Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
On paper, sure. In action with a 6 man squad, you tell me how you would do it.Originally posted by flamingknives:The Bren gun group was three, wasn't it? LCpl, gunner and assistant gunner?
-
I disagree completely, but to be fair I am looking at the question in a broader manner. The TOE determines how the units fight! If we're going to have 1:1 modelling, then let's really have it, and that includes section battle drills. It will be important when we get to the Second World War, and does have a direct bearing on how combat is conducted at the tactical level.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:Personally, I think there should be no difference in the way various units fight. The game should just portray the TOE and that's it. Any differences in fighting spirit and elan are for the scenario designer to introduce, by manipulating the Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness of the unit.
U.S. rifle platoons would sometimes conduct "Marching Fire" - forming a thick skirmish line and advancing firing their M-1 Garands on semi-automatic. The BAR was actually designed for this in the First World War - early BAR belts had a metal cup to hold the butt of the weapon steady when firing from the hip. Consider this a form of 'human wave'. Was it done often? Can't say. Often enough that Patton mentions it in "War As I Knew It". He cites the M-1 as the greatest battle implement ever devised and mentions the tactic specifically. Against a second-rate German defence, it was probably effective. I think it should be included as it is just as historically apt as a Soviet Human Wave.
The Germans used the LMG as the basis of the squad's firepower, and the riflemen acted in support of the gunner, who was generally the top marksman in the squad. The British did it in reverse, and the squad was broken down into two groups, a rifle group and a Bren group, with the Bren gunner providing cover fire for the riflemen as they closed with the enemy. In action, the British squad generally numbered 5 or 6 men at maximum (book strength was 10 from the midwar point on, up from the 1939-40 total of 8). For the Germans, the LMG was what killed the enemy, for the British, it was the riflemen, with bayonet, grenade, and an SMG or two, with the LMG helping them get there to do it. That was all after the 25-pdr barrage, naturally. This is where the reliance on musketry comes in, but bear in mind that British marksmanship was moreso in the First World War than in the Second - there were too few rifle ranges in the UK in the Second World War, and too few riflemen actually fired their weapons effectively to make a qualitative difference in action.
The infantry weapons mixes were much more diverse than we see in CM:SF - a Russian SMG squad can't fight like a traditional LMG/rifle group squad - the tactics need to be different. None of this can be simulated by fudging morale or fitness levels. A German cavalry squad with assault rifles will have unique tactical abilities that a bolt-action rifle armed Russian squad with poor leadership will not. The player should have the ability to use them in different ways, otherwise all you've got is Zombat Mission with soldier drones in different clothes with different data for the guns.
I sometimes think the biggest proponents of CM:SF are simply taken in by the appearance of the game and not by the substance. Let's get rid of this notion that a squad just splits into two "half squads"; they don't. Find out what they did historically and let the player do that. By the end of the war, the Marines were splitting their squads into three fireteams, for example. Most nations did use two teams, but they were rarely balanced 50/50 and included a maneuver group and a support group. CMX1 at least distributed the weapons in support of that idea even if they got the manpower mix wrong. I'd even make it a pop up menu from the split command - simulating the Squad Leader yelling out to his 2 i/c "take 2 men up that gully and flank the bastard!" Or have the Tac AI compute these things randomly - preferably based on the situation (i.e. if the 2 i/c has two men with him in hard cover, split those guys off into a "half squad" when the command from the player comes to split) - rather than the same 50/50.
It is a waste to split a British squad into two, for example, and have a rifle group try and flank an enemy position, leaving behind two riflemen with the Bren Gun who is laying down suppressive fire. The 2-man Bren crew should have enough firepower on its own to do the job, and those two riflemen would be very handy to have with the flanking group. When it comes time for the Bren team to make a tactical bound, the extra riflemen will be needed to provide them cover. The section was designed to work that way; we should see it done that way in CM.
[ February 10, 2008, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
It worked for Lee Harvey Oswald, didn't it?Originally posted by Pandur:do we have ironsighted snipers for RED!?
-
MD, I've copied a post of yours from an earlier thread giving a list of things we could expect to see in a WWII game. I thought it was a rather comprehensive list. </font>Originally posted by Sequoia:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
With water comes bridges.
Bocage.
Houses with sloping roofs. Church steeples and bell towers. Village wells. All the screenshots I've seen of CMSF show flat roofs. Gonna have to model it different for Europe. Can infantry go up there? Do they want to? Gotta model animations for that, if so.
