Michael Dorosh

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: No. Close Combat was not the inspiration for Combat Mission. Originally, BTS was teamed up with Avalon Hill to do a Computer Advanced Squad Leader (ASL), the infamous hex-based wargame of squad-level infantry and armor tactics that used cardboard chits. But then Avalon Hill got bought up by Has-blow (Hasbro). BTS decided to continuie the project, but went out on their own to create the Masterpiece we call Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord. As for Close Combat (CC)comparisons between the two games, there have been numerous comparisons on this board in the past. A lot of them say the same thing in that CC's AI is piss poor and the sequential maps get old after awhile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM seems a little reminiscent of Muzzle Velocity, only leagues better. MV was the first game I know of to model WW II stuff in 3D with realistic camo jobs. Have there been others?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: I would like my little virtual soldiers to surrender when they haven't got a chance of getting out of there alive otherwise. B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does the game not already do this???? My troops have surrendered on me plenty of times. I don't have a heck of a lot of experience in the real military - just 14 years in the Reserves, and not as an infantryman - but I think what people need to realize that despite the graphics limitations in CM - there is no such thing as billiard table flat terrain. This is why you see units in CM 10 metres from each other yet unable to kill the other unit. Units within the same building as another can be imagined to be in different rooms, hiding under furniture, factory equipment, whatever. Outdoors, even if your 2-man infantry unit is only 10 or 5 metres from an enemy infantry unit and it looks like there is no escape for them - bear in mind that in real life, there is always some tall grass, a dip in the ground, whatever for them to crawl away in - or make the attempt. I've had a little bit of experience pushing my face into the earth, sleeping in ditches, etc. - try it for yourself - go out to the country or a park and walk off the beaten path - get down to ground level, as if someone was trying to kill you, and see what you can see when you're lying prone. Take a friend and check out some lines of sight. You'll be surprised how "open" ground really isn't so open when your head is six inches above it. I think this is modelled very well in CM, it is unfortunate the restrictions of home computers don't allow for a graphical representation as sophisticated as the game engine. Trust me - if your troops really want to surrender, they will. This is something no real life commander had control over, so you should not have any either. Consider this - not one of the major combatants ever taught "how to surrender" in their basic training of soldiers. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-22-2001).] [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-22-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Someday we will all be sitting around, gumming our food, and bragging about being around when CM tanks only had 20 polygons each....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although it IS interesting to see the hex shaped walls and terrain tiles - This is back from the Advanced Squad Leader days I would guess, eh?

PLEASE no more! It's like seeing your parents naked - you're just not supposed to see stuff like that! I think I'm scarred for life!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: I insist that these soldiers be located and they or their families be executed summarily for stupidity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know as well as I do that the majority of "combat" photos taken in the Second World War were staged. ESPECIALLY colour ones due to the rarity of colour film in those days. This really doesn't prove anything one way or another. Gee, maybe someone can quote from Guy Sajer next... To answer the other question...the picture can be found in any of the publications put out regarding Signal magazine; there is probably a copy of it somewhere in Time-Life's World War Two Encyclopedia - it is a widely reproduced image.

It may very well be that aforesaid units DO have pistols and grenades, but are as disinclined to use them as the historical soldiers they are modelling. Interesting question re: machinegunners - they had so much other crap to carry (spare barrels, AA sight, tool kits (with fouling tools, mops, spare firing pins/extractors/springs/etc.), tripod, hundreds of pounds of ammunition, a shovel to dig in with plus his personal kit such as sweater, spare socks, full water bottle, mess tin and rations for a day, iron ration, KFS, shaving and wash kit, gloves, pocket knife, etc. etc. that I wonder how many would really feel the need to carry grenades on top of it? The MG units in the game do not represent the guys in the infantry squads, these are "extra" to the establishment of a rifle platoon and thus I would imagine employed and equipped quite differently from the LMG inherent in every squad. I just know someone will now want to point me to page XX of Squadron-Signal or Men-at-Arms for a photo or painting of a German MG gunner festooned with frags...

Thanks, but no thanks. What would be really cool, and also an idea that SWOTL had, was to have a campaign where the actions of the player's unit (be it a company, battalion or brigade) affect the ebb and flow of the entire European campaign. I don't see what fun it would be trying to get a Maus through a narrow European village street - or over a wooden bridge (!) (!) (!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: I dont' think that the TacAI needs aggressiveness tweaking: the fact that some troops can't stay hidden is a realistic one and is based on the units experience. To get troops that follow orders better, buy more experienced troops (or place more experienced troops in the most critical locations).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even better will be a campaign that lets your troops gain this experience on their own. But good advice. I didn't like Close Combat either - I found the control of my troops adequate, and realistic, I just didn't like the small scale (much more flexibility in CM - where you can field a brigade or a company) nor playing on the same crummy maps over and over (again, CM is much more flexible with random terrain).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shipmonkey: 'Zooks and 'schreks arent recoiless rifles, but they do rely on the same principle, as opposed to the PAIT, which I understand was more than capable of tossing users on their asses. BTW isn't the Carl Gustav used by the Special Forces and the Marines a shoulder fired recoilless rifle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Canada still uses the Carl G as well. I believe it is classed in the same league as the bazooka or panzerschreck, as it fires an 84mm round in the same manner.

