Michael Dorosh

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix: Had huge success with Wasps in the past. Including one that could have one a medal of honor! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He'd be happier with the Victoria Cross... (signed, Smart Ass Mike)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Amen to both statements. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DOUBLE Amen - a few people here have been saying that all along. I've been thinking about the ASL rarity factors a lot, too - it's a great idea, but could be handled on a per unit thing - ie a complete troop of tank support as opposed to one or two superheavies, etc. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-18-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I remember the good old days when I played at 800x600. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My first computer was a CoCo 2 by Radio Shack - the monitor showed 32 characters across by I think 16 down or something like that. Not sure what the pixelation was - I had to save programs on a cassette tape. Can you imagine downloading CM from cassette tapes? After that I got a Tandy PC - I remember downloading software from a dozen floppy discs at a time - I think a 45 minute or 1 hour process. We've come a long way in a very short time. I'm only thirty years old.

I was going to add this to my last post but couldn't remember the words Rome wasn't built in a day, And Adam didn't ride in a bus, For most of the earth's in a sandbag, And the rest of it's plastered on us. - British soldier's doggerel, World War One

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sturmtiger101: They fought well, but not like vets. There is a difference. Vets would not have waited in the anti-tank ditch at Buron and fought without surrendering even though outnumbered and out gunner. they simply did not know when they were beaten, and took a lot of Allied troops with them when they went down fighting. It was a vicious battle (the HLI lost 262 men out of a full strength of 800 (400 in the rifle companies) in one day of action. The battalion of the 25th SS Pz Gren Rgt that defended Buron was virtually wiped out. It was not a textbook defence - if it had been, German casualties would have been lower - but it was effective enough at grinding the Allied assault down. The HLI took the town (mostly - some pockets held out another day) but at great cost. The inexperience of the defenders made it at great cost for themselves, as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: For example the hull top to most CM tanks is 128x256. A normal hi-res version is 256x512. This allows the author to paint in the details better because they have double the amount of pixels to work with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thus, the only real problem to worry about is the hi- res stuff working on a lower end machine with a slow processor. Great, thanks very much for taking the time to explain, that helps a lot. I think this forum was a terrific idea - I've learned a lot from you guys.

I can feel the pain too - last night I moved my Wasp carrier to close to some buildings - the Germans started chucking grenades with wild abandon, and the stupid carrier only back up about ten feet then sat there waiting to get blown up. But in reality - I was being punished for not employing my armour correctly - it served me right. There are many explanations as to why the guy didn't back up the hell out of there - panic, wounded driver, whatever. The problem with CM is that the detail is so minute with regards to things like armour penetration, yet the logic remains fuzzy with regards to the humans driving the tanks. I applaud everyone who does find genuine bugs in the programming - it benefits us all - but I also commend those who debunk the bugs when it applies. Surely that is what this forum is for - reasoned debate and discussion for the betterment of everyone. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-18-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonidas: Yes, the unit scale was realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know if in real life tank commanders fired through buildings, but bear in mind there was at least one documented case of a German AP round going therough the front of one Sherman in a column, passed through the fighting compartment and (possibly) the engine, out the back of the tank, and into the second tank in line. I don't see why an AP shell couldn't be fired through a building first and then continue on into the armour of a Sherman - if the corner of the tank was exposed to view. Be an interesting tactic to use - and it seems real to me. Anyone know anything more? I know MGs were sometimes employed against the walls of buildings (as well as shaped charge weapons like PIATs) to attack infantry behind them - were tank cannon ever so employed? Desperate times call for desperate measures... Hmm, if you were the Tiger and your tank waited for the Sherman to expose itself fully before shooting, you'd be on here complaining that your Tiger AI is buggy! (grins)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty: This is slightly OT but relavent in a way. Has anyone noticed the state of crews that are forced to abandon vehicles that become immobile due to bogging? Not just bogged but totally stuck. Their morale state is the same as if the vehicle was hit or detroyed. I.E. shocked or shaken with LOW ammo. Now if my tank or truck was totally immobilized by ground conditions and NOT by or under fire I'd be pissed off not shaken and my sidearm would still have all it's ammo. BTS? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tank crews are trained specialists and usually under orders not to engage enemy tanks with their pistols - they are NOT infnatry, they are dismounted crews, and their historical usage was to withdraw and be assigned to another tank. Good points all around re:mud - First World War vets will tell you that Flanders mud is like no other mud in the world - it depends greatly on geography as well as geology.