On a related note, cellars. Not an inconsiderable challenge for the coders, I think.
Culin hedgerow device. This was abstracted in CMBO.
Underbelly hits. Gotta program the AI to take those shots.
Ability to split squads on historical lines rather than two man fireteams as is 2007 practice.
Panzerfaust availability.
Anti-tank magnetic mines. And a morale model to let the Germans use them.
Teller mines as improvised anti-tank device.
Anti-tank mines.
Schu-mines.
Rifle grenades vs personnel.
Rifle grenades as anti-tank device.
Open-topped AFVs and all that goes with them - mortar fire vs., close assaults against, etc.
Halftracks were mentioned above, but what about coding the vehicle to actually drive like one - mobility would be different than a full track or a wheeled vehicle. Again, these are not in CM:SF. Pretty much standard for a US armored infantry battalion, not essential for a German order of battle but certainly expected by the game playing public.
Trailers - including reverse movement. Even if just for jeeps, but some flame vehicles and SPs used trailers for ammunition. Probably not essential until you get to the Crocodile - bear in mind US forces used them, notably at Brest, though the vehicles and crews were British.
Come to that - reverse movement for German armoured cars, especially those with two drivers. An armoured car with a second driver would be at a big tactical advantage compared to a regular vehicle. This should be coded specially.
Completely different offboard artillery procedures (current US Army artillery is oncall to a lot more people than in 1944, and the Germans handled it differently also at least in terms of time of response).
Tactical air support pretty much non-existent in 1944 at the company level. But they existed over the front - so did the fact that IFF was much more crude. So you need to change your parameters to make friendly fire even more likely if you are including friendly aircraft. And make them far less lethal to the enemy as well. Would need to be treated in the engine much differently, I think, from what every goes on under the hood in a fictional Syria 2007 scenario.
Rocket artillery - Nebelwerfer and Calliope; the latter probably needn't be modelled but the former should probably be - and would you just use the MRLS model from CM:SF (is it even modelledin CM:SF?) or would you need to do something different? Should it have a distinct morale effect? Off the top of my head, I would think it would be more inaccurate than modern rocket artillery, but again, perhaps not a "must have", but that depends on the exact formation you choose to simulate.
Rain - lots of it, and not just drops on the screen - in an hour long battle, water should pool up in low lying areas, create mud, puddles, adversely effect driving. This needs to be modelled.
Fog - the ability to lift, roll, come back in again.
Night - no night vision equipment. Moon phases. Cloud cover. Starshells. Trip flares.
Ability for map designer to pack villages very densely (closer than 5 metres)
AI able to drive vehicles through same villages, including single lane roads
MGs that can go from LMG to HMG mode (MG34 on lafette mount, switchable to light mode) during the game.
Light mortars as indicated onboard and offboard.
Poor communication between friendly tanks and infantry should be modelled - again, this is much different than a 2007 model would be. Radio comms between a tank platoon and an infantry company would be much different in 1944, if such even existed in some units.
Weapons:
M-1 Garand
M-1 Garand sniper
Springifle sniper
M-1 Carbine
M-2 Carbine
M-3 Carbine
Browning Automatic Rifle
M1919 MMG
M1919 HMG
M1919 LMG
.50 calibre HMG, ground mount
Thompson SMG
M3 SMG
.45 M1911A1 autopistol
MP40
Kar98k
K98 sniper
K43
K43 sniper
MP43
FG42
P08/P38 pistol
MG34
MG42
Vehicles
Jeep
Beep
Seep
M3 HT
M3A1 HT
M16 HT
M9 HT
M21 HT
M5 tank
M4 tank
10 other types of friggin M4 tanks
M10 TD
M36 TD
M18 TD
2-1/2 ton truck
armoured cars - M20, M8
PzKpfw IVF2
10 other types of friggin PzKpfw IV
PzKpfw V
PzKpfw VI
Most StuGs than I can count
Ditto Panzerjäger types
Kübelwagen
light truck
medium truck
SP AA trucks
SP mtr vehicles
Armoured cars! 2 wheels, 4 wheels, Puma, armed, unarmed funkwagens
Ordnance
57mm ATG
75mm ATG
Bazooka
FT
5.0cm ATG
7.5cm ATG
8.8cm AA/AT
PzSchreck
20mm AA
quad 20mm AA
37mm AA
FT
German grenade bundles
New 3d models for all this, plus skins for all of them. And deciduous trees. Evergreens. Grain. Probably a whole new UI.
