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

[Elmar Bijlsma]

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).

I hope you don't spend too much time on 1. It's a system that in CMSF hasn't shown to be all that promising in the first place and I reckon even a tarted up version isn't going to win any popularity prizes. As for the mega tiles, I'm surprised to be feeling pretty ambivalent about it. Though working fine in such golden oldies as X-COM I've grown rather attached to hand drawn map. If you could allow me to pick my own maps I'd be much happier already.

For me, it's pretty much all about the picking of units. Everything else is secondary.

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.

1. Why on Earth not? Because we'd squabble about it? Bad news Steve, us lot are going to squabble about something. Having us squabble over something as trivial as the points a specific unit should be worth is pretty much be a win for you guys!

Really, what's bad about points? Yes, someone will be staying up late working out the points rationale. Though! The system worked and was well liked. Except for a brief period of M8 GMC spamming, i can't recall there was ever a big deal made about points.

Without points, what are you going to do? Any system you do come up with had better allow me to agonize on whether I take along the Crack King Tiger or a platoon of Green Pz IVG

2. Fair enough. Random maps are overrated. Big, big user of them for RobOs campaign system but they rarely looked realistic. Especially with the amount of detail that can be added in CMx2 I can see how it's likely to be looking even worse then before.

[Henniak-Khazad]

Without points, what are you going to do?

+1

:confused:

[SlowMotion]

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).

Steve

Like Redwolf hinted, some people would like to make their own QB system. Some because then they could have purchase points like in CMx1. My personal wish would be: players could limit unit selecting so that some units cannot be selected.

So that for example in Normandy I could have a QB where players can buy anything else, but heavy tanks are ruled out. Or that if they buy arty, calibers over some limit cannot be bought/selected. This would make possible many CM1 user made buying rules. But because limits would be included in a limitation file, players wouldn't need to remember what's included.

Do you think something like this could be possible in some CM2 version?

[Battlefront.com]

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?

Yes, that's the basic concept. We're not sure what the size of the Mega Tiles will be, but we're starting with the premise that they'll be no smaller than 80x80 and probably no larger than 160x160. We may also go with rectangular tiles instead of squares. Depends on how early tests work.

Roads, waterways, and other linear connected features will be an "interesting" problem to tackle. However, we have some ideas Topography is easy because the assembled map will simply be placed on top of a mesh generated from user specifications. Certain "smoothing" features will be necessary to handle a buildings, roads, and waterways.

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?

Probably not. We think our time is better spent on making CM:SF 2 instead of retrofitting CM:SF to work with the new system. But I won't rule anything out until we see how much effort it will take to go backwards.

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.

There are tons of features which will be in CM:Normandy that people have asked for. I really don't want to get started on a free-for-all discussion about what those might be. I will say that moveable waypoints is very far up on the priority list comparatively speaking.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Like Redwolf hinted, some people would like to make their own QB system. Some because then they could have purchase points like in CMx1. My personal wish would be: players could limit unit selecting so that some units cannot be selected.

Some people always want to do something we're not doing We can't be distracted by what people want to do outside of the game itself. Therefore, we're designing the system based around the game's internal needs, not possible external wants.

So that for example in Normandy I could have a QB where players can buy anything else, but heavy tanks are ruled out. Or that if they buy arty, calibers over some limit cannot be bought/selected. This would make possible many CM1 user made buying rules. But because limits would be included in a limitation file, players wouldn't need to remember what's included.

I see the value in this, however I doubt such support will be in the initial version. Features which gamers can do on their own are a low priority for us since it takes away time from things which gamers can't do on their own. But I can see things like this being introduced over time as the list of major priorities gets whittled down.

I hope you don't spend too much time on 1. It's a system that in CMSF hasn't shown to be all that promising in the first place and I reckon even a tarted up version isn't going to win any popularity prizes.

I disagree only because the call for such a feature back with CMx1 had a "perfect" QB system was pretty strong. We didn't pursue that feature based on a whim, you know We have a good plan for fixing the current system to better yield what the desired end result... logical, sensible, balanced "battlegroups" for people who don't want to nitpick through every purchase option every single time they play. Currently the Cherry Picking Lobby is quite vocal because it's not getting what it wants... but if we go back to a CMx1 system the I Want To Fight A Battle, Not Go Shopping Lobby will become very strong again

As for the mega tiles, I'm surprised to be feeling pretty ambivalent about it. Though working fine in such golden oldies as X-COM I've grown rather attached to hand drawn map. If you could allow me to pick my own maps I'd be much happier already.

