Purchase and QB Bone

[Chad Harrison]

When I did my first pbms it felt a little 'gamey' that much of the battle could be won in the buying screen.

I just want to second what was said above: that was the whole point - atleast for competitive play and atleast for me. You were playing two games really: purchacing an effective force and playing that force. For me that was a lot of the appeal to the old system in CMx1. After this bone, as long as all these features get in, it will be even better than CMx1. No doubts.

[Battlefront.com]

I like the sound of the new system. When I did my first pbms it felt a little 'gamey' that much of the battle could be won in the buying screen. Not that this is necessarily bad, just not what I played for. Sooon learnt to counter those svine smg platoons in close terrain though, yah!

Yup. That was either a pro or a con of the old CMx1 system, depending on play style. Optimizing unit purchases, without caring about historical factors, can only be classified as "gamey". In other words, playing the game for standard game outcomes (i.e winning or losing). Those who wanted to play within a historical context, however, generally find the CMx1 QB system unappealing. That's not because they aren't interested in winning or losing, but rather they care MORE about how the game is played than the ultimate outcome.

Both player types have their points, both player types are "right" within their own context, and we enjoy having both player types as our customers. So there's nothing wrong with the CMx1 system in theory. In reality both types of players had their complaints, which boil down to:

Gamey players complained about various aspects of pricing.

Historical players complained about the lack of realistic force purchases.

The new system helps address both of these concerns. The new method for pricing units should alleviate/eliminate most of the balancing issues. The improved CM:SF type TO&E system presents forces in historically correct structures which can, of course, be altered if desired (or completely tossed aside).

I'm sure the new system isn't perfect. But as I've been saying now for more than 2 years... we have zero interest in spending a lot of time and energy recreating something we know to be inherently flawed before we even start coding. Better to learn from the mistakes and shortcomings of two systems to produce a better third system which moves us ahead instead of backwards.

Steve

[Chad Harrison]

Optimizing unit purchases, without caring about historical factors, can only be classified as "gamey".

While many would come out of the gate with 'gamey' OOB's, my formula for a good force was simple: as many vanilla US Rifle Companies as possible and a handful of vanilla 75mm Shermans. Sure the other player would have a Panther or two, but with that much infantry, you got them eventually.

Ha, that brings back memories of the interesting forces you would come across in those days of CM:BO. The Short 75 rules reduced these problems though.

[vincere]

That's called sound strategy, m'boy.

Michael

He he, yes it was more of an issue when during my first pbms. I think I fall into both groups of historical and pick what you like depending on my mood.

Elmar Bijlsma, well remembered, and people bitch about it and not just their enemies either.

[Battlefront.com]

I actually like both types of QBs as well. Like you Vincere, it comes down to what sort of mood I'm in. However, I have an advantage over most of the guys who want to play historically... I'm very well versed in the TO&E and tactical orders of battle. Most don't have a clue. So the old CMx1 system was too liberal, too chaotic for them.

Another type of player is sort of inbetween. This is the sort who says "I just want a well balanced force, but I don't know how to make one". Some of them tend to want to play historically. I've seen lots and lots of people over the years say things like "oh, I had no idea that Pumas were only used by a couple of armored units. I use them every time." and "I just want to have some tanks and infantry that is in balance, but I'm given too many choices so how the heck am I supposed to figure this out?"

The CM:SF system was designed too much for the historical and the type I just mentioned. On top of that it had definite shortcomings even within what it was supposed to do. If there wasn't such an outcry from the gamey lobby we could have fixed the CM:SF system to do what it was intended to do. But very quickly we figured out the system really needed to be completely redesigned, so that's exactly what we did. Now we feel it gives most people what they want most of the time instead of CMx1 being overly "gamey" and CM:SF being overly "historical".

Steve

[Thomm]

The CM:SF system was designed too much for the historical and the type I just mentioned. On top of that it had definite shortcomings even within what it was supposed to do. If there wasn't such an outcry from the gamey lobby we could have fixed the CM:SF system to do what it was intended to do.

Outcry from the gamey lobby?

Maybe (I am not going back to check!) but the problem with the CM:SF QB selection algorithm is that it allowed for ridiculous force compositions, especially the prevalence of support units as the primary force.

I fail to see how this cannot be fixed with a few extra flags in the TOE, along the lines of "do not use this kind of support platoon in tiny battles".