Program the AI to change engagement ranges. American tanks won't want to engage enemy tanks at 1500 metres the way an Abrams crew might. Model the shot trap on the Panther. Deliberate immobilization attempts. Fire smoke and HE at a Panther or Tiger, try and fool the crew into bailing out by setting his stowage on fire or filling his ventilator with fumes. M1 Abrams don't need to resort to that, but Sherman crews do. Should be modelled. Probably wouldn't need to be in CM:SF.
Schürzen. Zimmerit. Nahveirteidigungswaffe. Soft (sandbag) armour. All that stuff needs to be coded and modelled and tweaked because it was all used and CMBO didn't model all of it. It isn't a case of just plugging it into the new engine, I don't think.
German infantry tactics - do these differ significantly from the Syrians? I'm betting they do. How did a German squad do business? The MG was the centre of attention. The use of outposts appears to have been big. Should the German squad be allowed to split into smaller groups than a US squad? Either way, I'd hope to see them coded significantly differently than Syrian or US troops circa 2007. Otherwise, what is the point? Just mod the uniforms and put a different label on the DVD in that case.
I'd say there would be plenty to keep BF.C's little design team of coders and artists busy for more than a week or two in order to put out a quality Second World War title for CMX2.
[ May 17, 2007, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
I'd like to see the tiles abandoned altogether as far as roads go; they're simply not flexible or realistic enough, and will particularly not be so when it comes to European villages. The ability to drag and drop entire buildings would be nice too, or to angle them at other than the standard 0, 45, and 90 degrees. We have the finer 2x2 mesh now, but the outdated road tile system as a legacy from the 20x20 tiles overlaid. Hopefully this will be addressed - deep verges would be nice too, that would go hand in hand with the bocage.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Dan,
I wasn't so much talking about angling buildings but rather about having a building that had a bend in it, almost like roads that have bend tiles.
Would doing it that way avoid the processor problem.
What we need I think is to find a way to have the buildings look graphically correct while minimising the LOS issues.
Hopefully there will be a way to recreate those long close continuously built up streets climbing up through towns.
Peter.
-
I doubt you've seen the same comments I have, Dan. My apologies, I should have done you the courtesy of providing them:Originally posted by KwazyDog:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Michael Ive seen Steves comments and I certainly dont see how he was out to 'blame' anyone on this issue. </font>The last "door bug" we fixed was actually not a bug per se, but a problem with how people were putting together scenarios. Two abutting buildings and the designer put a door only on one interior wall. So it looked like a door but wasn't. Charles had to do a hack to make it work instead of trying to insist that all designers put two doors all the time, every time. -
In another thread today, Steve laid the blame for poor infantry pathing on scenario designers not removing doors from buildings abutting each other where the walls physically touched. In my opinion, that is a coding issue, not a scenario design issue. The "hack" that Charles "had to do" should probably have been a default feature - and moreover, as we move into more complex Normandy terrain (graveyards, angled roofs, church steeples, barbed wire fences, rowhouses), the coding of how these things all interact gets more sophisticated also. This will all take time to implement. Beaches and hedgerows seem a bit beside the point when we start considering mouseholing, narrow streets, gyrostabilizers on Shermans, Schürzen and the ability to lose it, duckbill track extensions and the hazards of raised cobblestone sidewalks...some of it will be chrome, finding the happy medium and the dividing line that pleases the majority will as always be the killer.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:So we will almost certainly need a larger stock of buildings that can interlock and at least some of which have "kinks" in them. They will also need to be able to be offset so that they stick out from each other by a couple of mtrs now and then.
-
An intelligent discussion on what would be needed for the latter case might be welcome here. The depiction of bocage/hedgerows in CM:BO was definitely subpar and a unique opportunity presents itself for BF.C to not only get it right this time, but quite possibly be the first true tactical wargame to attempt to tackle the subject with the degree of detail and seriousness it deserves.Originally posted by SlapHappy:I see two possible ways that the game could go with this. One is to actually do "beaches of Normandy" with all the baggage that entails....fortifications, beach obstacles, landing craft, etc.
Or they could simply fast forward to hedgerow action a few weeks into the historical proceedings. Or perhaps the game focus will be even smaller than this?
I know this far off, but I was just speculating....
