Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
I take my cues from James Dunnigan. I build 'em, but I don't play 'em.Originally posted by Mishga:Just look at the scenario that came with the map. The one where troops have to move to the little farm buildings between high cliffs. I think the one Michael Dorosh made.
The stock map has Max Assault or Assault orders. Scenario just don't work because of it. No offence to Doshy, he probly never knew that the orders did not work.
Check it out and see for yourself.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :mad:
Scores in wargames are like marks in school - you know if you've won or not without looking at the numbers.
That's my second story, and I'm sticking to that one too! :mad: :mad:
-
Bringing back Operations would be a neat way to do that then, wouldn't it?Originally posted by molotov_billy:Unfortunatey the only real way to simulate time based concerns is operationally - ie, "I have to capture the dominating terrain here quickly, because I know enemy reinforcements are coming soon."
Instead of massively stupid 12 hour scenarios, the smart thing to do is design "breaks" so that each side can resupply in between rounds of combat.
Otherwise, if you are taking more than 2 hours in a CM scenario, either the player doesn't know what he's doing, or the scenario designer has no idea what Combat Mission is supposed to be about.
Arbitrary time limits are not unrealistic. If you are doing stuff in the last turns, consider yourself to have lost.
How about variable time limits that have the ability to shut down a scenario early? That might avoid some gamey last minute rushes.
-
Nine years in three different trades? Aren't you any good at anything?Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:Why werent' I invited to be a beta-tester? I have been in US Army for almost 9 years, been a tanker, an air-defence and military police. Been wargaming for years. Played all CM games. Am I not good enough to beta-test?
Seriously - since you have no problem stepping onto the forum and questioning the abilities of the beta testers, let me ask you - why would you remuster twice in nine years? And what is it you think your experience as an ack ack gunner or a meathead (as we lovingly call them in Canada) would have brought to the table?
More importantly, what is it you think beta testers do? It's mostly drudgery. You don't need military experience to set up a game and play it over and over, or be able to write a playtest report, and you don't even need to have been playing wargames for years.
You do have to have the ability to work with your peers - regardless of their own military and wargaming experience. And from the tone of your posts ever since you started posting here, you seem far more concerned with talking about yourself than in being a contributing member of the community.
Not to speak for BF.C - I have no idea why you weren't asked/selected to be a tester. Luck of the draw, I suspect. I wonder if you ever asked them? Or did you think your mediocre credentials would somehow have just presented themselves, or perhaps the Lady in the Lake would have thrust her arm through your monitor and presented you an NDA?
Me? I wrote in and asked to be on the scenario design team; I pointed out that some of my scens were included on the special edition discs of both CMAK and CMBB, and I was invited to contribute to the CMSF campaign. I think I ended up doing 15% or so of them. I also helped out testing where I could. I doubt that my twenty years in the Canadian reserves had much to do with their decision, but my design record probably did, also the fact that I was on the beta team for two other BFC projects at various points in time.
By continually hammering the beta testers here in public, and promoting yourself with the fervour of Don King, do you really think you're working your way towards a beta test slot in future? It just looks like sour grapes at this point. Demonstrate a track record in gaming - test for someone else, design some decent scenarios - and show an ability to work with others and be constructive in your criticisms and not simply annoying - and that would be your best shot at a test slot.
Good luck.
-
Nice to have you back!Originally posted by Dandelion:Lurking in the shadows for sure!
Nicknames was not the norm in the German army. It might seem to have been, given the widely known Ofenrohr, Möbelwagen and what have you. But it wasn't, and I don't know of any popularly conceived nicknames for german tanks used by Germans during the war. Nor do I recall any female names or other colourful, romantic names. I am challenged to find any German tanks wearing US-type Pinup girls or cartoonish figures on them. If colourful at all, German tanks would be decorated with colourful unit emblems, not individual such.
In contemporary sources, in particular war diaries, one will often find individual tanks refered to by their call-name (radio call, such as "Sun One" or "Red Two" etc). When tank types were still mixed (II, II and IV) the Pzkpfw IV can be referred to as Heavy (Heavies).
