How many of you are interested in "Cherry Pick" QB for CMSF?

[Pipski]

Let me guess. You didn't play any of the scenarios, start any of the campaigns, download and try any of the hundreds of scenarios and mods. You went straight to the quick battles, found it wasn't like CMx1 and the game is crap.

Or is my guess wrong?

Nope, you're absolutely right. All I want is random maps and pickable forces. Don't care about anything else - scenarios, mods, campaigns, multiplayer and the rest of it. Didn't say the game was crap, said it's probably not for me and that I frankly can't understand what seems to be a bizarre design decision.

[Childress]

but on balance I'd prefer to tell the computer roughly what force I wanted than to tell it precisely

Now that's more like it! Cherry picking with more realism and less tedium.

[c3k]

I agree that "cherry picking" forces in CMx1 was part of its enticement and longevity, when added to the ease of QB's with random maps. (Balance never mattered in those situations to me.)

Ken

[Cambronne]

I won't pay for a "cherry picking" feature in CMSF at all,but I expect it to be included into the price of Normandy title.Oh,boy..!!! The CMx1 QB system was almost perfect! We could even import maps and OOBs from scenarios and edit them into the QB ...remember...???!!!

[Redwolf]

I won't pay for a "cherry picking" feature in CMSF at all,but I expect it to be included into the price of Normandy title.Oh,boy..!!! The CMx1 QB system was almost perfect! We could even import maps and OOBs from scenarios and edit them into the QB ...remember...???!!!

I think these wishes are all doomed became some people just cannot stand the thought that you play with a "unrealistic" OOBs.

Never mind the fact that on a company size engagement level very random forces came and come together all the time.

[7thGalaxy]

Leto;1149556']and it would be nice to hold a REAL flag again

A real Flag? You mean a simple terrain objective? I can think of plenty of scenarios which have simple terrain objectives!

[[hirr]Leto]

A real Flag? You mean a simple terrain objective? I can think of plenty of scenarios which have simple terrain objectives!

I'm glad that you didn't mock edit my above statement by removing the "l" from flag.

What I meant here was that I would like to be able to know how heavily weighted that terrain objective is against any other objectives. Right now it is hard for me to deduce that, making my understanding of level of victory I may achieve very low.

Cheers!

Leto

[flamingknives]

Leto;1149706']I'm glad that you didn't mock edit my above statement by removing the "l" from flag.

What I meant here was that I would like to be able to know how heavily weighted that terrain objective is against any other objectives. Right now it is hard for me to deduce that, making my understanding of level of victory I may achieve very low.

Cheers!

Leto

Ah, the simple pleasures of cigarettes. That is what you meant, isn't it?

Some scenario designers do tell you how much the terrain objectives are. Paper Tiger does, at least in some of the BritFor module standalone scenarios. The trouble I find is that I don't know how much of my force I can trade for an objective.

[[hirr]Leto]

The trouble I find is that I don't know how much of my force I can trade for an objective.

Yep, I hear you... that's what I mean by 'fuzzy'.

Cheers!

Leto

P.S. Have you 'hugged' your pack of cigarettes yet today?

; )

[GSX]

That's not really the point. It would be nice to be able to choose your forces at all. Would you really choose to assault the enemy with nothing but TOW missiles?

This actually happens so often that Im beginnning to think that its how its done in real life now.

[Pipski]

Am I missing something here? I just tried a QB and it gave me 35 green unconventional Syrian infantry to hold off an attack by 76 veteran marines backed up by 2 grenade launching Humvees and 2 TOW vehicles. At night.

[costard]

Good thread topic.

I sort of like the "You get what you get give: work with it." That said, I also like to compose my own force, making up the most functional fire-brigade company or assault group from limited set of resources.

Force selection managed by the player avoids the problems of "The computer gave me a crap force to work with." and "Man, I've played this particular set of units so many times already - time to give IL2 another go." A player managed force selection also gives the greater likelihood of tactical surprise being exercised as certain options are chosen in preference to others - a commander playing to his own strengths and, if he knows his opposition well enough, his opponent's weaknesses. This is where I'm hoping there is an option to view the battle map as part of the force selection process - I believe this would be a valuable piece of data for any commander given his 'druthers.