Map picking will be included as well.

Why on Earth not? Because we'd squabble about it? Bad news Steve, us lot are going to squabble about something. Having us squabble over something as trivial as the points a specific unit should be worth is pretty much be a win for you guys!

Ah, but that's not what I mean. Sure, we had PLENTY of squabbling over what this or that vehicle should be priced at compared to this or that vehicle. Far more than the one example you cited, for sure. But that was only the extreme result of a fundamentally valid criticism of the point system. It was something we had intended CM:SF would fix, but it turned out to have similar problems on a different scale. I'll explain...

Really, what's bad about points? ... Without points, what are you going to do?

The primary problem with a singular point value, as was seen in CMx1 and is sorta inherent in CM:SF (but not shown to the user), is that it's an arbitrary "worth" which doesn't necessarily result in a fairly balanced game. Since fairness and balance are the things that people want in a game, unless deliberately skewed in some way, the notion of a single value based system works for people is just wrong. It clearly doesn't.

CMx1's best, most common, complaint I can think of is the Sherman 75s. If you were playing as the Germans and you had a predominantly infantry based force, a couple of Sherman 75s could basically single handedly defeat you. If, on the other hand, the Germans had the same "value" in Panthers and the Americans had a predominantly infantry heavy force... the "balance" likely wouldn't be even close to even.

For starters, the US side would likely have more Shermans than the Germans could afford Panthers. Huge tactical advantage to the US side right there. But the real advantage is that the Sherman 75 has a very good store of HE which is far more powerful shell for shell compared to the Panther. Not to mention the fact that US infantry has a higher headcount than German infantry, which means a single decent hit by a Sherman 75 can pretty much take out a German Rifle Squad while a decent hit by a Panther would likely not take out a US Rifle Squad because the US Squads can afford to take more casualties and, on top of that, are less likely to sustain them at all.

Yet if we're talking about a single point system then we're talking about no way to take into consideration these sorts of situational differences. This is what people really disliked about the point system and we think it is a mistake to return to that because of short sighted thinking.

The CM:SF system was supposed to fix this problem, or at least reduce it, by evening out the variables which caused these problems. Individual units have no values in CM:SF, but instead the formation as a whole does. The current implementation, however, effectively allows the same sort of problems that CMx1 had. Which is why we realized very early on in CM:SF's post-release form that the current framework can't be tweaked into yielding major improvements.

Any system you do come up with had better allow me to agonize on whether I take along the Crack King Tiger or a platoon of Green Pz IVG

That is the essence of Cherry Picking and therefore that sort of agony should be present for those who wish to endure it But having a single, abstract value put in front of your face is not necessary for this.

Fair enough. Random maps are overrated. Big, big user of them for RobOs campaign system but they rarely looked realistic. Especially with the amount of detail that can be added in CMx2 I can see how it's likely to be looking even worse then before.

Not only are they overrated, but whatever problems people are forgetting about in CMx1 would likely be 100 times worse in CMx2 because of the greater level of detail of the terrain itself. There's no way we can afford the time to write a random map generator that is even as good as CMx1's, which was just functional at best.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Ah, but that's not what I mean. Sure, we had PLENTY of squabbling over what this or that vehicle should be priced at compared to this or that vehicle. Far more than the one example you cited, for sure. But that was only the extreme result of a fundamentally valid criticism of the point system. It was something we had intended CM:SF would fix, but it turned out to have similar problems on a different scale. I'll explain...

Many of the "pricing problems" were a result of the wide timeframe of the CMx1 games. A vehicle that might be king of the hill in June 1944 might be pretty regular by April 1945.

The narrower timeframe of a Normandy-only game makes some of this easier.

But in general, the point here is that there is no point in BFC sitting down doing revenue management like sessions over what to price how. A list of prices, if useful, should obviously come from a user community. It can be adjusted this way, there can be several versions depending on taste, on timeframe, even on terrain.

A XML import of a single tables with pairs of just a name and a single number doesn't have much opportunity to destabilize the game. Even more so since none of this is active after the game actually starts up.

If you have a medically diagnosed allergy against XML even a flat file would do, but as we have seen with the hotkeys and some other files you should really re-think your relationship with home-grown fragile ad-hock parsers for toy file formats.

