MarkEzra
-
Posts
4,762 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by MarkEzra
-
-
Just played "Hill-Town-Water-Damaged" and it was very interesting. I did not have any problems to cross the bridge but what happened next surprised me.
And I hope you will be surprised more often! These maps all have lots of group orders coupled with lot's of objectives. My thinking is the AI will Defend-Attack 3,4,5,or 6 objectives in 5 Different ways x 8,9,10 +/- Group settings with any force size a player cares to use, no matter the size of the map. That adds up to a lot of tactical replayability.
My personal QB playing style devolved over the years to a cookie cutter combined arms force that I would cherry pick (Yes I'd love that kind of save ability, too)against an AI random Mix Force. Did it over and over again...kinda of like drinking in the same bar at the same time each nite and expecting something new and different to occur! My goal is to break that cycle by maximizing the maps possibilities and see what happens next.
-
I have placed them on the Repository but it takes a bit of time for them to actually be available. So if you don't want to wait I have attached them here!V3.11 QB Maps.zip
V3.11 QB Maps contains 27 Maps made in the Method I used in CMBS. These Maps have Full sets of Group orders and use of Triggers. They also use the new naming convention, so these maps will show up generally last in the QB Map list. Hope You Enjoy the them.
-
Your observation is incorrect. All QB maps have at least two settings. One is indeed "Passive" , although it's setting is "Ambush" The Second is a timed trigger set to advance. That trigger time is based generally on the size of the map. The AI always try's to fill it's groups. But based on the player's unit selection and map size, with a dose of attacker fire power and luck tossed in, the AI may not be able to counter attack. This by virtue of time or of remaining unit strength. That long range duel you had at the beginning of the match? Well you wiped out the AI's counter attacking force.
-
There is no excuse for the textures not being better IMO, when within days of release the modders have got it looking so much better (and have managed to do so with every CMx2 release).
Oocch!...This'll mean another long night listening to drunken rants from Jackson Pollack. I told BFC not to hire the guy but those old softies said Pollack was down on his luck and needed a break... well don't we all.
-
I'll try this again:
You MUST set The Timer for the earliest possible setting you THINK the Trigger COULD be triggered. Then Set the Latest setting to the Latest time you would WANT the AI to move on it's own. Or you can just look at any of the QB Maps and SEE what I'm gettingat.
The QB Maps DO Trigger when the trigger line is reached. They are not the problem.
-
You set the timer to leave any time between immediately and two hours. Triggers are time sensitive first, movement to the trigger line second.
-
I ran a test QB and set two ten second pauses which were followed to the letter. Have you tried to duplicate the problem?
-
I've probably asked for this before but as there is a new game out.
Once I've played a QB I'd like a Replay or Reverse Option, so that I could play it again with exactly the same forces and conditions from either side.
Just asking!
Peter.
There is no automatic Replay/Reverse function. If you know the setups you can recreate the game by hand. But that's about it.
-
Very Beautiful Maps!
-
No, MarkEzra has been complaining about that for some time. It only affects QBs.
No, MarkEzra has been complaining about that for some time. It only affects QBs.
I would like to be able to identify unit positions clearly. Something that would allow me to say 'reserved for inf', or 'AT units only' or 'Vehicles allowed here'. But think of what I'm asking for in Programing time. Nothing short of a New Game. One of the most important things I've learned about QB Map making is to use what the game has, rather than moaning about what it hasn't. Since CMSF I've seen a tremendous change in what I can use to make QB's more Challenging. It's my job to improve my work with each title. And yes, I state my case.... just hardly ever here.
-
I don't know if this is an entirely different issue but its been my experience in QBs the AI pretty much never possitions troops inside buildings at setup...
One question that could be raised...Does the AI 'know about' and take into considderation the added protection that building gives when setting-up and moving...?
I don't know if this is an entirely different issue but its been my experience in QBs the AI pretty much never possitions troops inside buildings at setup...
One question that could be raised...Does the AI 'know about' and take into considderation the added protection that building gives when setting-up and moving...?
QB Maps involving Buildings always are painted to allow AI setup in them, although maybe not all buildings. I have this on good authority since I make them. What you experienced in the past was a Building bug that had no AI controlled units setting up in buildings. That was squashed in CMRT and I have not seen it in CMBS. AI controlled Inf units will seek the use of Buildings in CMBS. The AI seeks good vision as well as concealment. I try to paint maps to encourage just that.
-
@John: Like Steve@BattleFront says... I have no crystal balls. I can tell you that kind of work is a huge undertaking.
-
They aren't but some PC config have trouble with PBEM QB setups. It is rare and often is a Mac-PC PBEM problem.
-
I can confirm that the QB Map in question was correctly displayed in V1.0 and Borked in V1.01
-
I need some clarification on Tiny and Huge map issue. Here's what I think you are saying: In the QB Game Generator you Select Force size Tiny, Map size Tiny, and Map Type is Random. And you always get a Huge map? So for with the above setting I get a Tiny map.
-
So what about mine?
-
...Too bad that the preplanned AI Arty strike (if any) still comes in on turn one. This is easily avoided by...waiting out the first turn, and only wastes their ammo. That aside, the AI's use of Arty is surprisingly good (ouch!)