Most of the complaints about the QB system in CM:SF seem to be about an undeveloped system in place. My understanding is that had Battlefront waited until this was "perfect", they wouldn't have been able to release the game for another two years or so, making the exercise uneconomical and therefore moot. We've been told to watch out for an improved system in CM: Atlantic Wall, if we live long enough, we might see what goodies they have had planned for us all along.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Thing is, we are two years down the line now, and not only do we not have the QB system almost all of us wanted, the system we do have is still not very good at the things it is designed to do.

[costard]

Thing is, we are two years down the line now, and not only do we not have the QB system almost all of us wanted, the system we do have is still not very good at the things it is designed to do.

Fair point.

What I didn't say was that I don't expect CM:SF will ever get the QB system we want; but that I expect the next generation of CMX2 games will. I hope.

[Amedeo]

What about having the option of editing the random force selection in a QB with an interface similar to that of the full Scenario Editor? No point values, no complicate buying system, no rarity factors etc. Just the possibility to edit without constraints the blue and/or red force selection.

It would work fine for those who just want to try a specific unit/weapon system against another specific unit/weapon system. It would also lend itself to cherry-picking 2-player QBs. Just agree on a purchase system or devise a personal point-buy system and select troops accordingly. Of course the burden of "calculation" will be entirely on the players and the possibility of cheating is high but... it's better than nothing, isn't it?

Opinions?

Amedeo

[Redwolf]

XML import mumble mumble.

Let somebody else deal with prices and selection menus.

[z1812]

Hi All,

I would really like a quick battle system for CMSF as we had in CMx1. As has been suggested it could be offered as a product upgrade. I would gladly pay for it but I don't think it will happen.

I imagine the next incarnation of CMSF will have one. I hope so.

Regards John

[Scipio]

Come on, its a game!

HERESY!!!

I don't miss cherry picking, or shall we say, I woun't miss it if the random troops selection would work, what is unfortunatly not the case. But my idea for a solution looks a bit different, as I have already pointed out in another thread:

CMSF isn't able to autocreate maps, instead are premade maps randomly loaded. I wonder if something similar wouldn't work for troop selections, too, if CMSF could be programed to create a QB by combining three randomly selected files.

File one is the map, file two blue and file three red forces. This may not be an optimal solution, since it means some work on creating a sufficient number of OOB varities for the different types of force selections and battle types, but on the other hand it would solve a number of problems that might be more difficult to program to come to an acceptable result. It's surely easier and faster to create a number of OOBs as the time & work needed for a single map. Quality and eqipment can still be randomly generated depending on the general QB settings, what would still leave some random factor.

[gibsonm]

So how many people would pay for a "Cherry Pick" QB for CMSF Module, and how much?

Well for me the answer is "no" and therefore part two is irrelevant.

[Cid250]

I know Steve has said that reworking the Quick Battles system is going to be for Normandy and that (for the most part) CMSF Modules are in the hands of third party developers. But since everything seems to be selling quite well, I was wondering if the price was right for them if they would implement the new QB system into CMSF? I personally would buy a Module that just added that more then a French/Chinese/whathaveyou module any day of the week.

So how many people would pay for a "Cherry Pick" QB for CMSF Module, and how much?

For me the answer is(obviously) yes, and I would be willing to pay 40$ for it.(although 25$ would be just as good)

I'm really interested!.

If the game provides the QB model of CMBB and CMAK i will buy it... in other case, i will not.

That's because i'm mainly a PBEM WEGO player... so my interest is to play with other people those kind of QB.

[Battlefront.com]

This has been covered many, many times before. But I guess nobody has ready any of those threads

The new QB system will be in Normandy, not before then. We are also not improving the CM:SF implementation of QBs. Since we're going to completely redo the system any time spent mucking around with the existing system is a very poor use of our time. And that matters because you guys have about 10 years worth of stuff you want in, so wasting a month or two on a system we're going to junk anyway means not getting other things you want which won't be junked.

The new QB system will have the following:

1. Player selected "forces", in the way the current QB system was intended to work.

2. Player selected "units", much like how CMx1 worked.

3. Maps which can be randomly assembled from "mega tile" maps (much like many old style board wargames, like Panzer Leader).