Okay, I have another stupid question - when doing my mods I was always freaked out about keeping the files sizes the same so as not to create a problem. Forgive my ignorance, but what you are saying is that the "high-res" bitmaps are twice the size of the combat mission .bmp files they are meant to replace - and that the computer will automatically take any size .bmp assigned to a particular file number, and "fit it in"? I will have to try that at home (still at work) Thanks for tip.

Perhaps Big Time Software could add "superman-omniscient" mode or something like that so the rest of us don't have to read these questions anymore? Even if your tank crew was unbuttoned, only the commander would have 360 degrees of vision in which to spot targets. A Tiger makes a lot of noise, so a Sherman 70 m away would not alert the crew to their presence. Actually, try going without sleep for 2 days and then tell me how much you notice. I think the key to these questions is - don't place all your faith in one single weapons system. It's like having a great hockey team and then whining and complaining when your star centre gets injured and you start using it as an excuse for not being able to make the playoffs. If you count that much on one man, you don't have much of a team... In real terms, I suspect the game has a mechanism that calculates a mathematical probability for spotting targets, with various modifiers for circumstances. In Squad Leader terms - the computer rolled double sixes for you that time. War, like baseball, is a game of inches. Next time don't put your Tiger in open ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Also, as F Babra wrote, too much combat experience is often counter-productive. I'd give the 7th AD as the obvious example. In '44 they were one of the most, if not the most, battle-experienced division in the British Army, having fought in North Africa and Italy and having generally performed well. They were sent home to rest and refit in early '44, where they were re-equipped with Cromwells and Fireflies, then the best British tanks. When they got to Normandy, they were overconfident and sloppy, and Wittmann handed them their asses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent example. Third Canadian Division was pretty much strung out after 6 weeks in Normandy, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Other than the large three story type office buildings, in the context of a Stalingrad type setting of blocks worth of urban streets. Buildings like tanks explode sometimes, and the collaterial damage possibility by flying debree, shrapnel, bricks, wood, frying pans, and chamber pots would I believe cause a great deal of damage to nearby witnesses. Ofcourse, someone could put this to the test. Just turn blow out the pilot light on the stove, turn it up on high, and walk outside to 25 or 30 meters, and wait. [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-18-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\ When I was a kid, some guy about a mile away from my house did this because he was losing his house in a divorce. You could feel the blast very firmly in our house - we thought someone had driven a truck up the front lawn and into a wall! But when we drove over to check on the house, it was pretty much intact - just lots of flames.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franko: Frequently what I do, during scenario design, is make sure the COMMANDERS are veteran, elite, etc., but rarely the grunts. Thus, a Hitler Youth panzergrenadier platoon, which say fought for a few days in Caen, might look like this: 1. Commander: Crack (or Elite) Combat, Leadership, Morale +1 or +2 2. First Squad: Crack 3. Second Squad: Veteran 4. Third Squad: Dead or nonexistent. Also, indirect fire units were most likely to be of a higher caliber than the grunt, as a rule of thumb. This is because they usually have a higher survivor rate. Also, veteran units, or even crack or elite units, may be VERY weak (a platoon may have 20 guys, tops), unless the units have an extraordinary high esprit de corp to begin with (e.g., Rangers, Airborne, etc.). I think it is GAMEY to do otherwise. My 2 cents. Frank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOB In WW II most Brit/Canadian infantry platoons left people out of battle (LOB) ON PURPOSE - if the platoon commander went into an attack, the platoon sergeant stayed at B Echelon, plus sometimes one or two riflemen from each "squad" (section). That is another thing one would like to see detailed in CM2 - squads not up to full strength for whatever reasons (casualties, LOB, etc). (Also, Canadian and British squads were led by corporals, not sergeants as in the American and German armies).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Correct, but they probably didn't fight well. To simulate this in CM, make them fanatics instead. That way they won't panic or run, but they will still act inexperienced, ie not take cover or shoot as well as elite units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very good point. That is actually exactly what I did when I crafted a scenario on Buron involving the HJ, only to save it in the wrong place and have the computer eat it. WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH In real life those boys had to be taken out at point blank range with 75mm cannon fire - they wouldn't come out of their holes! They just lay there til the tanks went past then popped up and kept shooting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clubfoot: Michael, The mod will be available for download for free. Although we strive to reproduce the "feel" of combat in the African theater, we are unable to include any units not already coded in CM. Where possible, already existing AFV's will be changed cosmetically to produce a passable likeness of a different AFV with similar characteristics. But only if the change isn't a "dealbreaker" i.e. difference in size of main gun, passenger complement, or drastically different armor. We realize and have acknowledged this shortcoming and it is quite apparent that the level of realism and authenticity will not come close to what Combat Mission has achieved for the late war ETO. More than a few vehicles and other units present in Africa will not be included. To put it bluntly, this bucket won't hold much grog-water. Looking past it's obvious foibles, however, we hope the mod will provide much fun for some, and some fun for many. Thanks for showing interest, fellas. Any mod-maker will tell you it makes it all worthwhile! Clubfoot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Judging by the screen shots, I would say the mods would be very convincing at portraying the latter phases of the campaign in Tunisia. I'm looking forward to it. I suspect much of the art will be applicable to Sicily as well. I know that British and Canadian units were not much different in 1943 than they were in Normandy and after. For infantry, all the weapons in use in CMBO would have also been used in Tunisia and Sicily - the PIAT may be an exception to Tunisia but it was definitely used in Sicily (but with some teething problems regarding rounds not detonating unless contacting the target square). I know you'll keep us posted!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: I would not rate combat experience as a pre-requisite for elite status. In fact, too much combat experience has been proved to make even renowned units shy. In some notable examples such as Assorro in Sicily or Nijmegen in Holland, exceptional results were recorded by units who were too inexperienced and/or too desperate to know or care that what they were attempting was "impossible" and so they did it anyway, despite the odds. So I would rate an elite unit as one which was professionally trained and exceptionally motivated, with competent leadership and high morale, at the time. Also, a unit which is elite today, may not be tomorrow as leadership and morale vary. I might also consider an elite unit to be fanatic, though a fanatic unit might not necessarily be elite. It's a tough call.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 12th SS Hitlerjugend definitely counts as so inexperienced as to be bold to the point of recklessness. The majority of the division were teenaged boys, yet they fought in Normandy with unparallelled boldness.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clubfoot: Sold?! For fun and for free, Hiram. The mantra of the mod-maker. Clubfoot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This answers my question from another thread - I hope! Sounds exciting. Will the Italian troops have different data modelled into the game - or are the changes from German to Italian purely cosmetic? The screen shots look really great.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clubfoot: It's almost upon us! A few more bits and bytes to go, Andy, and the Desert Fox-Desert Rats conversion will be ready. It'll provide you not only with sand textures, but a complete summer texture conversion. As well as desert camo vehicles, .wav replacements, an interface conversion, appropriately outfitted soldiers, and a number of scenarios and operations. To see some screens, go to Manx's site: http://www.combatmissions.co.uk or the ASL 4 CM site: http://w1.312.telia.com/~u31213280/index.htm Clubfoot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Desert stuff looks truly impressive - question however - will new vehicles (ie Grant, Lee, etc.) from that time period be used, or simply cosmetically altered vehicles from the current CM? Will this be available free, or do we have to purchase a CD to obtain these mods?