David...Couldn't agree more. This is a limitation in the Editor that will require that enemy of all my great suggestions....TIME. BFC is really aware and really prioritizes.I have been playing Tiny Probe missions lately... generally takes the arty out of the equation. Been enjoying that. -
@ womble & Ranger: Ahhh.... I stand corrected.
My personal Observations Only:
The CMx1 QB Map Generator worked so well for me that I started to make my own maps. The Unit Selector devolved into me always choosing a similar setup for armor, infantry and Arty. Something that has lasted through every CMx1 & CMx2 title up until now. This TOE seems better.
Now Ranger does remind me that CMx1 had one nice option that need reconsideration (and thank you womble for the clarification) The combine arms calculation option would definite be a nice retro fit. I'm sure the coding time would be pretty extensive.
-
I think the big thing missing from CMx1 is that there was an option called "Mixed" or something like that which would always give you a balanced force that consisted of a core of infantry plus some support elements with a splash of armor. It seems to me from my experience playing PBEM QBs that this is how most people like to play the game. In CMx2 this option is thrown out the window and you must either choose from infantry/mech/armor only, or the random option that gives cruddy results.
All I know is that I played hundreds of CMBB quick battles against the AI back in the day, and maybe ten across all CMx2 games, as it's usually clear that it will be total mismatched mess once you make contact with the enemy.
I think the big thing missing from CMx1 is that there was an option called "Mixed" or something like that which would always give you a balanced force that consisted of a core of infantry plus some support elements with a splash of armor. It seems to me from my experience playing PBEM QBs that this is how most people like to play the game. In CMx2 this option is thrown out the window and you must either choose from infantry/mech/armor only, or the random option that gives cruddy results.
All I know is that I played hundreds of CMBB quick battles against the AI back in the day, and maybe ten across all CMx2 games, as it's usually clear that it will be total mismatched mess once you make contact with the enemy.
"Mix" was, is, and ever shall be in the selection screen. It's the 2nd to the last. The last being "Random" But your last paragraph seems to say you've stopped playing CM2 QB Matches altogether. While I think it's your loss, I certainly won't try to change your mind.
-
Mark, while we're on the subject, do you know anything about how the AI assings what forces (sane or ludicrous) that it's been handed to AI order groups? I did some testing a while back in BNv2 and it seemed to me that it sequentially adds each "Parent" formation to order groups. So if you've got elements from an infantry battalion, and elements from a tank battalion, the infantry bttn fragments will get added to order group 1, and the armour elements to order group 2. If you manually pick the AI's forces, and for the infantry you took 1Plt from Bttn 1, 2Plt from Bttn 2 and 3Plt from Bttn 3, and similarly took 3 tanks from 3 separate tank Bttn, you'd end up with (assuming three order groups) a platoon and a tank in each order group.
Can you confirm that's how it works? I might've drawn a conclusion after too few, insufficiently-varied tests.
You're way ahead of me on that subject. Now when it comes to a QB Map....
-
@ GEN Moore: I've always wondered if Jerry Garcia were Actually Dead. My suspicions has been suddenly raised! Oh, and Welcome to the Forum. You're in for a Long, Strange Trip.
-
Here's a "Random" thought about the QB TOE:
As you may know I do the QB Maps. I don't do the TOE. So when things are strange I feel it like any other player. I tested each map on Random US-Random Russian. My sense of the QB-TOE is that it's the least troublesome CM Game on Random Unit setting. The two descriptions that were given actually point to QB TOE working pretty well. I know that US force that John got, One might say it's pretty balanced. If I understand the complaint it was the distance the PBI's had to hump. Isn't that about the map selection? If that was random, too, there was still the ability to view the map. The other TOE was a player getting Random light US inf of some kind (there is a lot of that in the release game. But the Random setting AI generated an all armor force. Well good. Player chooses Random unit types and comes out fighting for his life. Actually sounds pretty cool to me.
When players select all random settings they MUST expect that it will be just that... Random.
So here's when I get frustrated:
I select Mech Inf and get a bunch of jeeps and scout teams (CMBN). or I Select Armor and get a raft of light assault tanks (CMRT) and of course I can go on all the way back to CMBO which had a terrible TOE selector (and generally goofy maps, too). So don't think for a second that this part of the game doesn't deserve more scrutiny. It does. But I really like the force selection in CMBS, And that's no BS.
-
It isn't the editor that as slowed fan interest (if that is even a fair statement). What has changed is the complexity of the game. I spend more time in the editor than any man on earth and I'm still learning how to create better QB Maps. It's isn't that it's complicated or user unfriendly it is because it's DEEP.
-
LOL Enjoy the game!
Coming Soon 27 V3.11 QB Maps
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I put a good deal of thought into the elevations and bocage with that map Bocage was poorly understood by me when I first made CMBN QB Maps. I don't think I was the only designer this happened to. Placement of trees on the bocage tiles looks cool but create LOS/LOF difficulties in an already touchy tile. Elevation, too, created useless map spaces that could not be differentiated by the designer when placing units or creating movement orders. CMBN Players were frustrated more than challenged by Bocage maps.Hopefully this map will play more realistically eg. less LOS/LOF problems.