There were many discussions of what true bocage was in the CM:BO and CM:AK forums. The new terrain grid will be an aid in properly modelling this terrain. Some challenges will be modelling the steep banks (and of course climbing statistics for the various vehicles used in the game) and of course the Culin hedgerow device. U.S. vehicles in CM:BO got the "Rhinos" by default after a certain date which was an extreme simplification.
It would be possible to do a Normandy game without bocage, of course, as many sectors had no such terrain - the Canadians and I think the Poles never fought in it, and there were were British and American units that didn't either. I understand only the Americans will be in the first module in any event. I think one would expect either water (and the attendant challenges presented by that, as discussed already in this thread) or bocage to be included, unless the module focused on, say, the Airborne operations, which would be a popular idea and fit in with BF.C's new limited focus approach as well as concentration on "elite" forces. You would still have marsh and flooded terrain but moving water would probably not be an issue.
Mortars? The 5cm Granatwerfer was pretty much obsolete by the time of Normandy. Then again, many "German" units actually consisted of conscripts and foreign nationals equipped with a wide array of obsolete weapons. Either way, the 8cm and 12cm weapons were definitely used in great numbers, but could reasonably be represented by FO's only. The 60mm MTR of the Americans - hard to say how commonly used they were. In an Airborne setting, again, they probably were not too widely used on the first night of the invasion and could reasonably be excluded from any Normandy scenario in favour of a company FO but I think it would be harder to justify, particularly in line infantry or armored infantry units.
I wouldn't suggest, though, that dodging water and just jumping into bocage fighting would be easy as pie as there would be a lot of detailed modeling to have to do in order to do the subject justice - just mapping the weapons effects to the new grid (i.e. the nahverteidigungswaffe) will, I presume, require time to do.
Given a choice, I'd prefer to see both simulated - i.e. water and bocage, though not necessarily the beaches; opposed beach landing scenarios strike me as more than a little silly and pointless, particularly for the defender. But there were enough actions fought for major bridges across rivers and canals - and hopefully the module would be general purpose enough to be able to simulate actions farther ranging than just Normandy - Brittany and beyond to the German border, or even Germany in the spring of 1945, TO&E permitting - so that inclusion of enough terrain would permit that.
In short, why wish for something just because it sounds quick and easy. I doubt it would be were it to be done right. And of course the natural tendency for gamers to focus on AFVs means that there will be an expectation to have all kinds of German vehicle types out of proportion to their true employment. One of my favourite quotes these days, which I included in my last book, is:
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 - basing the game on the Stryker brigades makes that a natural progression - so taking a vehicle-heavy game engine and doing something with either amphibious landings or bocage country seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. I suppose if the aim is to prove that the game engine is as all-purpose as was originally claimed, it will be a good test.
How have the all-infantry scenarios in CM:SF stood up through the latest patch? I've tried Meeting at High Altitude and the vehicles seemed ok; the infantry still picked odd paths to run around things.
How the infantry do as the patches continue to develop will be your indicator as to how feasible a bocage or beachhead module will be in the next Title. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see Shermans and panzers slugging it out in Normandy given the focus of the engine to date. Bocage and beaches wouldn't be conducive to either.
I guess you can ask yourself this - if you need to add T-72s and M-1s to your scenarios in CM:SF to make them enjoyable (or even playable), how likely do you think it will be that the same engine will provide enjoyment in a Second World War bocage setting? Or an Omaha beach setting where the defenders are all hunkered down in bunkers and all the American tanks are drowned off-map? I think we'll still be seeing a lot of armor, simply because that is what people like to see and that is the focus of the engine.
[ February 07, 2008, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
My own Assault on Kamienka should fit the bill; if it is not up at the Scenario Depot, send me an email - it was highly rated at the "old" depot. It features the GD in an assault on a Soviet town. I had done a series of "Großdeutschland" scenarios but don't know if I ever uploaded them to the new depot.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:Hi,
After a long gap I've started playing CM:BB again by email and would like to play a scenario featuring the GrossDeutschland Regiment/Division. Does anyone know of a good 2-player scenario featuring the GD, and if so, where can I download it?
-
I think this all boils down to the the turn calculations. We can all say we don't care about the graphics or real time, but as I believe Steve has said those aren't critical issues to the game in terms of calculations. I think people just use them as an excuse.Originally posted by C'Rogers:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. Improved the graphics to the level we have now.