But from a realism view point - what Wasp crew in his right mind would go hunting StuGs? I think any Wasp commander would righfully feel that work was best left to the AT platoon, divisional AT regiment, or the PIAT teams in the infantry platoons, and concentrate his focus on supporting the squaddies. Faced with the decision to shoot or not to shoot his flamethrower at an enemy tank - I think many troops would be hesitant to a) use up their precious little fuel on such a hard target to kill announce their presence to the rest of the battlefield (a flame weapon produces a lot of light and attendant smoke when the target starts to burn....) Shooting is one thing - getting away alive afterwards is entirely another...and unless you're Japanese, in WW II one of your goals was usually to live through the day.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -Havermeyer-: The Allies had air superiority from D-Day through the end of the war, yes? The ground-to-air defense options in CMBO seems to confirm this (i.e. I can buy a BOFORS as the allies)... Why not an option for allies to buy “air superiority” for the duration of the battle. Make it reasonably expensive—1.5x the cost of a jabo. Or, if the allies buy a jabo and the axis as well—then neither show up. Either way the allies are out a bunch of points, and the krauts rolled the dice and lost. I know “air” is a wholly unreliable purchase-- but a recent setup really caused me angst. It had a shock force equivalent to a mechanized company with lots of armor in support—but I kept having this vision of 1 or 2 500# bombs falling in this vehicle park knocking out 10 halftracks. I’d hate to surrender on turn 2 of a 75 turn, 7500 point clash. I didn't trust the BOFORS. I would have spent 350-400 points just as insurance against any German air. "Air superiority" wouldn't include allied ground attacks, but would increase the liklihood no German air could penetrate the field to the field of battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your fear is the entire point! The game makes you think like a real commander would - If you want an arcade game, I suggest Castle Wolfenstein! Don't set up "vehicle parks" - enemy artillery will also be bad for them. Stick to cover where possible. Pray for good luck and invest in a lucky charm. Real commanders could only do the same.