I will help anyone who is interested in playing it by Email to test it out - I'll test it solo if you like... madorosh@home.com I am putting together a scenario about the HLI of Canada at Buron, maybe we can swap when it is finished. I have put together an operation regarding the Calgary Highlanders and Le Regiment de Maisonneuve at Walcheren Causeway in October 1944. If anyone is interested in testing it out, I can send it to them. It is an interesting tactical challenge - infantry without tank support has to cross a 1600 metre long causeway that is only 40 metres wide (60 in the game) in the face of concentrated MG, 20mm and high velocity gun fire...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by saru3000: Unfortunately,there is no bitmap for the berets,shrecks,bazookas and mortars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks - I kind of thought since they are uniform in colour that might be the case. I take it you're a fellow frustrated - What the heck do you call it? Modder? Modifier? Mod freak? Artist?

Just in case anyone is interested - I know some of the German and American face unit icons are colourized versions of wartime photos - but the photo of the Canadian tank crew is actually a currently serving Warrant Officer in the Canadian Army. He is currently serving overseas - I emailed him a copy of the bitmap and he was quite surprised to see himself! My friend is a fellow uniform collector and author, and the photo that BTS used was from an article my friend did on Canadian Kangaroos in WW II. You can see the Kangaroo cap badge on the beret and the distinctive crew overall. He posed for a reconstruction in all this wartime kit. It's a great photo, and I don't think my friend minds - maybe BTS can recognize him by using his last name for a Canadian unit in future CM games? Be interesting to know where some of the other ones came from - I recognize at least three of the German icons from Squadron Signal books, or Brian Davis' Uniforms and Insignia of the German Army. Anyone else want to ID the others?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roborat: First computer wargame was that take over the island game on the intellivision, I forget the name, also had B17 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> UTOPIA!

Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars: !!! FIRST HUSSARS UNIT MOD !!! Just for you Shadow - http://members.home.net/canuckmain/cmus.htm My stupid server is sucking so the picture of the cap badge has not been uploaded yet. Is there actually a bitmap file for the armoured crew beret or the paratrooper beret? I can't seem to locate them in the bmp file. Anyone know? I was going to add the cap badge to the beret... And I tried to get into the other URL posted above but it wouldn't let me in! [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-21-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Maybe they do suffer, but wouldn't everyone else be suffering also? How do we model a suckage factor into the game aside from visibility and bogging?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm willing to bet it's already factored in. Maximus thinks he's being funny - I've seen a photo of a Sherman in Italy with either an umbrella or sun parasol erected over the turret. Strictly unoffical! I guess US tank commanders used to wear rain ponchos when in the turret hatch, and draped the hem over the hatch edge to keep rain off the turret crew. I've seen tarps on Universal carriers, though - and I thought M7s and some of the other Allied ones had the same thing. Four poles and a flat across canvas roof. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-21-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: I suppose it would be the same as any artillery piece. At least the crews don't have to sit in the .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ever sit on cold metal?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty: One quick comment about the town combat scene. At one point it shows the Tiger moving down the street with the SS infantry clustered up behind it,this is a very realistic tactic that was practiced all the time by all sides in the war,after all if you were a grunt wouldn't you hide behind the protection of the thing with biggest gun if you had a choice? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely NOT! Do you have any idea how much fire a tank draws? Or attention? That's the worst place to be!