Of course this would still be inflexible, but at least it would be playable.

QBs in CM:SF can be great fun if, e.g., ordinary infantry units are fighting each other.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Blackcat]

Speaking as a member of a minority, can I just say that, whilst I am enjoying this discussion, the whole issue of purchasing units for quick battles is irrelevant unless we get TCIP WEGO (or something very similar back).

OK, OK, I said I was in a minority. There is no need to shout at me, I am not asking for anything to be taken away from anyone else; merely registerng a point of view.

[vincere]

Whats wrong with email Blackcat, or is it just a preference?

[Battlefront.com]

Outcry from the gamey lobby?

Maybe (I am not going back to check!) but the problem with the CM:SF QB selection algorithm is that it allowed for ridiculous force compositions, especially the prevalence of support units as the primary force.

No, those were the polite guys pointing out that there were problems with the execution of the system. I was speaking about the people who wanted us to be burned at the stake for not having "cherry picking" and points

If it were just a matter of getting the forces balanced right we could have done that without an entirely different QB system. It would have taken a lot of work, but the solutions were very straight forward.

The thing is we recognized very early on that even if we did make those changes that wouldn't address the gamey player's concerns.

I fail to see how this cannot be fixed with a few extra flags in the TOE, along the lines of "do not use this kind of support platoon in tiny battles".

Of course this would still be inflexible, but at least it would be playable.

We figured it would take about a month to fix the existing system. It isn't as simple as setting flags. Or I guess you can say it is, but "simple" is in the eye of the beholder. So we decided to write off the existing system and instead focus on other improvements until we could get to making a better QB system.

Speaking as a member of a minority, can I just say that, whilst I am enjoying this discussion, the whole issue of purchasing units for quick battles is irrelevant unless we get TCIP WEGO (or something very similar back).

OK, OK, I said I was in a minority. There is no need to shout at me, I am not asking for anything to be taken away from anyone else; merely registerng a point of view.

No need to shout at all I also want to give you what you want, but it's not going to happen right away. As you say this is a minority position. Important minority IMHO, but with so many demands being placed on us not everything we want to get done will get done for Normandy. or Bulge. or any other game we make. Sad reality to start off every project knowing you can only do a fraction of what you want, but that's the reality of game developers of all types

Steve

[Taki]

The So Great Relative Spotting didnt have so much influcence on the Outcome of the Battle in CMSF then i expected. Hope that gets better with CM:N

Making the Relative Spotting more Visible in a Logfile or something would be great. Some way to make it visible.

In CMSF a Stryker seen the Enemy and 5sec later the whole Borg knows the Position of the Enemy. Where is the diffrence to CMx1 there?

[Chad Harrison]

In CMSF a Stryker seen the Enemy and 5sec later the whole Borg knows the Position of the Enemy. Where is the diffrence to CMx1 there?

But wouldnt you expect that in modern combat with modern communication?

[YankeeDog]

In CMSF a Stryker seen the Enemy and 5sec later the whole Borg knows the Position of the Enemy.

Odd. My experience is contrary, at least when playing on the "high realism" settings. I've had a Stryker spot an enemy unit and take it under fire, while the friendly infantry sitting a few tens of meters away from the Stryker (with LOS to the enemy) fail to spot the same enemy for turns on end.

It is true, though, that all the advances comm equipment blue has makes a huge difference. Try playing as Red and see how long it takes enemy info to get from one infantry unit to another.

[Thomm]

In CMSF a Stryker seen the Enemy and 5sec later the whole Borg knows the Position of the Enemy. Where is the diffrence to CMx1 there?

The Borg do not start shooting at the question mark.

Best regards,

Thomm

[flamingknives]

I thought that relative spotting did have an effect. Certainly we don't have the yellow spider-web of doom on revealing weapons systems anymore.

[hoolaman]

If it were just a matter of getting the forces balanced right we could have done that without an entirely different QB system. It would have taken a lot of work, but the solutions were very straight forward.

I think choosing not to do this at any stage of CMSF's three year lifespan is a poor one. Many QB force selections have been unplayable since day one, especially on the small side (16 humvees to take a village and nothing else!?) the qb's might have been a lot more well received if there was a useful number of good random force selections.

[Chops]

Or a player could have taken the last three years and made the choice to educate themselves in how to use the Editor, and then designed their own scenarios. Just speaking from experience, I find it really enjoyable designing my own scenarios. This approach has certainly alleviated any frustrations with Quick Battles because I don't use them.