Tiger, Panther, Lynx - these names were all quite dedicated PR efforts, projected from top down, thus not popularly conceived nicknames in any sense. A success they were too, as these names stuck real quick among friend and foe alike.
Incidentally, wouldn't the Panther be a "Mark Five" to a Brit/CW soldier? Or did they stick with "Panther"?
Regards
Dandelion [/qb]
I have seen photos of individual names on German tanks, AFVs and guns - and pinup girls - but they seem to have been rare. The Squadron Signal books on Panzer Colors have examples, as do the pictorials on Großdeutschland, but of course the latter had a well-established PR (PK) element so one can take them with grains of salt as required.
The Kohlenklau (coal thief?) cartoon character on the Marder II seems to have been popularized by the Tamiya kit in 1/35 scale as well as the Squadron-Signal book from the 1970s on Panzerjäger in Action. Another touch seen on German vehicles not commonly (to my knowledge) seen on Allied tanks was memorial inscriptions to comrades killed in action - complete with maltese cross, name, rank, date of death, perhaps date of birth.
The Allies called the Panther either that, or a "Mark V", as you suggest. Few Canadians ever saw a Mark VI/Tiger as they were fairly rare (probably non-existent in Italy as far as Canadian tankers seeing them). I wouldn't be surprised to know that they were simply called 'heavies' on occasion, in the same way any rocket-propelled anti-tank munition fired at them was a "German Bazooka".
Intelligence seems to have been freely passed on from the Russians and military observers there. I have some Canadian Army training bulletins that have Russian front AARs, and one nifty chart showing how to knock out a PzKpfw III with Molotov cocktails. So the phenomenon that The_Enigma describes is not a surprise. The Tiger first saw action in September 1942 on the Russian front, so by the time British tankers came across them in Tunisia, there was probably at the least information pamphlets floating around the armoured unit headquarters. Not sure how fast info like that got disseminated, but the whole concept of "lessons learned" is not a new one. The wartime Canadian Army Training Memorandum series is a pretty amazing set of documents.
Knowing their lives depended on tank recognition, I would imagine silhouettes and nomenclature stuff was all "required reading" for AFV crews and anti-tank gunners. The misconception fostered by war movies that units not in contact just sit around telling dirty stories to each other is accurate, but only to a point. In actual fact, units not in contact still conduct training - and that would include recognition of new AFV types in the enemy's stable. The CATM, for example, was issued on a scale of one to every single officer in the army, once per month. And it was only one document among many circulated regularly in order to keep the troops and their leaders informed.
[ September 13, 2007, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Jason's advice may be useless as far as the victory conditions go, though. Depends on how the scenario designer set up the VC in this particular case. Which mission are you playing?Originally posted by hobo:Michael - Thanks for the detailed response. I did read pages 24 and 25 and am guessing the answer is you do not really know what is at the locations unless you actually visit it. I will take Jason's advice and blast them for a while before actually doing the visit.
- hobo
-
That boat sailed many moons ago, Seanachai, my old friend, and knowing you, you got frustated that you weren't first on the list of invitees, protested in highly flowery speech, and were so drunk when the reply came that you deleted it unread thinking it another advertisement for hard-on pills, which you were getting at a discount via a deranged half-cousin in the pharmaceutical industry anyway in exchange for original sonnets so that Bucky in Milwaukee might find himself a suitable mate to whose nuptials you would not be invited to embarrass the family by way of personal appearance in any event.Originally posted by Seanachai:THE LINE FORMS BEHIND ME, YOU BASTARDS!
You're not of that generation anyway, Dear Bard. You're one of the lead singers of this little orchestra, and the lead singer is always discrete about his dalliances. Leave it for the roadies to believe they've formed meaningful relationships with the groupies; then stand back in a mixture of shock and awe with that same 'is he feckin' serious' look on your face you get when dalem comes out of the kitchen with the paper chef's hat and the apron that says "Kiss The Cook" tied neatly over his gun belt.