%%

This can be "faked", we could have a force "shopping cart" on an external website that deals with pricing and force composition (and rarity if the website programmer deals with it) and then people could put the result from the website in a pricing-ignorant CMx2 that just lets both players add whatever.

But even then, this needs some support from you. If you only allow precomposed units to be purchased it won't work. We need single unit marker selection.

[c3k]

I loved the "cherry picking" in CMx1. I never got into the 80mm armor vs. early Soviet 76mm guns so I would be invulnerable kind of stuff. Instead, like it was stated above, I enjoyed the angst of trying to compose a balanced force with one or two "game changers" which wouldn't cripple me.

I can't see how you could purchase units like that and NOT have points.

In the same vein, if we're limited to "forces" (pre-made up of individual units), how can you purchase balanced forces if there are no points with which to assign them a value? If you do assign a value to a force, why not to a smaller force, down to assigning a value to the individual squad/gun/tank?

Regardless, I HOPE that BF.C continues to listen... Improving QB would be fantastic.

Thanks,

Ken

[Thomm]

How do the mega-tile concept and the strat AI planing go together?!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: I know the decision has been made, but if I could choose between time being invested in improved editor functionality (flavor object manipulation!!) or in the mega-tile concept, I would choose the former.

[Other Means]

Like c3k I loved the "shopping" element. I loved knowing who I was playing and judging what to buy based on that, the thrill of outguessing someone then realising you've been out-guessed in turn.

Creating a balanced force and squeezing the last out of your points. Give up a 60mm mortar to get a 57 and another sniper? Oh, OK then.

Loved it.

[[hirr]Leto]

Like c3k I loved the "shopping" element. I loved knowing who I was playing and judging what to buy based on that, the thrill of outguessing someone then realising you've been out-guessed in turn.

Creating a balanced force and squeezing the last out of your points. Give up a 60mm mortar to get a 57 and another sniper? Oh, OK then.

Loved it.

Well, sounds like that is a love that can never be in the new CMN and relegated to the old CMx1 series.

I like Redwolf's idea of using an open source community to do the points bits. That way, BFC doesn't have to worry about the poo fwinging. Just provide us with the ability to insert our own point systems into the game and we will take it from there. Mind you, for a short period of the CMN game, it shouldn't take long for even on person to set up the points system... and heck for what its worth, it can be the very same point system that is currently being used in CMAK, just transferred over!

CMN without points would be like having an ice cream sunday with nuts, whipped cream, sprinkes and a big old fat testicle shaped cherry on top... without the ice cream.

Cheers!

Leto

[panzermartin]

"Shopping" in CMx1 QBs was like a game inside a game. Really fun to construct your own fighting force. I'd love to see the return of all the features, not just cherry picking. Variable rarity, experience..Another interesting feature could be a random "bonus" unit. A light recce, a scout team, a sniper etc or random reinforcments during the game.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm still staggered that Steve honestly thinks there were so much complaints about the CMx1 QBs and the points system that it warranted getting rid of it and replacing it with the deeply flawed CMSF QBs.

So there can be no misunderstanding about this, I thought the CMx1 QBs were fun and versatile. But CMSF QBs is just near enough unfit for purpose as not to matter. Problems selecting the map you want, inability to get the force type you want and ridiculous force mismatches made them a gigantic unfun waste of time. Can't remember ever hearing a good word about it. And somehow this is still the basis of the system BFC want to continue forward with? It's New Coke, dammit!

[Redwolf]

"Shopping" in CMx1 QBs was like a game inside a game. Really fun to construct your own fighting force. I'd love to see the return of all the features, not just cherry picking. Variable rarity, experience..Another interesting feature could be a random "bonus" unit. A light recce, a scout team, a sniper etc or random reinforcments during the game.

It is simpler than that.

People like being what you call "resourceful" today. For whatever reason that word is used if somebody can get surprisingly good results with the clearly insufficient resources given to him/her.

In a wargame there are two variants of "making best use of meager resources":

• 1) some given set of forces
  
• 2) some amount of a currency than you can use to select a force that makes the most of the sum given to you
  

There is no reason for anybody to say that the second mode of gaming is somehow inferior. It just takes the whole thing to a new level.

%%

Plus, people often used CMx1 purchase system to try out new (to them) units that did not pop up in scenarios.

They experiment to find the right mix of the various arms (infantry, armor, indirect fires). If that isn't resembling a real military's dilemmas I don't know.

