Jump to content

Lt Bull

Members
  • Content Count

    884
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lt Bull last won the day on April 30 2020

Lt Bull had the most liked content!

About Lt Bull

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's probably been like that since the last patch (ages ago) and no one has pointed it out before? Surely there would be QB players who would have noticed. Anyway, if it seems to be a bug (I don't know if this is something deliberate by BFC) I will report it.
  2. Checked QB for all dates, France and Holland. No German Armored Battalion with Support Company. What is up?
  3. Late to the party here...but let me say this.....JM Stuff = LEGEND! Incredible work!
  4. Hello, I have just noticed that there was at least one time in the past where the German Panzer Battalion selected in the QB screen would include a Support Co with some AA and some recon assets etc. Not so any more its seems. Curiously, if you go in to the Scenario editor however, the Panzer Battalion DOES come with the Support Company. What is up? Was intentional or perhaps a slip up caused by the latest patches? Bull
  5. I like everything about this post/thread. Great ideas. Great work. +1 PS: LOL! I just realised how old this thread is! Better late than never.
  6. Although it always felt wrong from the start, it took me a while to think through the issues I had with them. I don't want to put anyone off playing mirrored games but I don't think they are the one-stop-shop panacea to "ensuring fairness" when playing H2H battles, in particular ones that are rather asymmetric. I have thankfully found a willing PBEM opponent to try this method out, so I will report back on how things go. The most daunting thing for both players I think is determining a suitable force ratio (FR) for a particular QB map (and associated settings) just by looking at it thro
  7. This is a really good comprehensive summary that I hope Battlefront at least recognise are aspects of the game mechanics which ideally could be improved (not that I am expecting them to actually do anything about it, though even addressing just one of these in a patch would be a huge win).
  8. Thanks for letting me know. I definitely have a sense of relief now that at least someone else besides myself seems to understand the concept and it's potential merits for use in the context of configuring CM QBs. The concept still needs to be put through it's paces though. Are you not referring to "mirrored battles"? Even though mirrored battles aren't my thing (for reasons I have already given), I would agree that combining the scores of both battles is probably a better way to determine "who wins". ................ I have actually tried to road test the concept/method I
  9. I understand why you would want to not play a ME QB for the reasons you mention. However I still need to ask why at all you feel like you need/should play it mirrored? Is it that both players, having otherwise agreed to just play the QB once (unmirrored), just want to avoid the "well this QB was unbalanced from the start" kind of regret/lamenting that can occur if the battle ends up being a bit of a cakewalk? Is mirroring battles just really some kind of "insurance" and avoidance against that happening? I would include things like copying your good firing positions as part of mirrori
  10. For what it's worth, I definitely was not presenting this coming from the perspective of someone who players ladder games, though it probably might be of more interest to those that do play ladder games. I understand and agree with what you are saying about being the underdog in a battle, "losing" and still still doing well (and having fun just playing it at the same time). Many times when I get to an AAR screen of a battle I just played I kind of already have my mind made up as to how things went regardless of what VPD may indicate. I have stated my not too surprising reasons for
  11. Although my discussion is exclusively about H2H gameplay (and QBs in particular),I would say interesting and enjoyable games are always going to figure in to whether a player choses to play particular SP or MP game. This typically gets evaluated if and when you might read some recommendation/review/AAR about a scenario or QB map somewhere, or when you just look at the map in the scenario editor and reading any text/notes you might find relating to the QB map or scenario in question. I believe the whole concept behind mirrored battles is to introduce an element of "fairness" between
  12. The concept of what determines if a particular scenario (or QB) is "balanced" or not can be a very subjective thing to try and grapple with. For the sake of this discussion I will limit this discussion to "head to head" games between two players. I'm not sure how others might define what makes a "balanced" scenario/QB, but I think of it in statistical terms: for instance, if the particular scenario/QB was played "double blind" by multiple pairs of "equally" rated players many times (ideally (though impossibly) an infinite amount of times), you would expect the win/loss distribtion to ap
  13. I upgraded my CMFB to the latest patch during a PBEM thinking my opponent had upgraded the PBEM to the latest patch. They had not and now the PBEM is unplayable. Our PBEM has been on halt for almost 2 months as I gathered the energy to do what I believe needs to be done to get the game back on track: that is, to install CMFB and patch it to the previous version (then load PBEM, save in orders phase, patch CMFB to latest version, continue playing). I am however unsure of exactly how to do that as there seems to be various patch/upgrade/install files. I did run the file CMFB_v100_Setu
  14. What is the correct way (if any) to update a PBEM curently started in the previous version to the new patch?
×
×
  • Create New...