Leadership is the key - your replacements get killed, yes, but a core of good leaders is what keeps an elite unit elite. Having said that, it wasn't just paras who were "elite" - there were many good line infantry units that were in every way as well led and combat effective - they just didn't get the popular press that paratroopers did. The same goes for the Germans - Grossdeutschland seems to have had its own press corps and got the lion's share of attention - but there were other equally reliable units with numbers instead of names.

Did any of the Muzzle Velocity designers have anything to do with Combat Mission? I note a lot of similarities, though CM is leagues better. In MV you couldn't shoot past about 300 metres, and the in-helmet views of infantry were pretty hokey. I did like the civilians walking around and driving their cars, however. That, too, would be a neat touch for CM, combined with "interrogation" of local civilians, who could point out enemy positions (if in a "friendly" country). I guess I can retire my Muzzle Velocity disc now - the game play was never great anyhow and it was far from historical. Sure was fun driving around in 3D though - and I liked their 3D marsh, with the reeds sticking up out of the water! They were also the first game I ever saw that added rain effects like CM has. A truly enjoyable feature! Oh, I liked blowing up the trains, too...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: I With a 75mm gun, they can't go head to head against anything bigger than a Pz IV. rd a flanking enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but so what? If you were modelling the battle of Kursk it might be problem. I think a better question to ask is how closely does Combat Mission simulate Allied tactical doctrine? American doctrine was to leave tank killing to the tank destroyers (M10s, etc.) and that tanks were to exploit, or support the infantry. Perhaps someone can expand on that and include the British view on things. I think one wants to be careful not to overemphasize the role of armour, whether on the battlefield or in a game like Combat Mission. I really like that armour specs, cam jobs etc. are insanely detailed, but the nitty gritty of ground warfare is how well you handle and support your infantry (which includes fighting your tanks intelligently). If the focus of Combat Mission was truly armour, you would be able to buy them in troops and squadrons (platoons/companies) and there would be more severe command/control issues with regards to them. If anyone really feels the need to go head on head with a squadron of Churchills against King Tigers or Panthers, go ahead, but I can't imagine any such thing ever actually occurring.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tankety_Lee: I do have a few ideas for add on modules to add differing types of gameplay, without fundamentally changing the engine. They are as follows: a Depending on who you picked, that would limit what level of view you could have of the battle field. So, a squad leader could only command their squad, and could only view the battlefield from where he was, at level 1 or 2. A company commander could view the battlefield from where they were located, but at a level 2 or 3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is a lot of merit to that. I like the scenario I found on the net of US paratroopers on D-Day and the designer suggested only viewing things from ground level and using the + - keys to change units - true fog of war! The downside to what you suggest is having the AI run the rest of the battle for you. A logical extensino is a "true" campaign game - including your face on the platoon leader icon. You start as a platoon leader, and gain promotions etc., up to battalion command based on your performance (hopefully not just a kill ratio, but on other criteria as well). Sort of like the campaign game in the old Squad Leader where you start as a 7 - 0 and work your way up. Now that would be truly cool.