[JonS]

Leto;1150199']I like Redwolf's idea of using an open source community to do the points bits.

In principle, there is no reason why this couldn't be done now.

Yes, it would be mandraulic, and probably need to involve a third party to set up the scen, and take a couple of days to set up (which pretty much takes the Q out of QB), but there is no fundamental reason why somebody - or sombodies - couldn't go through the CMSF/USMC/UK OoBs and assign values to every unit, and write up an excel spreadsheet and/or website that'd allow you to go shopping.

No one has, though.

[Redwolf]

In principle, there is no reason why this couldn't be done now.

Yes, it would be mandraulic, and probably need to involve a third party to set up the scen, and take a couple of days to set up (which pretty much takes the Q out of QB), but there is no fundamental reason why somebody - or sombodies - couldn't go through the CMSF/USMC/UK OoBs and assign values to every unit, and write up an excel spreadsheet and/or website that'd allow you to go shopping.

No one has, though.

I don't think a third party to manually set up the scenario is required.

If CMx2 would allow us to pick single units, then the following would work:

• Somebody puts up a website.
  
• It has a price list (or a list of price lists to choose from).
  
• It has user accounts like a ladder or the scenario depot.
  
• Two registered users decide they want to shoot the heck out of each other.
  
• They register their upcoming game. If there are multiple price lists to choose from they need to agree on which one to use.
  
• They purchase the forces and the website does what the CMx1 editor did, a shopping cart like force selection until your "money" is used up.
  
• 
  
• Then, they "seal" the purchase, the website remembers what they bought.
  
• They manually go down the selected list in the game's price-less unit picker.
  
• They play.
  
• 
  
• Later, if there is conflict about the force selection, the website's remembered list of originally picked forces can be compared to what appeared in the game.
  

Of course if would be much nicer if some kind of input file for the game could be downloaded from the website and imported into the game.

[JonS]

I don't think a third party to manually set up the scenario is required.

I was thinking of double-blind functionality.

• They register their upcoming game. If there are multiple price lists to choose from they need to agree on which one to use.
  
• They purchase the forces and the website does what the CMx1 editor did, a shopping cart like force selection until your "money" is used up.
  
• Then, they "seal" the purchase, the website remembers what they bought.
  
• They manually go down the selected list in the game's price-less unit picker. Third Party (TP) comes in here - instead of players buying in the editor, each player send the TP their shopping list, then TP buys according to those lists and sets up scen, then - for extra fidelity - bakes it, or starts it for one side and sends a save of the first setup phase (so first player can't open scen in editor)
  
• They play.
  
• Later, if there is conflict about the force selection, the website's remembered list of originally picked forces can be compared to what appeared in the game.

If double-blind isn't important, then, yeah - the players can buy their own forces.

[Redwolf]

Of course I am talking about double blind.

At the very least we require that the unit selection happens in a (to the opponent) hidden screen. If the game doesn't even have that, screw it.

I don't intend to go through the editor for this. You can do that today.

[JonS]

I don't intend to go through the editor for this. You can do that today.

No kidding, Sherlock. That's why I said "In principle, there is no reason why this couldn't be done now."

No one has, though.

[Redwolf]

No kidding, Sherlock. That's why I said "In principle, there is no reason why this couldn't be done now."

No one has, though.

Right. Not sure what we are arguing.

If the game just sabotages your effort too much you lose interest. In the case of CMx2 multiplayer so far it worked.

[Battlefront.com]

Two points before I start in on this again.

First, obviously we are listening to you guys. Ironically, it was listening to you guys bitch and complain about CMx1's QB system that got us into this mess in the first place I don't care how much some of you denny reality, but we got earfull after earfull about the pricing system and "abuse" of Cherry Picking. You can completely and utterly disagree with how we addressed the issues raised, since that is a completely separate issue. And it's one that we definitely understand way too many people feel very strongly about (i.e. that we made a big mistake). It's why we're redoing the whole thing to be far more like CMx1 than the current system is. But please... do not insult your own intelligence by pretending that we purposefully ruined a "perfect" system, that everybody expressed nothing but absolute and undying perfected love for, for no other reason than we hate you customers and want you to never buy another game from us.

Second, we are not interested in putting in an exact duplicate of CMx1's QB system only to have the same complaints come up again. Nor are we interested in keeping the existing system, or even slightly modifying it, since doing so is obviously an unacceptable solution. Instead, we're forging ahead with a new system that will offer a better solution for more people than either the old CMx1 and the present CM:SF systems. And yes, some people will bitch about that one too since some people will bitch about anything we do (even the type face for the manual... mark my words it will happen ).

