MarkEzra

Absolutely. And BFC has never made that mistake again.

Yep and you never sent me flowers afterwards... You know that was held less than 4 miles from where I lived at the time... talk about a lucky guy. Glad to see you getting into CMx2.

And yet here you are Waiting for Godot.... well enjoy the park bench

I do get the point. It is a matter of c2 linkage, and that effect code.

Interesting point...How does one code that? It kinda sounds in opposition to the current Unit selection logic. I guess only the brains in Jars will have a clue. Always best to just ask them (Better on a Sunny day, Wives Happy and large Tax refund in pocket...Moody lot these programmers)

That MikeyD.... Weak Sister! I could just scratch his eyes out... LOL It's not so much a weak sister as a very different kind of sister. There are (obviously) 3 generally accepted types of CM wargamers. Campaigners Scenario-ist QB'rs Each group has it's wants and needs. The CMx2 Engine shafted QB'rs... BFC has since worked hard to get QB back on track. CMBN has been a big step forward. The Maps work and with each module improved in quality and quantity (MG with it's Master Maps!!!!) But there is more that can be done. Hopefully BFC will CONTINUE to provide programing time to the QB engine, provide more player setting options like date/time/wind strength/direction(?)/unit cost options/unit mix options... and whatever else the community can think of. The character of the QB Engine should reflect the more multifaceted needs of QB players. Historical Maps are coming. So those players will want to not only control force Mix but Nationality mix as well. PBEM Players need to control balance (by unit mix or specific cost limits or whatever) and hopefully BFC can address this issue sooner than later. Much has been done to improve the QB Engine. I firmly believe more can and will be done.

Thank You for Posting! I have forgotten how valuable that setting could be to PBEM players. I will soon be working up my own QB wish list and shall include this. What Unit Type % do you (and anybody else) consider appropriate. OR: Force Selection Armor Heavy (Arm 60% Inf 30% Arty 10) Force Selection Inf Heavy (Inf 60% Arm 30% Arty 10) OR: Some other way.

No Daisy chain mines. Certainly something to consider for the desperate days of the Bulge, though. What is the actual historical use of them in ETO?

They are a brilliant addition to CM2 Most QB Maps that will ship with MG are made with them. I have left the "landmarks" (map locations in red) in so QB players will catch the historical flavor even on a quickie lunch break battle.

There is no control of exact time or exact wind direction/strength in QB.s Arguments for inclusion are easy enough to make and I'll certainly speak in favor of them. But MikeyD point is the essence of reality in coding a game as complex as CM2xx. What was available in CM1 QB's (insert name of pet thing you and I really miss here!) just isn't that simple. It's always the same two reasons: Coding time and what's on the to do list. Coding time is limited by the number of coders and their insistent whinning they have no life. And the list of what needs to be included in the next game is nearly as old as it is long. So thank you for your ideas to improve my favorite part of the game. I will be sure to speak up for them (and my own) when ever I can.

This thread is an Excellent example of how badly things can go when Wargamers speak English to one another.

Hi Kilroy L: If the QB Map designer uses more than one "Group Plan" The in game AI will try to split units to each group used. For example: In a small Attack/Defend style map I always used at least 2 groups. The first group would be static, with only a setup order (dismounted/Ambush) The second group would have a setup order towards the rear of the map (again dismounted/ambush) along with a time delay of 20-30 minutes and then a movement order(s) to counter attack toward the maps Objectives. But always keep in mind the QB Map designer has no control over unit selection or WHERE (beyond the general areas painted yellow by the map designer) the in game AI will place a specific unit. That control is actually in the hands of the BFC code writers. There is very little info available about the specifics of QB Map design in the manual. It took me years of trial and error to understand the mechanics of this aspect of the game. Hope this helps.

I am the author of All CMBN QB Maps. At this late date it is most likely NOT an error in the map but send me the full name of the map and I will check it out. What may be going on may be do to setup time delays. How I design the AI orders for Meeting engagements is Group One as NO time delay and Groups Two and up DO have time delay orders before they move. When using a Tiny or Small Setup combined with a Random Map selection it is very possible to end up with a large map with pretty long Order delays. The average I used is 3-5 minutes or 5-8 minutes. Because you are selecting Tiny or small unit purchase the Game may select only one group...and that could be one with a time delay.

OK I sent to the above address

Did you get yours yet? If not please re-send request

Send me an email .... markDOTezra3591ATgmailDOTcom

I'm the guy responsible for CMSF & CMBN Quick Battle Maps. I continued to work/improve QB Maps through the NATO Module. So yes... hopefully a bit better. But I have a Small set of CMSF QB Maps I recently made for my personal use that use all the things I learned when making CMBN QB Maps. I can send them by email...just haven't gotten around to uploaded them.... way too busy on CMBN Market Garden QB's By the way CMBN provides a superior QB game experience to CMSF but sometimes I just need a modern rush to my system.

What I learned at school today: It is the wise person who Leaves words unsaid, jobs undone, and rocks unturned

So the eye Doctor released me to play CM after nearly a year of treatment and enforced (eye) rest. And the first thing I read on the forum is this dust up over a $10 upgrade. LOL...it's good to be home and see well enough to read this nonsense

And MikeyD responds: Mark! Somebody's asking for permission to mod/use? Sure, of course. Usually I place a universal 'permission do do anything' line at the bottom of the mod Readme file. If you'll pass this on to whoever is asking, thanks. Mike (MikeyD)

My Blessings

1. Of the nearly 100 new CW QB Maps I don't believe there are any that use the corner. I specifically avoided their use as a direct result of player feed back 2. Map size and setup size have a relationship. Small Maps have smaller setup areas 3. Selecting "Large" units on a "Small" map can be problematic but is not a design error. 4. your idea of having some form of temporary setup area is, while tantalizing, a non starter for any number of code/time resource reasons.

Sounds like a bug. Please provide a save file and description of where to locate the example. send: markDOTezra3591ATgmailDOTcom

My Goodness! I certainly hope that's not the Royal "WE" or I could just be in some King Sized trouble here. But I'll try to keep it in mind if I should post another scen

You've done great work! It'll be wargames like these that expands the hobby.