No, your generation isn't the kind that has to line up for affection via cattle call; your kind reminds me more of the fellows that inhabited the bus to Hanna in 1986 when the army cadet band was "permitted" to play with the reserve army guys, and the booze-fuelled debauchery of those days included a bare-arsed spanking, sans kilt while bleary eyed tenor drummers looked on in amazement commenting "look, I think they're enjoying it!" as the bass drummer let fly with a leather waist belt in that same kind of sexless male-bonding special victims unit scenario that has kept your hoary old kind together since time immemorial, and has now, for good or ill, slipped beneath the waves with the reverse of sexual discrimination and a whole new hiring policy regarding both genders.
That anyone should need to remind you that your path is different from the common guttersnipes is troubling. Best advice to you is to follow John Fahey's advice and never forget who you are, and where you are. Which would be most incredible since you never seem to know that to begin with. Or, if these strange feelings should come over you again, just threaten to piss a stream on someone like you usually do and hopefully any troublesome tendencies will pass and the honour of your position in the band will be preserved. Having Peng on speed dial clearly isn't enough; you need a freakin' Medic Alert necklace with a bright red panic button, or maybe one of those Jimmy Olsen watches that will let out with the ZEEE ZEEEE ZEEEE whenever you feel the need to soil the dignity of your office here. Just remember, no matter where you are, no matter what you're doing, if you need help and have no one else to call - I'm not your buddy.
-
Basically, the scenario briefing is supposed to explain this to you. I'm assuming you are familiar with page 24-25 of the manual (printed version) outlining victory conditions? Once you are past the briefing and into the 3-D world, you should see objectives "painted" onto the screen. If the briefing is written properly, it will give you a clue if they are Touch objective types or not.Originally posted by hobo:So, I am told to reconnoiter a Named Area of Interest. What exactly am I suppose to do and how do I know if I have done it? Do I move to the NAI or is all I have to do is see it?
Thanks in advance for your help.
There are also unit based objectives, one of them being Spot. There may well be no way for you to determine during the game which units need to be "spotted", so again, a well-written briefing is kind of essential in figuring this out. The way the game works, though, is that you get "x" number of points - as determined by the scenario designer and not revealed until the game is over - for simply spotting and identifying an enemy unit. (Which means he can usually see you, too.)
There is an old tradition among scenario designers that surprise can be a key element in providing scenario "balance." And it isn't unrealistic to simply tell a player to go out and "spot what's there" and not give the player an idea of what he needs to spot, since in real life, the whole point of reconnaissance is to - - find out what's there.
So basically, part of the tension of the scenario, and your decision making, will be in figuring out if you're spotted enough enemy units, presuming that is the true objective of the game - which a scenario designer may legitimately decide not to disclose to the player.
However - a good scenario designer and briefing writer will still present all this material in a realistic way, hopefully. Reread the briefing and see if there aren't more clues as to what you are looking for. If not, then basically keep going til you spot something then ask yourself if what you've spotted was really tactically significant, and if there might not be more important stuff somewhere else on the map.
In other words, CM:SF encourages you to think like a real life commander.
-
That's how I understand it as well.Originally posted by flammenwerfer:I think he means that as you zoom out of the battle field the 1-1 squads would revert to an abstraction, as in an icon or the cm1 three man squad.
Not increasing the size, just to a more playable icon.
-
So this would be sort of like increasing the unit scale in CMX1 (i.e. making the soldier models larger) - to increase visibility and playability at the expense of visual realism?
-
I saw this post this morning and didn't have time to give it a proper response; I'll do so now before heading out for a weekend of fun.
As I was composing this in my head during the day, Thomm, your comments on how you "finished" CM:SF came to mind, so it is ironic that you added your comments in here. I'll explain why in a bit.
Firstly, though, thank you both for making your opinion known. There was an exceptional talent pool assembled for the scenario design portion. I was not one of the shining lights. Of the others, though, I would be reluctant to elevate one over the others since I think they all brought an incredible amount of skill to the mix and provided different perspective on maps, forces, plans and the integration of same. Some people say the campaign suffered by having a variety of scenario design philosophies but I think it simply highlighted the capabilities of the editor and the fellows using it.
