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

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, the thing is, we currently have trench terrain tiles in CMSF that are basically ditches. Both visually and functionally they are quite like ditches. The CMSF trenches are in fact very un-trench-like.

Ofcourse, that type of trench may not have survived the transition to LOS applicable fortifications. But scenario designers have been using them widely as ditches so I can't imagine they've not been brought forward in to CM:N in some fashion.

About random immobilisations: in CMSF it is entirely possible to manoeuvre vehicles over trenches in such a way that they can get stuck. Nothing random, they just get wedged in such a fashion they can't move.

Haven't had it happen to me in ages though. I hope that's because I stopped farting about with wheeled vehicles near trenches.

Not that I have too much trouble with random immobilizations. Sometimes tracks break without immediately obvious causation, that grassy field is wetter then you first thought, or something that should go *whirrrr* goes *CLUNK* instead. And then there you are, immobilized at the most inconvenient place possible. It happens.

[Paul AU]

Both visually and functionally they are quite like ditches. The CMSF trenches are in fact very un-trench-like.

I agree. But I'm thinking, for Europe, sharp, narrow (wall-like, in Cmx1 terms), ditches that require a 'crawl' or ('slow') to be 'in'.

Ofcourse, that type of trench may not have survived the transition to LOS applicable fortifications. But scenario designers have been using them widely as ditches so I can't imagine they've not been brought forward in to CM:N in some fashion.

I don't want a big fat 3 metre-wide 'trench'. That's the point.

About random immobilisations:... no, my complaint is system-wide. In small games, random immobilisation decides the game. There should be a toggle to prevent that.

And then there you are, immobilized at the most inconvenient place possible.**** happens.

Well... I could go on about that....

[c3k]

Of course, tanks are designed specifically to go OVER trenches. That would be a must-have. Then, to counter the tanks, we'd need specific anti-tank ditches.

Ken

[flamingknives]

Ah, back to the illusion of control.

[Thomm]

Of course, tanks are designed specifically to go OVER trenches. That would be a must-have.

You made me run a test ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Lampshade111]

I would KILL for a "cherry-picking" system like in the old Combat Missions. I am sick of setting up a mission just to get a battery of stationary TOW launchers and heavy machine guns which are supposed to somehow go on the offensive. Or when I ask for infantry and get nothing but scout HMMWVs.

[c3k]

Thomm,

Glad to be of service! (Of note, in one of the books I'm currently reading, there are multiple eyewitness accounts of WWI infantry leaping across trenches, despite over 60 pounds of gear in their rucks. A tight, narrow trench is a good trench.)

Regards,

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

More than 2 dozen testers have all seen the design and given the feature set an enthusiastic thumbs up, with one exception; the interaction with the budget system. The issues weren't a surprise to me, thankfully, but it did take a good rethink on how to fix the particular issues, which I have done. I haven't had time to write it up for them yet, but for sure it fixes the issues they raised. It's all pretty straight forward stuff.

Overall the QB system's goals were pretty easy to satisfy from the end user's standpoint. The trick was figuring out how to do certain things behind the scenes. The resulting system has 100% of the functionality of CMx1's QBs while still satisfying the organizational/C2 requirements of CMx2 and adding features that give the player even MORE options. Not to mention improvements to fix at least two *MAJOR* sources of complaint from the CMx1 system. As I've been saying for 2.5 years now... we have zero interest in simply redoing what has already been done because it's the lazy way forward. Never have been interested in sitting still, never will

I'll post some details soon.

Mañana, Steve?

[futon river crossing]

I think "soon" has a similar meaning to "it'll be ready by christmas"

[Pvt. Ryan]

Soon +1 = Later

[stoex]

I'll post some details soon.

Considering Steve's stellar patience with certain moderately rational and polite forum members, Charles' universal programming skills, the astronomical amount of unpaid effort being put into BFC's games by the Beta Testing Squad (twirling, nay, orbiting pom-poms is no laughing matter for sure), and the supermassive black holes of depression some people here seem to be falling into as they bide their time until the release of CM:Normandy, we may have to consider such timeframes on a more...cosmological level.

From that point of view, after all, 'soon' could be anything up to, oh, say a hundred million years or so . Everything is relative, you know!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

March kinda snuck up on me. Hence I was prompted by my own amazement to ask where the details on the QB system were, given that they were to be divulged to us "soon" back in August.

I should have known that game developers believe that anything between now and the heat death of the universe falls under "soon".

[BDW]

I'm eagerly awaiting the details here, too. Sounds like the new QB system is what it should have been to begin with. Third time's a charm, hopefully! One thing BF does really well is try new ideas and re-evaluate things, which will likely means they'll be around for a long time to come.

