so when the 2 year lease is up, I pay the dollar to buy it and then go lease a new one. It's not that expensive, really, and I'd rather pay to have decent computer and internet than I would crappy TV.
-
Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:
A while back SlapDragon had also suggested to play the game through view 1 only. More realistic, and certainly adds to the FOW(what the hell is there behind that hill??). Only problem are the huge scenarios, where it becomes difficult to keep track of everything with view1. Your mind has difficulty connecting the battlefield parts together.
I like the sound of the invisible flags; very interesting concept. I like it alot, actually.
Hidden LOS and unconfirmed units - I'd need to try this before commenting. You say you haven't tried this yourself yet? Keep us posted when you do.
I like the Airborne scenario where you play from level 1 only - but that accurately reflects the airborne drops on 6 June - no command control.
It's interesting to ponder if it is relevant to the majority of situations - radios, runners, land lines and maps were pretty much de rigeur, but having said that we all know that the maps were wrong some of the time, the radios were jammed or not working much of the time, runners got killed and land lines were useless once the battalion was in contact, since it was crazy to run them forward into a hot area.
Edit - what I also liked about Steel Panthers (I think?) is that the last turn of the game was not necessarily last. There was a random chance that the last listed turn would not be the final one - it helped end unrealistic last turn charges for terrain that were clearly gamey to the max.
[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-25-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Mikey D:
The Zrinyl is just the shape to look REALY cool rendered in CM.
I am curious - did Italy field its own armour in Russia?
-
Originally posted by Big Time Software:
John wrote:
Only in some strange and similar parallel universe
Technology is YEARS away from being able to handle the polygon load on the scale necessary for a game like CM. I bet doing the running gear from something like a Panther would more than double the polygons for that one vehicle. Could even tripple it. Rounded surfaces are really bad, especially when they are supposed to have depth and are in quantity. Not to mention all the coding to get the supension to work correctly.The only game that has made attempts at supension systems, that I know of, is Panzer Elite. Personally, I like the look of our system better. And it certainly saves polygons
Steve
Didn't Panzer Commander do suspensions? I don't know, I gave the game away in disgust.
-
Thank you! Great info. Next time I ask a trivia question I'll try to know the answer.
-
Desert Fox.
No offence intended, but read the whole thread again. We are talking about the computer's willingness to put HQ units out ahead of infantry units. We all agree that "leading from the front" does not mean going in with the first fire team.
In game terms, however, this is exactly what seems to be happening. You'll notice the designers agree on that point. We are therefore discussing why this is wrong.
Consensus seems to be that mortality rates for leaders are historically high, and are therefore well modelled, but for the wrong reasons.
Your post was just vague enough to muddy the waters. I think the example of Griffin "leading from the front" is kind of silly - no matter where he was in the battalion, it was a futile charge that resulted in 325 casualties IIRC - only 15 men made it back to the start line. I don't see what good his leadership did anybody.
He is just as dead whether he was killed by a machinegun or by shellfire, so in the end, maybe we are all arguing over the angels on the head of a pin.
-
I have swastika flags on my site, but I am positive I am not the only one, nor the first one, to offer it. Click on the first link below.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
That does strike me as a bummer. You know, if the Tiger was buttoned, it should have been intent on the Churchill and not too concerned about what was happening to the side of it.
I could try and defend the AI here - if the Tiger did get wind of infantry, even a crew, in the woods, the Tiger crew would most likely have to assume it WAS an AT team. it wouldn't know for sure that it wasn't a PIAT, and being closer, it would deal with the threat.
However, I think it would stop and deal with it while still out of LOS (ie in the dip in the road) of the Churchill, or else motor on and deal with the enemy tank first.
That's assuming the Tiger was likely to even see the infantry. In this case, if I understand you correctly, I would think it likely that the tank would not notice the infantry since the driver's vision was forward only, as was the gunner, the loader couldn't see, the bow gunner could only see the churchill, and you would expect the Tiger commander to keep his attention on the Churchill - or where he thought it would be when they emerged from the dip.