What the new system will NOT include are:

1. An obvious, in your face point system for people to squabble over.

2. Completely randomly drawn maps.

The resulting system should fix the problems with the CMx1 system (and please... don't even try to tell me it was "perfect" or I'll force you to search the Archives ) and also address the shortcomings of the current implementation in CM:SF. The overall goals are to give the player "cherry picking" capabilities while at the same time offering players the option to have QBs which are more rooted in reality. While it is true that at low levels there were often a mish-mosh of whatever was available, anybody who would argue that the average CMx1 game's force mix was anything other than a rare occasion on the battlefield is obviously studying a different WW2 than we're familiar with

Steve

[dischord]

XML import mumble mumble.

Let somebody else deal with prices and selection menus.

Battlefront and XML appear to be as oil and water.

For maps and campaigns as well.

[sfhand]

This has been covered many, many times before. But I guess nobody has ready any of those threads

The new QB system will be in Normandy, not before then. We are also not improving the CM:SF implementation of QBs. Since we're going to completely redo the system any time spent mucking around with the existing system is a very poor use of our time. And that matters because you guys have about 10 years worth of stuff you want in, so wasting a month or two on a system we're going to junk anyway means not getting other things you want which won't be junked.

The new QB system will have the following:

1. Player selected "forces", in the way the current QB system was intended to work.

2. Player selected "units", much like how CMx1 worked.

3. Maps which can be randomly assembled from "mega tile" maps (much like many old style board wargames, like Panzer Leader).

What the new system will NOT include are:

1. An obvious, in your face point system for people to squabble over.

2. Completely randomly drawn maps.

The resulting system should fix the problems with the CMx1 system (and please... don't even try to tell me it was "perfect" or I'll force you to search the Archives ) and also address the shortcomings of the current implementation in CM:SF. The overall goals are to give the player "cherry picking" capabilities while at the same time offering players the option to have QBs which are more rooted in reality. While it is true that at low levels there were often a mish-mosh of whatever was available, anybody who would argue that the average CMx1 game's force mix was anything other than a rare occasion on the battlefield is obviously studying a different WW2 than we're familiar with

Steve

I understand your reasons for implementing/not implementing features in your games. I'm in no way being critical, nor wishing to derail this conversation about quick battles. However... I think some time ago, while you were saying the above for the third or fourth time I think, you said that you thought moveable waypoints weren't that far off (for CMSF I believe). I'm not going to try to hold you to this, it's really not the type of thing I do, but I am curious about moveable waypoints. Do you see them ever making their way into CMSF? CMNormandy (not its name, but you know what I mean)? Ever? Like I said, not a criticism, hell, I don't even have an expectation that you'll answer...

We now take you back to your regularly scheduled discussion about quick battles... I don't have a problem with the idea of using one of the many quick battle maps in the editor with each player choosing their own forces and not examining their opponents. I should be fairly easy for one of the many grogs here to come up with some sort of guideline for such.

[silverstars]

The new QB system will be in Normandy, not before then. We are also not improving the CM:SF implementation of QBs. Since we're going to completely redo the system any time spent mucking around with the existing system is a very poor use of our time. And that matters because you guys have about 10 years worth of stuff you want in, so wasting a month or two on a system we're going to junk anyway means not getting other things you want which won't be junked.

Hmm. Let me put it in a way more geared toward you Steve:

Is there a price tag to how much you would need to make to retrofit the new CMN QB system into CMSF, and if there is, would a module release selling at a rate equal to any of the current modules reach it?

[kulik]

The new QB system will be in Normandy, not before then. We are also not improving the CM:SF implementation of QBs. Since we're going to completely redo the system any time spent mucking around with the existing system is a very poor use of our time. And that matters because you guys have about 10 years worth of stuff you want in, so wasting a month or two on a system we're going to junk anyway means not getting other things you want which won't be junked.

The new QB system will have the following:

1. Player selected "forces", in the way the current QB system was intended to work.

2. Player selected "units", much like how CMx1 worked.

3. Maps which can be randomly assembled from "mega tile" maps (much like many old style board wargames, like Panzer Leader).

What the new system will NOT include are:

1. An obvious, in your face point system for people to squabble over.

2. Completely randomly drawn maps.

Steve

Thats sound quite good. But im not sure about what the "mega tile maps" are. It is something like for instance tiles 200x200 meter which you can randomly connect to produce bigger maps? But how does the road system on those maps work? Or elevation differences?