2. Used 1:1 squad graphics as we have now.
3. Ditched the idea of RT play for WEGO only
4. Raised the world resolution to 1m x 1m grid.
5. Fractioned the 1 minute WEGO turn down to 20 or even 10 seconds.
Certainly the lower turn length would have helped cut down on the wait for turn calculations, but could make the overall time to complete a game enormous if Steve's calculation times are correct
People (including Steve) wanted the engine to do certain things. Like have an incredibly detailed spotting system (if still buggy). Problem is there needs to be trade offs for anything. Computers may be more advanced than during CMx1 but apparently not enough to get the new features and the same resolution.
We can go around in circles and say "such and such feature that I don't like is ruining the game". It is much harder to say "such and such feature I do like is ruining the game".
Which goes back to the crux of the original point, was it worth it to go to 1 to 1? Personally I don't think so, but I think there are arguments for it that aren't immediately apparent..
Really I think there are three ways to explain the game.
1) The game is doing the best job it can to simulate very difficult things.
2) The game is is doing the best it can but there are still considerable workarounds/improvements that can be made.
3) 1 to 1 can be done, but BFC lacks the resources/brains to do it.
I doubt the third, the question then is how far can they run with the current engine. Seeing the improvements they have made sense initial release I still think a long way. </font>
-
Or told that we're somehow part of a "cult", implying that we pursue our hobbies not out of genuine interest or conviction but because we are stupid, misguided and ignorant...Originally posted by We Build We Fight:We weren't expecting to be ridiculed when we told you of our disappointment.
I've never understood the need to polarize the two "camps"; there are plenty of names in the CM:SF beta forum that contributed in a meaningful way to CMX1, officially and unofficially, who have more than a passing interest in, and knowledge of, both Second World War military history as well as current military topics. Setting the two groups against each other seems self-defeating, especially since CMX2 will be revisiting Normandy in its next major Title. *shrug*
Steve: Again, we don't play favorites amongst the modding community. </font></font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Me: Neither (GJK of the Scenario Depot II/The Proving Grounds nor CMMODS) has gotten as much as a kind word or a hyperlink from battlefront. -
The point is that battlefront.com has done nothing to actively foster a healthy community in which fans of its currently supported games can share files (hosting skins, .wavs or scenarios), play competitively (hosting ladders or even tournaments), find opponents in real time (chat feature) or increase their enjoyment of the product by increased contacts of a material nature (all of the above, add in other stuff like scenario design contests, tactics contests or other promotions).Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Honestly Dorosh... I don't know what your point is.
Steve
That is the point. I apologize if I was somehow unclear. In other words, the lack of community is not entirely the fault of the "WW II cult" as you insultingly put it, nor the "psychotic attacks" of people who did not like the game, but perhaps in a small part by a lack of direct tangible support by you, the developer and publisher of the game.
Do you disagree that the latter might be a small factor?
-
That's a bit of an overstatement, but I do agree that the community around CM:SF has taken longer to get off the ground because of the issues I outlined above. Not least of which was the brutal and borderline psychotic attacks on the game, Battlefront, testers, anybody that likes CM:SF, and myself personally. That certainly didn't help create a positive environmentOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:GSX,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Thanks for the frank answers Steve, although I have to say that reduced community right now means non-existent
I let it go on for longer than I probably should have, but I felt it was important for people to get it out of their system here instead of in other places. Now they just rant and rave in other places after reading the threads here 
As I stated almost 2.5 years ago, much of this was predictable.
One of many comments I made about the effect of CMx2 on the old CM community
We went into this with our eyes wide open and tried to make sure our customers did as well. At least I can stand on a solid record and don't have to stoop to revisionism like some of our critics
One only has to remember the Great PBEM Uprising when I mentioned we might leave that feature out to see that we were thinking about big issues and making conscious decisions based on a plan, not emotional reactions. Fortunately, PBEM was viable despite our willingness to sacrifice it the sake of the game engine as a whole.Steve </font>
-
Excellent guess.
Given the number of professional soldiers who come to these forums - indeed, are on the beta team and contributing constructively to the project on a daily basis (I am not one of them) - I wouldn't go so far as saying we (collectively, on the forum) are "trivializing" war. But silly commentary on photos really doesn't add much to the discussion and treads close.
The dude's name isn't even Jacobsen, anyhow.