Ummmm...maybe another Tiger in the platoon radioed that an AT team was in the woods?
This strikes me as a well documented, legitimate concern. Is 'target fixation' modelled into CM's code? This story seems to jive with other ones.
I am glad I am not the poor programmers at BTS! Damned if they make the tanks too smart, and damned if they make them too dumb!
-
Originally posted by David Aitken:
Michael Dorosh wrote:
> That is what CM offers now, right?
Nah, I was kidding.
I thought so at first, then wasn't sure. I got hung up on "computer generated".
The speech in CM is obvioulsy not computer generated - it is canned - however, it is as you know unique (according to circumstance, though each circumstance brings up the same .wav file), and it is dictated by different circumstances.
You don't think 15 years down the road, we will be seeing exactly what you described?
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Trivia quiz time -
I'll venture a guess... Landsturm, or possibly Landwehr
Correct. Would you believe for the life of me I now can't remember which of the two is correct? But it was definitely land-something. I'll check it out more at home.
But Steve knows the answer, he is hitting his forehead right now and will reveal the answer before I get the chance.
Steve?
Ummm...Steve?
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Originally posted by David Aitken:
Michael Dorosh wrote:
> 512 different voices for all the different leaders
Surely you mean unique circumstancially-aware computer-generated speech? =)
That is what CM offers now, right?
But you don't think this represents the end of the line, right? I certainly don't. When I bought Knights of the Sky by Microprose, or M1 Tank platoon, they could only model a handful of vehicles. M1 Tank platoon could model at most two friendly tank platoons against a company of enemy armour, without infatnry.
CM can pit a regiment against a regmient, all in 3D. That's a huge (exponential?) leap forward, with the improved graphics and sound that went with it.
But you couldn't have had CM back when M1 Tank Platoon came out, because no one would have had the hardware, or the money to afford said hardware. As you well know.
-
Originally posted by fdevassy:
Man im sure many of you have already heard
of this its called World War 2 online. Now
i like playing Combat Mission just as much as
the next guy but im wondering what kind of
new approaches and depth will wargaming in
WW2online bring. I hope to see many of you there since many of you have excellent commanding abilities that new players to WW2online will need. Also i feel we should support these kind of new innovative "war" games. Please go check the site out.
Thanks very much for posting this; I haven't seen it discussed before.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Clark:
If I remember correctly, in the book BAND OF BROTHERS, Richard Winters would be a great example of an HQ "leading from the front."
Once again IIRC, there was a spectacular fight on a road near a dam where he was the ONLY one on the road (ahead of his men) against an entire company of Germans. I also seem to remember a time when he stood in the middle of a road, under heavy enemy fire, screaming for his men to get out of the ditches and advance.
(Not that I suggest doing it in the game, or that this is what the AI is doing...)
This would be paratroopers shortly after D-Day, yes? I am under the impression that these were all atypically small unit actions with no real formed units. If we are talking about the same thing, I don't see that this is particularly relevant either - many airborne platoons and companies did not fight as such in the days following D-Day since the forces were so badly scattered and re-arranged. If this example comes from further on, or if this is a company that managed to organize itself and fight intact, please correct me, but I think many company commanders became squad leaders, and many platoon commanders may have even become mere riflemen in this period!
Just to be clear, I am sure there were indeed many company commanders of all nationalities who led charges on enemy positions. Many of them won medals. I disagree with the contention that this was in any way expected, and I find it doubtful that a majority of battalion commanders would encourage it of their company commanders. Brave men have a tendency of becoming dead men.
Farley Mowat is another Canadian example - on the day he landed in Sicily, he led his platoon on a bayonet charge into what was (thankfully) an Allied position. The troops there (veterans of the Desert) laughed at him, and he never again led a platoon in a charge.