Thomm, you mentioned the other day that you considered CM:SF "finished" and not open ended - which is certainly your right. It just strikes me as so short sighted because here you have made the most of the opportunity to pass on your feedback to one of the scenario designers. I talked a bit about this feeling of shared community before the CM:SF release. The thread didn't receive a lot of attention, and what little it did attract seemed to be negative. Understandably, in hindsight, but what I expressed then was a sense of satisfaction that upon release, we would all have the same few scenarios to discuss - a sense of commonly shared experiences. Until the crowds got their hands on the editor and the number of scenarios ballooned, I anticipated a lot of discussion of the scenarios. I think the technical issues overshadowed that, perhaps, or maybe fellows are just not that interested in the campaign scens, which is cool too. So is your CM:SF experience really over? I mean, here you are kind enough to share a compliment and your thoughts with me, reliving the battle at least in part.
Anyway, I'm gratified for the comments here. If this is of an interest to you, I can tell you what my goals were.
a) do something with infantry only
do something reminiscent of "Dornot Watermark" in GI: Anvil of Victory from the old Squad Leader seriesc) push the limits of the editor
a) I thought there would be a lot of scens based on a Stryker company with armor support and wanted to do some variety. We were given a basic structure/framework to work our scenarios into and basically given a lot of creative latitude to do what we wished from that point on. Was really a great environment for a scenario designer, actually. I wanted to do something with dismounted infantry primarily, since I was to be honest not all that familiar with the capabilities of the armor units in the game (this is reflected in all my scenarios, I think) and really not that interested in repeating what was likely to be offered in many of the other scens
The Dornot Watermark was a chase scenario in the old Squad Leader system; I never played it myself but I remember Mark Nixon reviewing the scenario in The General magazine long ago. It sounded like a great concept, and I thought if I could make it work, it would again be something a bit different than the standard attack/defend (and I think all the scenario designers tried pretty hard and succeeded to provide some spice as far as that goes, whether by interesting terrain (like the berm in scenario one), or force mixes, or whatever). I don't know that it was completely successful as far as the AI plans as that was not one of my strengths, but I always tended to play CM just for the experience of playing rather than being concerned with win/lose, so I may be a poor judge. A ladder player, or another scenario designer may righty pillory my scenario for many reasons.c) I wanted to make the map interesting visually and tactically as well. I don't like cookie-cutter maps with 90 degree road grids, so I set the roadway as far as possible at an angle to the map edges. I wanted to make the terrain seem "real" that way - thought it is probably more accurate to a North American city than any middle eastern town. I tried to follow Steve Overton's advice from The Proving Grounds, and think like a city planner. I made sure people had places to park their cars; I tried to provide a sheltered bus stop, and I prettied up the front entrances to the apartment buildings as well as provided car parks. I hope it is obvious that the walled hole in the ground is a construction site - would love to have seen a crane included there, but imagination will have to do. The walled building beside it with no windows can be imagined to be a jail or a power station or a computer centre or some similar government building.
There is a point of diminishing returns where you can provide so many unusual scenarios that the whole project just seems like hopeless fantasy; I hope my scenarios didn't take the Task Force Thunder campaign too far into that direction. I admit they were gimmicky in some cases - if you've seen Slumming It, you know what I mean. There were plenty of well-grounded scenarios in the campaign as well, though, that I hope it balanced out.
Thanks again for the comments, you can't begin to know how much they're appreciated. I'd encourage anyone reading this to take the time to discuss any of the scenarios on the disc or in the campaign here on the forum, as I know the designers would love to hear from you - and certainly don't be shy about asking specific questions. Those hams would love to talk about themselves.
-
Not according to my definition.Originally posted by Rollstoy:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
And CM:BO...was it open ended or not?
Best regards,
Thomm </font>
-
I simply agree with GSX' definition of 'finishing a game'.Originally posted by Rollstoy:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
The fully open-ended scenario editor with full-blown map editor (something most games don't have), the campaign editor, and the Quick Battle feature, not to mention the community providing content for all of these.
Umm ...how do you not see that?
That's all, really.
If I play through Half Life, OFP, Unreal, Brothers in Arms, ... once, I consider the game finished.
The only games that fit my definition of open-ended are MMORPGs or perhaps those space trading/fighting games.