-
Did you ever check out the suicide rates for soldiers deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan? Add smiley face here. I don't suppose you're actually one of them?Originally posted by Lee:Some more cool pictures of the M14 in action.
I like the funny caption someone put on the one photo. haha -
Hev, have a good Christmas.
[ December 23, 2007, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Source?Originally posted by kipanderson:Michael, hi,
You seem to feel strongly about this for some reason
.Anyway… the class of 1926 where inducted in November ’43 when most will indeed have been 17. However their basic training, by which I take it you mean the training in Germany, lasted to the end of March ’44, not “8 weeks or less”
… and there then followed three months of training in theatre. They were integrated into combat units in May/June ’44. So total training was from November ’43 to May/June ’44. BTW… returning sick and wounded made up as many replacements as the annual intake.
All the best,
Kip.
But now that I've gotten your attention...
It may be that I am off by a few months. From God, Honor, Fatherland by Spezzano and McGuirl:
This says "by", of course, and does not give a precise date. The book is also about GD, the premier Army division, who tended to get the cream of the crop and additional leeway, so if things were going badly for them, they were probably worse for others... FWIW, GD took a pounding in Romania in the spring of 1944 and were refitting in June 1944 so examining them probably wouldn't bear much fruit. I'll see what other sources I can come up with but I'm not convinced the state of training or equipment was all that high. I suppose it is moot, given that Army Group Centre's destruction was achieved with such mass, but it is interesting how the historical records diverge.By late 1944, basic training had been cut to eight weeks and recruits were then being harangued by so-called "National Socialist Leadership Officers.[ December 19, 2007, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Tell that to the Khmer Rouge. Or Nick Berg's family.Originally posted by track:More about post (and WWII) conflicts:
- None of the post WWII era conflicts have been fought with the same brutal mentality and determination as for example Barbarossa was. It could only end in the total destruction of the other nation - by any means available.
-
Neat! You should post screenies for the masses. And an AAR of the real life battle that inspired it all...complete with photos of the younger Muhammed...
-
And your mom still doesn't know what wore the holes in the Sears catalogue, you vulgar little troll!Originally posted by Mord:.Hey punks, I liked chicks in high school,
Mord.
:mad: But she will this weekend.
When I whisper the answer in her ear.
-
Stuff it, Goody. I'm too busy waiting for all the thinly disguised CM:BB scenarios to start filtering into the CM:SF lexicon, followed by PanzerBlitz knockoffs, the occasional Steel Panthers clone, and perhaps a Call of Duty scen or two.
I loved your Malden and Everon maps by the way. *wink*
-
mature
You were that close...Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:Ooh! Ooh!
-
a) a mature fan base brave enough to identify themselves with their first and last names, possessed of an ability to communicate to the developers (and each other) on the official website in an articulate manner
an extensive library of second hand reference books upon which to base scenarios, modifications and forum discussionsc) other games on the same genre and taking place in the same era as CM:SF from which to steal scenario ideas and rework them, cleverly camouflaged, as original work
-
What a pathetic attempt to try and increase your ratings and your readership. The same way you Yankees hung Sir Conrad Black out to dry in order to sell more newspapers; now you invoke my name to get people to read the miserable contents of a pig's bladder that are this thread. Oh, please, vote me out.Originally posted by MrPeng:Banishing the Bard! is tantamount to calling this the Second Cousin Beautiful Thread or the Gaylord Dare Thread.
Crikey, PShaw! We might as well call it the PShaw! Annoying Buttonholer Thread. and banish everyone but you and that pedantic, insufferable douchebag Dorosh. Say! Let's do that!
Hands up who want the MBT to die today and be replaced with a thread solely for PShaw! and douchebag Dorosh!
Seanachai you half-wit drunk, you going to email me, or not? Even Berli managed to stumble his way into Facebook and find my name. Stop hovering over your niece - which I have to admit is getting creepier by the day - and tend to my amusement like a good scary uncle, there's my man.
I don't think that was Cabron66, incidentally. He actually recognized he needed help.
I let it go on for longer than I probably should have, but I felt it was important for people to get it out of their system here instead of in other places. Now they just rant and rave in other places after reading the threads here 
an extensive library of second hand reference books upon which to base scenarios, modifications and forum discussions
Will Brits or Marines fight differently?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I completely agree with your own points regarding how the TOE and doctrines on how a squad splits affects unit behaviour, which is kind of what I was hinting at in my original post. </font>