Further on in his book, he cites his company commander as going berserk during an ambush, and personally running up to a German truck with a Bren Gun and dispatching enemy soldiers personally. I agree that it happened. This was also not part of a battalion engagement, and IIRC the company was acting independently and possibly was lost at the time!
What does Charles MacDonald say?
You do provide an interesting example that proves what I said earlier - you cite him as standing alone in the road, yelling (and gesticulating?). Pretty obvious to any enemy that can see him that he is clearly someone important.
-
Originally posted by TheDesertFox:
Actually it is german doctrine for all military leaders until today to lead by example and from the front. The place of the formation leader (may it be Platoon, Division or Army leader) is in the thick where the "Schwerpunkt" (center of gravity) of his sector is.
A good historical example is General Eberbach (Army Commander) who coordinated his troops while defending against Operation Totalize from Bretteville sur Laize some 2 km away from the Canadians or the divisional commander of 89th Infantry Division (Generalleutnant Heinrichs) who went out on his right wing at 14.00 hours (start of Phase II) to give personal leadership. There are numerous examples of this form of leadership, not only in WW2 but also back in WW1. While the CO leads his troops from the front it is the job of the 2nd in command to stay back and organize the allocation of the reseve.
That of course does not mean that all german commanders performed this way, there are enough examples of ...well "hesitant" commanders as well, but it, generally speaking, was usual and expected for german commanders to lead from the front and share the danger of their troops. The price you have to pay for this kind of leadership of course is high and it explains the constant lack of experienced COs and NCOs because their life expectance in combat can be measured in days, perhaps weeks.
However, as far as I know it was the same for the canadians and the british. Look at The Black Watch, look what happened at May sur Orne, look what happened at Fontenay le Marmion.
Helge
Are you trying to tell me that Major Griffin was at the head of the leading section in the assault at Verrieres? I really don't think so. His predecessor was killed by shellfire at an "O" Group well behind his leading sections IIRC. As for Griffin, I stand open to correction, but I don't recall him being the first man over the hill.
A notable exception was Cec Merritt at Dieppe, but then again, he was one of only 8 Canadian soldiers to get the Victoria Cross in WW II, so I have a feeling his example was pretty rare.
Many battalion COs were killed in WW II, but as a result of shellfire behind the lines.
You are correct that many were "hesitant" - think of Captain Stansky in Cross of Iron - there were real world officers like him. MacLaughlan of the Calgary Highlanders was one, who huddled in bunkers - his replacment Ross Ellis was known to walk around without a helmet on and visit the troops in the line. The troops loved him.
I don't recall reading about him leading platoon attacks though. At Walcheren Causeway he did venture across - after the initial assaults. He didn't lead any attacks though.
Another VC winning officer - Tilston - was wounded severely in the Rhineland, losing a leg and an eye. But it was his first time in action, and if he led from the front, it was inexperience that made him do so, and it was luck that prevented him from being killed.
Your examples (generals) don't strike me as terribly relevant. We are discussing company and batatlion sized units - I doubt that your generals were at the forefront of an infantry company - I am open to correction, of course. Schwerpunkt is a very broad concept, and invoking that term does not convince me that company commanders were going in AHEAD of the infantry squads, which is what we are talking about with reference to CM.
Perhaps you can quote some relevant passages from unit histories? I am not saying you are wrong, merely that you have not provided much proof for what you are saying.
-
This is the first thread I've seen where everyone actually made good points that don't conflict with each other.
All I am saying is that with so many mod artists out there, I would prefer, all things being equal, for development time on game play take priority over graphics. Of course graphics were the big draw for me - I wouldn't spend entire evenings trying to improve the realism of the Canadian graphics if I didn't. But I am far more satisfied with the graphics than I am the game play and if it is true that only "x" hours of development can go into one or the other (a big assumption on my part since I do not work for BTS), I am simply saying I'd rather see a flail tank at the expense of 30 identical buildings on the map, rather than the other way around where I don't get to flail minefields, but every building is different.