[MikeyD]

Funny, I'm reading all of this yearning for CMSF cherry picking, but nobody's posted to say "I opened a QB map in the editor, placed EXACTLY the units I wanted, closed, and played it as a scenario." That's as close as you'll ever get to cherry picking in this title but apparently nobody's bothered trying it.

I'm reminded of of my old kit hobby days when everybody's favorite tank was "the one they haven't provided yet". T55, Cromwell, Centurion - those were the tanks everyone yearned for most... until they became available. Y'know, there's not much at all standing in the way of your dreamed-of sniper duel scenario, or T90s versus MGS, or whatever cherry-picked units you yearn for. All you have to do is open the editor and make it happen. 5 minutes work.

[Battlefront.com]

Wait a sec... it's March? Wow. That would explain a lot

Steve

[Bolteg]

Funny, I'm reading all of this yearning for CMSF cherry picking, but nobody's posted to say "I opened a QB map in the editor, placed EXACTLY the units I wanted, closed, and played it as a scenario." That's as close as you'll ever get to cherry picking in this title but apparently nobody's bothered trying it.

I'm reminded of of my old kit hobby days when everybody's favorite tank was "the one they haven't provided yet". T55, Cromwell, Centurion - those were the tanks everyone yearned for most... until they became available. Y'know, there's not much at all standing in the way of your dreamed-of sniper duel scenario, or T90s versus MGS, or whatever cherry-picked units you yearn for. All you have to do is open the editor and make it happen. 5 minutes work.

I never play QB against AI. In CMBB, more than half of the games I've played were QB, against the other player, the others were scenarios.

In CMBB, we need to decide how many points each of us will have and then pick our forces. Now, you're suggesting that in CMSF I should open a map with editor, place some units with no restrictions (as there's no points in the game), pass the modified map to the other player, who needs to open it with the editor and add his troops with no restrictions. The only limit is his and my honesty. He can have a look at my forces if he's not very fair and I won't know about it. This, and the fact that there's no points, make QB PBEM battles worthless.

As it is now, we have to search for good H2h scenarios (which are quite rare, because Blue forces usually still have the advantage) if we want to play a battle, I've never played QB against human and I probably won't ever play it.

[Thomm]

All you have to do is open the editor and make it happen. 5 minutes work.

Picking a specific unit in CM:SF comes with a lot of baggage.

Of course, if one has the OOB and the TOE memorized, and knows how to get rid of HQ units, then it becomes easy.

I still don't like it.

Best regards,

Thomm

[C'Rogers]

"I opened a QB map in the editor, placed EXACTLY the units I wanted, closed, and played it as a scenario."

This is exactly how I play, but it is no where near as quick as QBs where. There is also Bolteg's issue.

I never play QB against AI. In CMBB, more than half of the games I've played were QB, against the other player, the others were scenarios.

I'm probably at about 99% of my games where versus a live opponent instead of the AI.

Here is what I and my friends did for CM:SF. One player designs the scenario, the other player chooses which side he gets. Is it as good as QBs, no. But it is a decent work around.

[LongLeftFlank]

Wait a sec... it's March? Wow. That would explain a lot

Steve

But Rip.... did you notice what year? A black man is President, Toyota cars are being recalled en masse. And Team Canada has won gold in hockey!

Of course America still lacks civilized health care.

[eniced73]

Force Adjustment – allows playing an unbalanced QB. If set to

the default “no change”, both sides will be roughly equally strong

based on abstract “purchase points”. The options allow you to

give the Blue Force an extra 150% of units, or to deduct 60%

from the Blue pool.---from page 35 of the manual

Abstract Purchase Point? Forgive me if this has already been discussed to death but it sounds like they already have some kind of point system that calculates the forces on each side. Why not release it so people could play QB's as in CM? Yeah I know there is the honesty issue but all most of us want is a good game. I dont think many here give two ****s about being first on a ladder or say "hey, look at my shock force record. I am 60 and 0". No one wants to go through all of the units and try to assign points to each so if this would help we should ask for it.

[Secondbrooks]

Funny, I'm reading all of this yearning for CMSF cherry picking, but nobody's posted to say "I opened a QB map in the editor, placed EXACTLY the units I wanted, closed, and played it as a scenario." That's as close as you'll ever get to cherry picking in this title but apparently nobody's bothered trying it.

Usually it serves as a good slap against my face, and not in positive sense.

Why? Because i (again) remember how badly whole QB-system works, seeing AI plans and remembering how whole system works. This all is there right in front of my eyes even before i'm actually start playing the QB. After which there's only one thing for me to do: Quit CMSF.

If i just fire QB without running it thru mission editor this saddening fact strikes me usually just after i've finished Setup-phase... And once i've got this far it doesn't hurt to finish the QB.