map of quick battle ?

[Falaise]

Hello
I modified a map of the quick battle file and saved it under another name in the quick battle file
it appears in the folder but does not appear in the choice of maps when I want to load the map in quick battle mode
can you help me, thank you

[Hapless]

Trying checking you've got the right kind of battle selected in the quick battle menu- if the map is an assault, then it won't show up if you've selected meeting engagement.

[Falaise]

oh thank you very much Hapless
how do you change the destination of maps
assault, meeting engagement, Attack ???

 

[Hapless]

On the quick battle setup screen you can change the type in the top left:

In the scenario editor its on the mission tab under description at the top:

[Falaise]

1 hour ago, Hapless said:

On the quick battle setup screen you can change the type in the top left:

In the scenario editor its on the mission tab under description at the top:

merci !!

[BornGinger]

In the Engine Manual it says about Quick Battle's victory points

 

"Quick Battles consider only OCCUPY terrain objectives and unit casualties for determining victory conditions. All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically, and all Units are part of a force-wide UNIT objective.

 

Quick Battle scores are determined differently than in Missions. The total point value is automatically set to 1,000 VP. Out of the 1,000 VP available, a portion will be allocated to the OCCUPY terrain objectives and the remainder of the VP will be assigned to the UNIT objective."

 

The words "all Units are part of a force-wide UNIT objective" possibly mean that there is no reason to allocate VPs for unit casualties, which can be done in normal scenarios, as the game does that automatically. But if the total value of VPs are 1000, how does the game divide those VPs between terrain objetives and unit objectives if a quick battle have four terrain objectives with a total value of 1000?

[Hapless]

The distribution varies depending on the type of battle.

I can only remember Meeting Engagements off the top of my head: the points would be split 60% unit objectives and 40% ground objectives. If you made a map with 4 objectives, each one would be worth 400/4= 100 points.

I think you can change the points distribution between the objectives by varying their points worth in the editor. For example, if you had two objectives and you allocated Obj A twice as many points than Obj B, in a QB Obj A would be worth 66% of the terrain points and Obj B would be worth 33% (in our meeting engagement, that would be 266-133).

The best way to see how this works is to pick a map and then set up quick battles against the AI in different game modes and surrender as soon as you get to the deployment screen: this will give all the victory points to computer so you can see how they're distributed.

[BornGinger]

So if I make a quick battle with four territory objectives, no matter their value, for a meeting engagement each objectives value is 60% to unit casualty and 40% to terrain? If that is the case, should a hire VP be given to a territory objective which most likely the two sides will fight more fore and which will lead to more unit casualty? Or that doesn't matter so much?

[Heirloom_Tomato]

On 11/6/2019 at 2:18 PM, BornGinger said:

So if I make a quick battle with four territory objectives, no matter their value, for a meeting engagement each objectives value is 60% to unit casualty and 40% to terrain? If that is the case, should a hire VP be given to a territory objective which most likely the two sides will fight more fore and which will lead to more unit casualty? Or that doesn't matter so much?

If the main objective is going to be a key piece of terrain and if it had no points value the two sides would still fight over it due to the terrain advantages it offers, then I would say yes, make it worth more points. 

[Combatintman]

I wouldn't overthink it too much - QBs are essentially 'capture the flag' battles.  As at least one human will be a player in any QB, the human will always look to win the encounter and will therefore go after the objectives that give them the most points.  The highest VP terrain objective should therefore be the one that you feel is the most important on that map.  I also wouldn't worry about the casualty percentage of VPs because of this.  The human will commit resources to capture the high VP objective and lose a proportion of them in the process.  If it is an H2H encounter, one of the players will at some point decide that they can't win and throw in the towel while the AI will auto surrender once it sustains too many casualties (I think the threshold is about 60% casualties sustained but can't remember).

[BornGinger]

Thank you for your answers. I made two quick battles (one meeting and one assault) with three Maj VPs, which they historically were, and two Min VPs to go with my homemade H2H battle and uploaded them to TSD III.