Whoops - I forgot about TelStar Combat - it came out shortly after PONG, I think. It was a lot like Atari's combat game for the 2600, but you could only play 4 different versions. The console was built in, with two joystick controls per person, to control the tracks individually. One had a fire button on it. The screen showed a maze in black, with black and white tanks. I think there were mines you had to avoid, and the you had to hit your opponent 21 times or something like that. Probably one of the first video games ever made. I wonder what my parents paid for it...I'm off to check ebay to find a picture of one if possible... Oh, the best part was that if you wanted to play the "night scenario" you had to manually adjust the contrast on your television set. http://www.pong-story.com/coleco6.htm [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-21-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarhead: Geez, the memories - I was always looking at those ads but I never actually got around to ordering the Army Men. Remember the ads for German helmets that were only like 2 dollars (I had to ask my science teacher what "styrene" meant! LOL!) Or the 6 foot submarine you could order to play in? Those army men sound like as big a ripoff as x-ray specs! And I remember seeing the ad for Computer Squad Leader too - with board 3 and all. It all seems so silly, now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS Peiper: Michael I your site is GREAT, The Canadian Bitmaps rocks Will they look good with the darker terrain I have installed? SS Peiper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you! I am looking for some darker terrain mods - where are yours at? Maybe I downloaded them already, come to think of it...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Also realize that according to US studies repeated by Dunnigan, a games theory expert for DOD, artillery caused 60-70 percent of battlefield casualties, and includes 60 mm or higher mortars, support fire by armour, direct and indrect fire from artillery peices, and any other use of large high explosives, including those dropped by aircraft. Dug in infantry with overhead protection in WW2 under a 6 hour 105mm barrage could expect to loose 30 percent combat effectiveness. In basements in a town it was 5 percent (which is why towns were reduced with 155 and 8 inch fire missions). So the 81mm mortar you see firing in the game is only one peice of the puzzle that led to the high casualty rates caused by "artillery". I should also note that by Vietnam the number really was 90%, and has remained there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the percentages for Vietnam include not just artillery but aerial weapons like napalm and rockets, yes? 90 percent is obviously too high a figure for WW II - as you point out. I thought it was more like 75%, with the rest mostly by machineguns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goofy: For PC (if you can call it that) B-17 on the Intellivision. Then I remember Mech Brigade for the AppleII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Man, I had B-17 on Intellivision too. Didn't it seem ridiculously hi-tech at the time? Here we all are with the ability to do any sound mod we want for CM, and back then we had to settle for an obviously computer generated voice that had a vocabulry of what - two dozen words? "Fighters, six (twelve, nine, three) o'clock! Uh-oh!" "That was ON target..." "Target Below..." I think that was the extent of his abilities, wasn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: I actually made the first war game I played. It was a civil war based game, although not based on a real battle. I made a huge map and drew, colored, and cut out hundreds of units. At the time I did not know you could buy these things ready made. I was really pissed when I found out you could. I never did get to play against someone else, just played it by myself. None of my friends were into history or war, and still none of them are. Thank God for CM PBEM and TCP/IP! I recently found the game when I was cleaning out my closet when my mom sold her house. It hurt to throw it out remembering how much time I put into it. I also discovered why I couldn't find the dice for any of my other games like Risk and Monopoly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Matt Ridgeway gets a round of applause for his Monopoly answer! There was a book in the school library when I was in Grade 5 or so. It was written for about that level, but had an insert where you could play miniature wargames - squares, not hexes, but there were four games - a Midway like game, a Russian Front game, a Normandy landing game and an air assault game - medium bombers over France. I convinced my mom to let me steal it from the library, I wanted it so bad. (I am sure she paid the fine so they didn't lose any money) She coloured the pieces for me with pencil crayons and glued them to different coloured carboard. I felt guilty about it for so long that last year I took some of my other favourite hardcover books on airplanes - written for that level - and donated them to the library. They never even thanked me (I didn't tell them why I was doing it, naturally!) I will have to go check my book shelf to see if it is still there. After that, I got into Squad Leader in junior high school. By high school, ASL had come out. I played M1 Tank Platoon when it first came out, along with F19 Stealth Fighter from Microprose. I think I designed my own text games for the computer in BASIC no less, as well, including a version of Up Front, the card game. Ok, so it is there - and my mistake, it DID have hexes. Whattya know! [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-21-2001).]

The Grand Campaign in Close Combat was a joke! The player was ostensibly a company commander, yet he was allowed to mix SS and regular army units, for example, the order of battle was nothing like historical, and retaining units was problematic as well. I do like the idea of having a campaign where your own success/failure affects the overall strategic campaign. Surely this was true. I think they tried to model that into airplane games like Battle of Britain (by Lucasarts) or Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe - though the entire war was TOO closely modelled on the player's successes/failures. For a true campaign, I would like to see the player be given a battalion. Some battles the player would only be allowed to commit a company or two, other battles/operations he would get maybe an additional battalion to support his. Supporting units would be random. Maybe some battles would be a simply platoon sized patrol, in which he has to recce an enemy force. But you could simulate a week, a month, or the entire NW European campaign. I think you would want to track the progress of your troops, though, so there would need to be a mechanism to have them advance in responsibility as well as individual characteristics. For chrome, there is the question of awarding decorations to the personalities in the game. We discussed this in another thread and someone suggested that the player start out as a platoon commander in the campaign - he only gets to command his own platoons (the AI does the rest for him) until he is promoted to company command, than battalion. That too is a neat idea. As a platoon commander he could only use view settings 1 and 2, etc. Many good ideas out there. I wasn't at all impressed with Close Combat, especially now comparing it to CM. The maps were insanely detailed, but I would rather have generic artwork that allows for flexibility - surely CM's Quick Battles are the best thing since sliced bread. CC's Battle of the Bulge just got tedious - the campaign system was a bit better, but no less silly, shuttling around platoon and company sized units and calling them regiments. And fighting on the same stupid maps over and over and over again - the worst one was the one with the round stone tower, and you have to set up practically in a back alley in the corner of the map and cross an exposed bridge before you get to do anything. Thanks but no thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: They look great but they're the wrong color. Shouldn't they be butternut or grey? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, and a red hat for gun crews - if only there were seperate files for gun crews and infantry. Does anyone know which file they keep the horses in? Oh, PS - the picture didn't work for me! Putting a picture up doesn't ruin my fun - putting a picture up that doesn't work ruins my fun! [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-21-2001).]