Naturally, like the rest of you, down deep I want IT ALL. Given time, with our support, BTS will give it to us. Ten (15?) years ago when I was playing Under Fire and thinking it was the cat's ass, I could only dream of playing it in 3D. I had no idea it would ever come to pass.
Now we are all dreaming of all kinds of stuff. Eventually it will come to pass too - every single man modelled on the screen, 2096 seperate faces, 512 different voices for all the different leaders, 9000 seperate terrain tiles, plus a fully interactive insanely researched map of Europe down to the square metre.
But we've got a ways to go yet. Personally, I am satisfied with how far we've already come. Let's stop and enjoy it for a little while.
I'll give you another example - for my money F-19 Stealth Fighter was a superior product to F-117, both by Microprose. Why? It was more fun. M1 Tank Platoon was superior to M1 Tank Platoon II. More fun, again. Easier to play, and the crude graphics had their onw charm and personality. Hell, it even made one use their imagination a bit. Nothign wrong with that.
Red Baron I was superior to Red Baron 2.
Why?
What is the common thread?
Superior graphics don't guarantee a better game, I'm sorry. I don't think any of you are suggesting they do - but look at the track record of sequels who sold themselves on improved graphics.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
I'd rather see improved routines for headquarters units, expanded lists of vehicles, multiple choices for different graphics displays of units (ie different markings on vehicles and insignia on men at the player's discretion), more complex victory conditions, a true campaign game, improved building sets (ie a steeple you can actually move into, more variety in what the buildings look like, multi-hex large buildings, factories, rowhouses), improved engineer functions (ie Flail tanks, the ability for infantry to mousehole) etc., etc.,
"Improved" graphics would be last on my personal priorities or wants list. The meat of the game is in the play. If I was overly concerned with visuals I'd go back to Muzzle Velocity (cute civvie chicks) or Close Combat (like playing on a perpendicular oil painting).
But then again, I came up through the ranks - anyone remember the display for Avalon Hill's "Under Fire"? That was the state of the art in computer wargaming. Let's not get restless, people. Make the game a winner first, then make it look pretty.
And for what it's worth, I think it looks quite pretty now.
-
Insert the title of your favourite Sven Hassel book here
CM2: Blitzfreeze
CM2: Legion of the Damned
How about "CM2: The Recruiting Sergeant
Told Me There Would Be Girls in Minsk"
-
Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Example:
"Johnson! Stop wasting your friggin ammo! Fire only when they actually come around the corner. Jones! Don't fire until Johnson fires. And the rest of you... see that guy that is crouched behind the tree over there? Open up on him until he is either down or I say stop firing"
Contrast that with a not-so-hot leader:
"ARGH!! Shoot man, for the love of God shoot! NO! Not over there, over there you moron. Whaddya mean you don't know what I mean?!? See that tree with the leaves on it? Fire there. NO! Not THAT tree with the leaves, the OTHER tree with the leaves."
Steve
This is more true than you imagine. Four years ago on the rifle range, my instructor was ex regular army, and his "coaching" sounded like
"WHYAREYOURESTINGYOURMAGAZINEONTHEGROUHDWHYDON'TYOUDOWHAT
YOUWERETOLDONYERBASICTRAININGWHAT'STHEMATTERWITHYOUANYWAY???"
I shot probably 42 out of 60.
The next year we shot with coaches from the local signals squadron - all young girls - and my coach's "coaching" consisted solely of comments like -
"(Insert syruppy girly voice here)Woooowwwwwwww.....that looked reallllllly good!"
I shot a lot better.
This fall I shot a perfect score with coaching from a woman instruc....
Hey, maybe the hippie chick has a point about modelling women in the game? Maybe my troops would shoot better...worked for me!
[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-25-2001).]
If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say .......
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Write what you know. Guess it's the same for teaching - just about every paper I did in University was somehow tied to Second World War history. It served me well! My other BA is in Communications Studies so I have taken some courses on media also. I didn't much like the 250 person lectures; can't imagine having to try and teach one.