[Dietrich]

In CMSF a Stryker seen the Enemy and 5sec later the whole Borg knows the Position of the Enemy. Where is the diffrence to CMx1 there?

That's because of the Stryker's FCBC2; and no, not all friendly units know the position of the spotted enemy unit five seconds later. Even two infantry units on the same action spot might not both detect the same enemy unit. If a BMP-1 spots an enemy unit, do all Red units know the position of that enemy unit five seconds later?

From what I've read, I get the sense that a lot of the "problems" people have with spotting are due to not playing on the Iron difficulty setting, which enforces the full spectrum of realism rules in terms of spotting, C2, etc.

As Steve himself has recommended several times, folks who worry about borg spotting in CMx2:WW2 should play a few games of CM:SF with Red forces, especially Uncons.

[hoolaman]

Or a player could have taken the last three years and made the choice to educate themselves in how to use the Editor, and then designed their own scenarios. Just speaking from experience, I find it really enjoyable designing my own scenarios. This approach has certainly alleviated any frustrations with Quick Battles because I don't use them.

Well the solution of not using a feature because it so bad is not exactly a solution, but I agree with you. They perhaps should have just left qbs out completely.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I have no idea what Taki is talking about saying that the effects of Relative Spotting aren't noticeable or, at times, severe. Even with the beautiful comms of the Blue the game plays very differently than CMx1. So I'd agree with the rest of you

As for the decision to not improve the CM:SF QB system. Arguably we should have spent the month on the system regardless of the fact that investment would be flushed down the drain soon after since we knew we were going to redo the whole system. It was a judgement call and certainly people can disagree with that. Especially CM:SF customers.

Life ain't perfect, and neither are we

Steve

[theFightingSeabee]

This is an art. It's like telling Picaso that he should've put the eyeballs in orange triangles instead of blue squares because it better balances the flow of chi. None of us are going to get everything we individually want to see for quite some time. Just rest assured that Normandy will be fun as hell.

[MikeyD]

It sounds like some people insist on taking extreme examples and pushing them to their limits just to have something to complain about.

Borg Spotting? Have you ever tried playing a battle in realtime, purposefully staying behind your own forward units? Not hovering godlike over the battlefield? Not flying around replaying every encounter over and over to glean every possible clue? Not purposefully clicking off a unit to spot wat he can't see then having him target the area? Yes, if your object is to drain all enjoyment out of the game its not that difficult to do. By the same token, if you deliberately jam a fork into a toaster it'll probably break too. But don't go crying to the toaster manufactuer afterward claiming the toaster was 'fundamentally flawed'. Some people seem to be their own worst enemies when it comes to having a little combat sim fun.

[JonS]

... Have you ever tried playing a battle in realtime, purposefully staying behind your own forward units? Not hovering godlike over the battlefield? Not flying around replaying every encounter over and over to glean every possible clue? Not purposefully clicking off a unit to spot what he can't see then having him target the area? ...

Speaking of extreme examples ...

[WineCape]

Good to see Steve does not just drink Asara Shiraz, but also beer while thinking about "stuff". http://www.asara.co.za/index.html

[YankeeDog]

Hey WineCape,

Good to see you around again.

Going to a reception at a wine bar called Xai Xai here in NYC this weekend that specializes in South African wines. Got any suggestions as to what I should give a sample??

Cheers,

YD

[WineCape]

Hey WineCape,

Good to see you around again.

Going to a reception at a wine bar called Xai Xai here in NYC this weekend that specializes in South African wines. Got any suggestions as to what I should give a sample??

Cheers,

YD

Obviously it depends on (a) what they have and ( if you like White or Red or both. To cut to the chase, this guide below should ace it on such short notice. Look for those wines in NYC.

2009 List: http://www.capetownmagazine.com/wine-and-dine/Platters-Guide-Reveals-Best-South-African-Wines/117_22_9628

2010 List: http://www.tsibatsiba.co.za/South-African-Wine/john-platter.html

-- Any from the above will be the pinnacle of South African winemaking.

PS: I have a particular soft spot for the Red Blend called De Toren Fusion V. Consistently brilliant the last 5+ years. See http://www.de-toren.com/fusionv.htm -- Also De Toren's "Z" is a slightly cheaper version and another winner IMHO.