Obviously, anybody with a half functioning brain would know we're interested in finding a system that has the broadest support possible. I'm not sure why some are actually hostile to that notion. Because sometimes when we innovate we don't get it quite right? It's bound to happen, as it did with CMBO, CMBB, and even CMAK. Reactionary thinking that would have kept us going with 2D, CRT based games with IGOYOUGO gameplay is obviously not a very credible line of argument.

How do the mega-tile concept and the strat AI planing go together?!

We have solutions to this issue and some other related ones. This is not the time or the place to reveal them.

PS: I know the decision has been made, but if I could choose between time being invested in improved editor functionality (flavor object manipulation!!) or in the mega-tile concept, I would choose the former.

I think most people would disagree quite strongly with this. Improvements to the Editor are planned, but the gameplay will always be our focus.

Like c3k I loved the "shopping" element. I loved knowing who I was playing and judging what to buy based on that, the thrill of outguessing someone then realising you've been out-guessed in turn.

Creating a balanced force and squeezing the last out of your points. Give up a 60mm mortar to get a 57 and another sniper? Oh, OK then.

This will be possible in the new system. It's inherent with the Cherry Picking concept. A single, static point system, however, is not necessary for such activity.

Leto;1150199']Well' date=' sounds like that is a love that can never be in the new CMN and relegated to the old CMx1 series.[/quote']

True, we're not going to go back to the old CMx1 system exactly as it was before. But the assumption is that a game feature can't be improved upon just because it's possible is rather detached from reality. We've all played games over the years that, at the time, we thought of as perfect. We sometimes think back on those games with great fondness. Then we find some way, via an emulator or a found dusty disk somewhere, these old games and play them for a while. I doubt the first thing that goes through someone's mind after doing that is "gee, I think I'll stop buying new games because there will never be something this good again". Instead, I think most people play these older games and think "ah, I remember why I loved this game. Now I also remember why I still don't play it".

I disagree. It will only cause more problems and it won't address the fundamental issues with a singular point system. Remember, the CMx1 points were derived scientifically and then massaged a little bit. I doubt anybody would come up with a set of numbers that would be more acceptable.

Really... I thought people wanted to pick their own units, not obsess over a little set of numbers. I guess we should just release a spreadsheet with numbers instead of a game and charge people for that

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'm still staggered that Steve honestly thinks there were so much complaints about the CMx1 QBs and the points system that it warranted getting rid of it and replacing it with the deeply flawed CMSF QBs.

Obviously we listened to our critics too seriously. Which is yet another reason to resist the complaints of a vocal minority. We're correcting that problem without actually repeating the mistakes of the first system.

So there can be no misunderstanding about this, I thought the CMx1 QBs were fun and versatile. But CMSF QBs is just near enough unfit for purpose as not to matter. Problems selecting the map you want, inability to get the force type you want and ridiculous force mismatches made them a gigantic unfun waste of time. Can't remember ever hearing a good word about it. And somehow this is still the basis of the system BFC want to continue forward with?

Who said that? Certainly not I. I said the old CMx1 system would be the basis for going forward. However, we're not interested in repeating it verbatim. There are some good concepts in the current system that, as implemented, aren't working as well as we wanted them to. We could certainly fix them, however that wouldn't get the Cherry Picking stuff back into to the game. Since that's what people appear to want back in, spending time fixing the current system is pointless.

Put another way, the things that don't work quite right in the current system are fixable. Relatively easily too. If people didn't care about Cherry Picking they would have been a long time ago.

They experiment to find the right mix of the various arms (infantry, armor, indirect fires). If that isn't resembling a real military's dilemmas I don't know.

I am always shocked when I see this argument coming up because it's such nonsense. No low level commander picks his own forces. It just does NOT happen. And when he does get some input it's highly restrictive because the choices available are quite limited. Because such a notion is so utterly without grounding in reality the QB system as it was in CMx1 was nothing but a 100% gamey feature with zero inherent relation to the real world. No need to try and tart it up into something it never was and never will be. Just call it for what it was... fun but not realistic. We can handle that

Steve

[JonS]

I am always shocked when I see this argument coming up because it's such nonsense. No low level commander picks his own forces. It just does NOT happen.

Not out in the real world, where real people with real bullets and are trying to kill you, no.

Then again, CMSF isn't that real world. (Also, it looks suspiciously like you selectively quoted Redwolf in order to make his comment looked dopey )

However, I have seen higher level commanders pick and choose force elements either as a matter of necessity, or because they're interested to see what works and what doesn't. I've seen it used as part of the force development process - "do we need four rifle companies in the battlaion, or witll three be sufficient?" "what happens if I remove the mortars?" "how about if I have twice as many mortars?" "what if ... ?" "what if ... ?" "what if ... ?" "what if ... ?"

I don't understand what is wrong with "what if" :confused:

[akd]

I am always shocked when I see this argument coming up because it's such nonsense. No low level commander picks his own forces. It just does NOT happen. And when he does get some input it's highly restrictive because the choices available are quite limited. Because such a notion is so utterly without grounding in reality the QB system as it was in CMx1 was nothing but a 100% gamey feature with zero inherent relation to the real world. No need to try and tart it up into something it never was and never will be. Just call it for what it was... fun but not realistic. We can handle that

Steve

So the system simulates a higher commander picking the player's forces for him...but also simulates that higher commander as a unbalanced chimpanzee with a paper OOB, a dart and an inability to conceive of attachments or ad hoc unit organization.

Now stiffen that upper lip and get to clearing that town with the 5(!) men in your sniper platoon!

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, but I didn't try to justify the current implementation of the QB system by saying it is realistic In its present form it ranges from realistic to wildly unrealistic. Which is why the existing system is going to be chucked.

What I think most people here seem to miss is that the current QB system and the old CMx1 system suffer from the same problem. And that is forces aren't valued in a way which is directly relevant to the battle you are supposed to fight against the perceived enemy which is opposing you. Both systems also have more wildly "wrong" picks for smaller battles than larger ones, which makes sense since the margin for error is smaller.

In AKD's example (if it were real life) you might very well find yourself with a Sniper Platoon in the path of an enemy Mech Infantry Company. But in that case you, as commander of the Sniper Platoon, would likely withdraw it instead of asking the impossible of it. In game terms this means the battle wouldn't happen, or if it did the battle would consist of firing a few shots and getting "off map" ASAP. Or calling in massive air and artillery strikes

The new system, as designed (but not implemented yet), uses the same weighting system for both the Cherry Picking and Formation Picking approaches. And that is having values placed on units which are based to some extent on the battle being fought.

A Sniper Platoon, for example, might have a very high value due to its rarity and speciality compared to a dismounted Rifle Platoon. In CMx1 you'd never purchase a Sniper Platoon because the "bang for the buck" sucked. But you might have got it via the Auto Purchase function because to the picking system it seems as good a pick as anything else for a similar price. CMx2 has a similar problem, though we do have flags set to make some things more or less likely to be purchased based on relative utility. In other words, you might get the Sniper Platoon instead of the Rifle Platoon in CMx1 and CMx2, but the chances of that happening in CMx2 are less for that one particular formation. However, there are a LOT of wacky formations in CMx2 and that means even a low chance for any one pick means overall a good chance of getting something specialized instead of generalized.

By having a system which values units largely on key battle settings the Force Picking becomes much, much better. Cherry Picking also improves because we can have things like Shermans going up against an all infantry defender costing more than they would cost when going up against an armored force on the attack. In both cases you can still Cherry Pick your units, and select Shermans, however the balance of Shermans in the battle will be different depending on the circumstances. Incidentally this allows you to Cherry Pick a full platoon of King Tigers instead of only being able to afford one, however your opponent will likely be able to buy more things to counter that large a threat.

In the end we should wind up with a system which is far better than both systems you've had to play with so far. And if it isn't perfect out of the starting gate, it is much more adaptable to suggestions than the earlier systems were. CMx1's QB system didn't change much in 5 years mostly because it wasn't capable of change. CMx2's system is more open to change, but without Cherry Picking it's not really worth improving.

A single point value, no matter how carefully chosen, will result in unsatisfactory options. It was true for CMx1 and it is true for CMx2 (though the latter is a little bit different than CMx1).

Steve

[Redwolf]

For my own education I like to modify the ratio of the various arms. I just like the "oh this worked, ups this one didn't".

And I think it is what wargaming is about.

And I'm not alone in it. There are many games, including wargames, including CMx1, that have it and people love it.

So when's the kicking and screaming gonna stop?