Best regards,
Thomm </font>
-
What is open-ended about the game? </font>Originally posted by GSX:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rollstoy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
What do you mean by "finished it"? How do you "finish" a completely open-ended game? You finished one of the campaigns, you mean?
-
What is open-ended about the game? </font>Originally posted by Rollstoy:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
What do you mean by "finished it"? How do you "finish" a completely open-ended game? You finished one of the campaigns, you mean?
-
Ironically enough, four days ago AdamL was so enthused about CM:SF he was organizing a meta-campaign...GSX, maybe you should contact him and see if it is still on.
-
What do you mean by "finished it"? How do you "finish" a completely open-ended game? You finished one of the campaigns, you mean?Originally posted by GSX:Anyways, now that Ive finished it, what should I look forward to? I dont think a Marine module would work as I dont think they have any really different equipment, do they?
Anyway, thanks for my 4 weeks of fun and looking forward to a ww2 game next? Any ideas if it will be out for Xmas?
-
Yes, and some of them are right here on the forum wondering why you've been acting like a colossal dill-hole for the last couple of weeks.Originally posted by Adam1:I have good friends.
We all know what it's like to go through crap in our private lives and not necessarily feel the need to advertise it to total strangers. Despite the tone of your last few emails to me, if there is something you really want to talk about in private, feel free; I think it is obvious that something is going on with you. Your participation here certainly doesn't need to end this way.
Whatever you decide, those that know you best will respect your decision, though perhaps not the way you've chosen to exercise it.
-
Okay.Originally posted by Adam1:Great. Please let that be your last comment to me.
Oops. See my last, I edited after you replied.
-
I wouldn't know, to be honest. Never lived in one.Originally posted by AdamL:Dorosh,
What? Do you mean my nasty tone? Speaking my mind? A mental breakdown. Intersting hypothesis. How's the single bedroom apartment life treating ya?
About your email, though:
I'll be passing this on to the Calgary Police Service, but I do think you need to seek some counselling. My comments on your mental health were sincere. Like - it's just a game dude - and just a forum.Hi Michael,
I don't want to deal with your **** on the forums, and you probably don't want to deal with mine. Can you please do me a favour and stay away from me?
That is a formal request, not to reply to my posts. Obviously you do what you want with everyone else (be that in my own threads or others) but, and note this well please:
I take it as a personal attack when you reply to me.
I have changed my name on the forum so my last initial is gone. Guess why.
So, first and last formal request. Otherwise there will be personal consequences to you in Alberta.
Thanks.
-
AdamL's final mental breakdown began in the General Forum about a week or two ago. If anyone is confused about his behaviour here, they can look up his comments there.
-
Three easy answers to this:Originally posted by Battlefront.com:AdamL,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What I don't get is why on day one of every patch, it takes like 15 minutes for the players to find a crapton of bugs. What the hell is the BFC beta team doing?!
1. There are hundreds of you, only a few testers. It's simple statistics that out of all you guys here, there is a higher percent change you'll find something than our testers will.
2. We are working under immense time pressure. If we find a bug, run it through Charles, he comes back with a fix, we run it through to see if it is fixed, and then we're good to go.
3. You only see the things that aren't caught and fixed. Don't be silly enough to think that you see all the bugs, because you don't.
This is an ultra complex environment and that means subtle differences can mean the difference between something being found and something not being found within a short space of time.
Steve </font>
-
Airborne Assault was released several years ago. It's been followed up by other theatres IIRC.Originally posted by kipanderson:If you ever feel like trying an operational game…. do not hold back. There is a niche waiting for a quality WEGO operational game.
Any game where you order squads around, on the other hand, is not "operational". That's as goofy as the suggestions being bandied about on the Matrix forum.
-
I had an ATI Radeon Express 200 in my machine and was told the day I bought the machine it would suck long and hard at playing games on. CM:SF wouldn't play at all with it, but when I upgraded to a card actually designed with game playing in mind, it made all the difference in the world.
-
Bumping this in light of the email sent to me. Any other thoughts?
do something reminiscent of "Dornot Watermark" in GI: Anvil of Victory from the old Squad Leader series
All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted