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

[Battlefront.com]

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".

Sure, I don't have any problem with that. I just have a problem when someone, in this case you, say that this is realistic. It absolutely isn't. The sort of things people do with CMx1 Cherry Picking did not even happen on training grounds against simulated enemy forces.

And I think it is what wargaming is about.

It can be. It can also be experiencing history through an alternative to books. Getting a feel for what really went on in the wars you read about, both in terms of tactics and weapons performances. Swarming an enemy with a dozen vehicles of different types, after conducting recon with a suicide Jeep, might be fun... but it sure doesn't achieve getting a feel for real WWII tactics

The great thing is that CM, of all flavors, allows people to play for either major reason. Either for the bulk of their CM gaming or just occasionally. The one thing CM:SF doesn't do, which is obviously what people are asking for, is the ability to have more control over a particular type of play ("gamey" experience) in a particular form (QBs). Obviously in the Editor you can create all kinds of goofy unit mixes, but that's not what QB players are after and we definitely understand that. Which is why we're changing that for CM: Normandy.

So when's the kicking and screaming gonna stop?

From you customers? Never If you meant from us, we're not kicking and screaming at all. We've said for nearly 2 years now that we're going to redo the QB system to be more like CMx1's system. You'll get your Cherry Picking in Normandy.

Steve

[silverstars]

I just wanted to mention a few things as to why I posted this question.

For starters, I am not in the market of saying that the new QB system will suck unless it is exactly like the old QB system in CMx1. I have faith that Battlefront will come up with something that will have the detailed unit selection and if it also keeps forces looking completely ridiculous from a historical standpoint, wonderful. If I can at least select units down to the platoon level, I would be happy.

My chief thing was getting the new QB system for CMN into CMSF. I know Battlefront's policy is that once they move forward, there is no looking back. And when all I invested was 50$ for a game that gave me just about all I needed, that was fine in my book. But now that I have sunk..let's see....50$ for main game + 25$ for Marines + 25$ Brits = 100$, which doesn't count the NATO pack which I will of course ravenously devour, or the fact I have bought multiple copies of said game to give to friends for me to fight with (and get them addicted to my drug of choice). So needless to say after spending that amount of money for this game I wouldn't mind paying a little more to get this one feature so that I can keep playing this rather large investment for a little while longer(i.e., until CMSF 2).

And I have been around this series long enough to remember the problems with the original system and the arguements thereof, which did have some merit. Nothing is quite as embarrassing as to pick out a well balanced german force using my extensive experience with the game and history and have that force decimated by a force comprising of only FOs of 150mm Kytushkas, picked by the guy who is just playing the game that night.

But I will also say that the same individual I played with that evening just played a CMSF QB with me the other day, and stated, "Oh man, I wish they still had that pick your own units setup." So there is something to be said for the old cherry picking in that regard.

But as I said, if Battlefront can give us a QB where I can at least get a selection of men down at the platoon level, and maybe throw in something that gives me more of a heads up as to what the map will look like before I start making choices (a preview screen for the map would be wonderful) I will be quite content.

[Thomm]

From what I have seen so far, the only problem with the current system (in my very limited view) is that you get whole support weapons platoons (and nothing else, in small battles) instead of basic infantry plus one or two heavy weapons.

Can this not be coded around?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Redwolf]

Well, kicking and screaming would be more fun if we would have more specific information as to how exactly the new cherry-picking will work

We know it will not be price-based, which certainly make some people's knees and vocal chords itch.

What exactly are we get to pick under what criteria?

[[hirr]Leto]

Wow, the old 'don't insult your own intelligence' line.

Somehow I feel that this is an insult all unto itself.

It's funny how when you analyze debates, you find a pattern in where negative connotations are attached to key issues that completely aggrandize their actually meaning.

Some call it gamey and "cherry picking", where I use adjectives like fun and 'preference for play'. All arguments about reality aside: CMx1 kit picking in QB's is so popular that it is the chief attribute that allows the game to survive to this day (and dare I say 'thrive'). I would think that would have 'value' to a gaming company.

I guess we will just have to wait and see, or go back to a 10 year old product.

Cheers!

Leto

[Fūrinkazan]

Could it be possible that we may have incomplete forces ?

For exemple, a company with missing vehicules or platoons, or squads with some missing men.

I would also like to have more choice like on the editor :

The hour of the battle

The state of the troops (tired, motivation etc...)

I think that the fact that we will have more choice, and especially the choice of the map is already a great advance.

I really loved the fact that in CMX1 we could have very different troops (green, veteran) and sometimes not always what we wanted. Even if you had taken veteran company, they were sometimes green or elite squads.

This, i think, made more interesting battles.

[Battlefront.com]

From what I have seen so far, the only problem with the current system (in my very limited view) is that you get whole support weapons platoons (and nothing else, in small battles) instead of basic infantry plus one or two heavy weapons.

Can this not be coded around?

Sure, and it will be with the new system. It's just not worth investing the time to recoding the existing code since it is going to be chucked.

Well, kicking and screaming would be more fun if we would have more specific information as to how exactly the new cherry-picking will work

You will, but it's not the right time to talk about it. Soon, though, I'll be presenting the details. Before coding starts.

We know it will not be price-based, which certainly make some people's knees and vocal chords itch.

Sure. I understand that. We had all kinds of itchy vocal chords and jerking knees when Charles announced that what became Combat Mission was going to be 3D instead of 2D. Although the current QB system is indeed a disappointment to many, when one takes an honest look at how many of our attempts at breaking new ground resulted in success I can't see any rational reason to doubt our abilities. We're not perfect, for sure, but had we put people with itchy knees and vocal chords in charge we'd have a game that looks very similar to games from 15 years ago.

Leto;1150390']Wow, the old 'don't insult your own intelligence' line.

Somehow I feel that this is an insult all unto itself.

At some point people have to just accept certain realities for the sake of not distracting a discussion. When talking about how the solar system we live in works, is it productive to have someone constantly saying that the Earth is the center and everything revolves around it? I honestly don't think so. I don't see why we should have to constantly have to deal with people with similar trains of thought here.

It's funny how when you analyze debates, you find a pattern in where negative connotations are attached to key issues that completely aggrandize their actually meaning.

Debates must be boiled down to component pieces or there's absolutely nothing positive that can come from them. We can't have infinite amounts of subtlety when trying to make decisions. Real life doesn't work that way and game design certainly doesn't.

Some call it gamey and "cherry picking", where I use adjectives like fun and 'preference for play'.

Cherry Picking isn't a neutral term in my eyes. It is an established, apt description for a particular action which was present in CMx1 by design and was not put into CMx2 by design. The label itself is irrelevant.

All arguments about reality aside: CMx1 kit picking in QB's is so popular that it is the chief attribute that allows the game to survive to this day (and dare I say 'thrive'). I would think that would have 'value' to a gaming company.

It has very little value to us, actually. The only value to us is if a person buys our games and then, later, buys some more. How long someone plays the game after they buy it matters very little to us from a business perspective. In fact, it can actually be an indication that we've under valued our work and are in fact harming ourselves.

That being said, we do see a value in making our customers happy. Clearly having Cherry Picking would make a significant number happy and therefore it is being included. It doesn't have to be exactly one design or another, rather it has to deliver a certain quality to the overall game experience.

I guess we will just have to wait and see, or go back to a 10 year old product.

The few people that would choose to go back to a 10 year old game for this one feature is likely so small that for us this isn't even a remote concern

Steve

[hcrof]

From Steves comments so far I would guess that the new QB system will offer ready built formations to the player, perhaps with a limited choice of attachments.

So for example you could take a mech infantry formation with a core of a Mech infantry coy (+artillery/engineers/tank plt) or you could take a tank formation with 2 plt tanks (+infantry/artillery/scouts). The 'template' force would enforce balence, taking points out of the system.

This would solve the gamey OOB's while allowing a player to customise forces to a certain extent. Creating 'battlegroups' or suchlike. IMO of course

[pad152]

Ok, Battlefront has made is clear they are not going to fix/improve the Quick Battle system in Shock Force.

What good does the new QB system in the next CM2 game going to do for existing Shock Force users?

[Redwolf]

From Steves comments so far I would guess that the new QB system will offer ready built formations to the player, perhaps with a limited choice of attachments.

So for example you could take a mech infantry formation with a core of a Mech infantry coy (+artillery/engineers/tank plt) or you could take a tank formation with 2 plt tanks (+infantry/artillery/scouts). The 'template' force would enforce balence, taking points out of the system.

This would solve the gamey OOB's while allowing a player to customise forces to a certain extent. Creating 'battlegroups' or suchlike. IMO of course

I really don't think that this will lead to so much more realistic attack formations in the messier times of WW2.

This isn't the U.S. overrolling Iraq in 2003.

%%

In 1944 the forces arriving on a CM size map to attack an unknown defender will actually be more likely to be a mix of various units than just a single unit. At the very least American and British attackers will have all kinds of attached units, and often less than full units. Single vehicles. Totally random parts of heavy weapon units from higher echelons.

For the defender it is even more so. The defenders present on a CM size map in Normandy will have a core from one real unit, true. But there will be large parts missing, and there will be all kind of random stragglers they picked up fighting along with them, and so that the whole thing doesn't collapse within 5 minutes they will have random reinforcements. Platoons, single vehicles, pairs of guns, that kind of thing.

%%

I argue that in Normandy and in the Bulge a cherry-picking system with rarity will on average be no less realistic than restricting the player that be must play with just this one unit.

Restricting us from cherry-picking is just stupid. It serves no purpose and it prevents us from doing selection programs on our own (because we can't exactly pick what the external program picked).

Nobody is saying that BFC should sit down figure out prices. But single vehicles and platoons cherry-picked? The only reason not to allow that is stubbornness.

[c3k]

Hmmm, a VAST amount of the pleasure I enjoyed while playing CMx1 revolved around QB's. I highly valued the ability to pick any force I wanted. As much as I valued having my opponent do the same. Sometimes it led to totally one-sided actions. Hey, that was fun, but we usually just restarted. A techie version of rock, paper, scissors.

Limiting choices to parent formations and subordinated attachments would remove that element of joy.

My .02

Ken

[Stingray]

Hmmm, a VAST amount of the pleasure I enjoyed while playing CMx1 revolved around QB's. I highly valued the ability to pick any force I wanted. As much as I valued having my opponent do the same. Sometimes it led to totally one-sided actions. Hey, that was fun, but we usually just restarted. A techie version of rock, paper, scissors.

Limiting choices to parent formations and subordinated attachments would remove that element of joy.

My .02

Ken

Amen Brother Ken !! Them are my exact sentiments.

Stingray

[Some-Guy]

For some reason my Croy account was banned forever from posting, with no reason specified.. Even though I have never posted anything.. Odd.

Back on topic..

My friend and I found your company back when CMBO was new. We both loved your games and both purchased all of the CMx1 games. When CMSF came out it was a "no-brainer" for us to purchase it due to our great history thus far.

The ONLY way my friend and I played CMx1 games was via Quick Battles and picking our forces (first via PBEM until TCP/IP was added-Which was awesome.. thank you much). We would be on the phone and decide on general parameters. Then we would both pick our forces and play out the battle.

In both of our opinions this was one of the best times we had playing h2h in any network game, in the last decade, ever.... We played 1,000's of games against each other, night after night, for years.

We never played scenarios and never played the campaign. I still have never started any campaign for any CMx1 game and only played a few scenarios. To this day my primary source of fun from all my CMx1 games comes from QBs and "cherry-picking" my units.

We both were very let down when we found out how the CMSF QB system worked and shelved the game. I do play some CMSF and think it is an awesome game.. But it does not have the multiplayer appeal that the previous games did. A big part of the fun is finding out what your opponent picked compared to what you selected for the random terrain and general objectives and trying to win with it.

In short... Both my friend and I would like to see the return of cherry-picking in CMSF and its add-ons.

edit: note to me.. CMSF not CMFS

[Some-Guy]

One other point...

Deciding between the following for a given Quick Battle:

2 Companies of Volksgrenadiers

VS

1 Company of Fallschirmjager

VS

1 Platoon of Panzergrenadiers mounted in Sd Kfz 251s

Is a fun game unto itself for some of us..

[Redwolf]

Sometimes it led to totally one-sided actions. Hey, that was fun, but we usually just restarted. A techie version of rock, paper, scissors.

But you see, that's the thing. Pretty much all the time, even the most hardcore quickbattler did not want rock, paper, scissor. Extensive rule systems were made up, and those were in addition to CMx1's integrated arms limit (artillery, armor, infantry etc.).

Rarity as in CMx1 was also such as moderator, although a failed one as people found it not right-valued and made up their own rules.

If CMx2 would allows us to "pick" forces by importing a file that a website could write (as I indicated in earlier posts), then all this rubbish falls into the hands of people who write quickbattle force selection mechanism.

All those Fionn rules, rarity, my own CMBB ruleset, all this wouldn't be hardcoded in the game - because it doesn't have to.

All that it takes is that Steve lets us pick individual units, and preferably so using an import file. But even if not, the selection made on the website would be clicked together in the unlimited game selection screen quickly enough. After all, people usually picked their forces 10 times over.

[panzermartin]

Oh, lets not forget the ability to use custom maps in QBs. another excellent feature that was dropped in CMSF. I recognise the big effort put in CMSF QB maps but I find them a bit plain for my taste. I wish I could use some detailed maps from scenarios, strip them from units and insert them in a QB.

With the lack of map generators this one screams for inclusion in CM normandy.

[[hirr]Leto]

I suspect that the more you say that you want certain kit picking features in CMx2, the less chance (of near zero already) are you going to get it, especially a point system, which there seems to be a certain bias against on economic and philosophical grounds.

The horse is on the ground and you are all wearing out your boot toe here. As I've said before, we will just have to wait and see if the new system works. But if it does not allow for competitive play in QB's and a "game within a game" feature that is trying to pick a better kit than your opponent, then don't buy the game (which BFC assumes you will anyways, because they have the market cornered in this niche).

Cheers!

Leto

[MarkEzra]

I wish I could use some detailed maps from scenarios, strip them from units and insert them in a QB.

But you can. Any Scen map can be placed in the QB file and you don't need to strip out the units. But you will want to review the setup and pathing orders for Group #1 to insure it is large enough for map/unit size anticipated.

A word on Highly detailed QB Maps:

The only problem of highly detailed maps generally is the AI may make odd movement decisions to get through the narrow, twisting, obstructive wall filled little beauty of a village you've created. While no real problem in a scen map...it's precise Units and multi-group/setup/pathing give the AI all the info it needs....QB Maps are, by nature, Generic. It is necessary to keep setup and pathing orders clear and simple so the AI can move any unit combination that comes along. I do not foresee this basic fact changing with Normandy.

By the way: I take no offense about the QB Maps being plain... even though I worked my fingers to the bone adding flavor and color everywhere I could for V1.20...Sob....

[panzermartin]

But you can. Any Scen map can be placed in the QB file and you don't need to strip out the units. But you will want to review the setup and pathing orders for Group #1 to insure it is large enough for map/unit size anticipated.

A word on Highly detailed QB Maps:

The only problem of highly detailed maps generally is the AI may make odd movement decisions to get through the narrow, twisting, obstructive wall filled little beauty of a village you've created. While no real problem in a scen map...it's precise Units and multi-group/setup/pathing give the AI all the info it needs....QB Maps are, by nature, Generic. It is necessary to keep setup and pathing orders clear and simple so the AI can move any unit combination that comes along. I do not foresee this basic fact changing with Normandy.

By the way: I take no offense about the QB Maps being plain... even though I worked my fingers to the bone adding flavor and color everywhere I could for V1.20...Sob....

Yes I know about that but it would be still nice to pick a specific map you want to play your specific selection of units (well at least specific for CM:Normandy that is )

The number of QB maps is huge and its understandable its a quantity vs quality issue and I think its all volunteer work isnt it? I want to thank you for the hard work really, it is just that I am a bit picky about map quality, really hard to match my obsession with rolling hills, canyons, ditches and detailed villages

Map creators should get some % per sold product, since a well thought map can make the game look and play miles better but not everyone wants to spend dozens of hours to make one.

Now that I think of it, a "map competition" with a kind of prize or something would be good for the game. It would be easy to make a pack of 20-30 quality maps that way.

[hcrof]

Now that I think of it, a "map competition" with a kind of prize or something would be good for the game. It would be easy to make a pack of 20-30 quality maps that way.

I like that idea - I would certainly enter one should it be announced!

[Some-Guy]

Leto;1150565']I suspect that the more you say that you want certain kit picking features in CMx2, the less chance (of near zero already) are you going to get it, especially a point system, which there seems to be a certain bias against on economic and philosophical grounds.

The horse is on the ground and you are all wearing out your boot toe here. As I've said before, we will just have to wait and see if the new system works. But if it does not allow for competitive play in QB's and a "game within a game" feature that is trying to pick a better kit than your opponent, then don't buy the game (which BFC assumes you will anyways, because they have the market cornered in this niche).

Cheers!

Leto

The way I see it is that if you are against a feature then do not use it.

As it is now, the QB function is somewhat poor. 7/10 games need to be scrapped as a company of TOW humvees would not be a logical choice to assault a village full of infantry. Nor is it very fun to play in my opinion.

The QB system in CMx1 was superior for some and it is a shame it was removed as an option in CMSF. If Battlefront had replaced it with something better then this conversation would probably not exist. Unfortunately they replaced it with something that some believe is poor and which does not seem to satisify both the pro and anit-cp crowds since the results are so random and, at times, illogical.

On a side note, I have lurked these forums since the beginning and I read all of the anti-cp posts back in the day.. I do understand why BF changed it. What I wish they would have done was give you the option to either CP or have the system select the forces for each QB instead of just the latter.

We may be kicking a dead horse.. But the corpse is still blocking the road.

[Redwolf]

All that it takes is BFC not getting out of their way to damage external "shopping systems". If they don't want to import selection files, fine. All we need is the ability to pick individual items (let's say like in CMx1, individual vehicles, infantry platoons and individual special/heavy teams).

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

All we need is the ability to pick individual items (let's say like in CMx1, individual vehicles, infantry platoons and individual special/heavy teams).

Which is what Cherry Picking is, IMHO. And since I've said for almost 2 years now that you're going to get Cherry Picking, much like you had in CMx1, that's what you're going to get. What you aren't going to get is a singular, non wavering (or slightly adjusted for rarity) point system. The two things are actually different things. One is the ability and one is the method. I've said you're going to get the ability, but I've so far only lightly discussed the method. What I have said, thus far, is what method the game won't have. And yes, I have my reasons for not being specific about the method right this very second. It's for your own good too.

So let me be PAINFULLY clear yet again:

You will be allowed to specify which Units you take into a battle. And by Units I mean individual elements, not Formations which are predetermined collections of specific Units. You will, however, be able to pick Formations if you want. The current game system only supports Formation picking, and by the game and not the user (obviously).

So the horse is only dead because I've already said a billion times that you're going to get the CMx1 functionality you're asking for, even though the methodology won't be exactly the same.

Steve

[Redwolf]

But, but, what I am supposed to be complaining about then?

Seriously, I think this message must have been packed in larger doses of "even though the methodology won't be exactly the same". I don't think I'm alone in not realizing single item pick for CMx2:WW2 quickbattles will be there. Anyway, sorry.

Is there any chance for an import feature so that a shopping system can write something to disk that the game picks up?

[Some-Guy]

Redwolf,

Which is what Cherry Picking is, IMHO. And since I've said for almost 2 years now that you're going to get Cherry Picking, much like you had in CMx1, that's what you're going to get. What you aren't going to get is a singular, non wavering (or slightly adjusted for rarity) point system. The two things are actually different things. One is the ability and one is the method. I've said you're going to get the ability, but I've so far only lightly discussed the method. What I have said, thus far, is what method the game won't have. And yes, I have my reasons for not being specific about the method right this very second. It's for your own good too.

So let me be PAINFULLY clear yet again:

You will be allowed to specify which Units you take into a battle. And by Units I mean individual elements, not Formations which are predetermined collections of specific Units. You will, however, be able to pick Formations if you want. The current game system only supports Formation picking, and by the game and not the user (obviously).

So the horse is only dead because I've already said a billion times that you're going to get the CMx1 functionality you're asking for, even though the methodology won't be exactly the same.

Steve

Well that would somewhat solve all of my issues for CMSF. Would this be something where both players can select their units independently before the battle, but after they are connected.. Similar to the CMx1 interface?

Also, is there a time frame at all or just... "When it is done"?

Thank you for the clarification and taking the time to communicate with us.