Jump to content

QuiGon

Members
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    QuiGon reacted to evilman222 in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    Even if it's not the priority for the game, I think QBs need an overhaul for the next patch. The point totals mentioned in this thread for the next patch still feel a bit low (should be about 30k vs 30k default imo), and I'm really surprised that some of the larger maps from the US campaign aren't available as QB maps.
  2. Like
    QuiGon reacted to landser in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    Customizable points and the return of Combined Arms preset would go far to get me to play QBs again.
     
  3. Like
    QuiGon reacted to Redwolf in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    Just have an "unlimited" option in the pulldown menu. The opponents can use a honor system on limits they have chosen.
  4. Like
    QuiGon reacted to Armorgunner in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    A "Balanced Battalion (task force)" Is 34909p In a defencive battle on a huge map in 1982. And that is with M60 tanks, not M1´s. I don´t think 22,500 is enough!
  5. Upvote
    QuiGon got a reaction from Vanir Ausf B in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    Thanks, that's quite an improvement, although a maximum of 18,020 points for a meeting engagement is still not enough IMHO. I'm currently playing a ~30,000 point PBEM meeting engagement on a 4 x 4.5 km map, using the Scenario Editor to put the troops together, which is rather cumbersome as it doesn't show a budget. A flexible solution, where we can define our own budget would be really helpful
  6. Upvote
    QuiGon got a reaction from Bufo in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    Thanks, that's quite an improvement, although a maximum of 18,020 points for a meeting engagement is still not enough IMHO. I'm currently playing a ~30,000 point PBEM meeting engagement on a 4 x 4.5 km map, using the Scenario Editor to put the troops together, which is rather cumbersome as it doesn't show a budget. A flexible solution, where we can define our own budget would be really helpful
  7. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Redwolf in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    Thanks, that's quite an improvement, although a maximum of 18,020 points for a meeting engagement is still not enough IMHO. I'm currently playing a ~30,000 point PBEM meeting engagement on a 4 x 4.5 km map, using the Scenario Editor to put the troops together, which is rather cumbersome as it doesn't show a budget. A flexible solution, where we can define our own budget would be really helpful
  8. Upvote
    QuiGon got a reaction from Vanir Ausf B in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    ~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.
  9. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Amedeo in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    ~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.
  10. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Redwolf in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    ~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.
  11. Upvote
    QuiGon got a reaction from Vanir Ausf B in QB points   
    That's actually what I ended up doing. The search function lead me to it. It's much more cumbersome though than just setting a bigger QB budget.
    And the problem doesn't end there. I'm playing a MP match of CM:CW this way, so I put together my force in the quick battle purchase screen with a budget of 30,000 points that we agreed on. Then I went to the scenario editor to put the same force together there, that I created in the QB setup, but... I couldn't! The formations available in the scenario editor are quite a lot different than the ones available in a QB (even if same month and year is set)!!!
    For example: In a QB the US has infantry, mech and armored categories, while in the scenario editor there are only infantry and mech categories available to the US. Armor is missing there, instead armored formations are mixed in with the mech infantry. That leads to the next problem: I chose a mech infantry bataillon (task force) in the QB setup, where each company consisted of 3 mech rifle platoons and a 4th weapons platoon. Now in the scenario editor unit setup, the mech infantry bataillon (task force) is a totally differnt formation, where the 3rd platoon in each company is a tank platoon...
    This inconsistency makes it really difficult to play it as you proposed 😔
  12. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from IanL in QB points   
    That's actually what I ended up doing. The search function lead me to it. It's much more cumbersome though than just setting a bigger QB budget.
    And the problem doesn't end there. I'm playing a MP match of CM:CW this way, so I put together my force in the quick battle purchase screen with a budget of 30,000 points that we agreed on. Then I went to the scenario editor to put the same force together there, that I created in the QB setup, but... I couldn't! The formations available in the scenario editor are quite a lot different than the ones available in a QB (even if same month and year is set)!!!
    For example: In a QB the US has infantry, mech and armored categories, while in the scenario editor there are only infantry and mech categories available to the US. Armor is missing there, instead armored formations are mixed in with the mech infantry. That leads to the next problem: I chose a mech infantry bataillon (task force) in the QB setup, where each company consisted of 3 mech rifle platoons and a 4th weapons platoon. Now in the scenario editor unit setup, the mech infantry bataillon (task force) is a totally differnt formation, where the 3rd platoon in each company is a tank platoon...
    This inconsistency makes it really difficult to play it as you proposed 😔
  13. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Redwolf in QB points   
    That's actually what I ended up doing. The search function lead me to it. It's much more cumbersome though than just setting a bigger QB budget.
    And the problem doesn't end there. I'm playing a MP match of CM:CW this way, so I put together my force in the quick battle purchase screen with a budget of 30,000 points that we agreed on. Then I went to the scenario editor to put the same force together there, that I created in the QB setup, but... I couldn't! The formations available in the scenario editor are quite a lot different than the ones available in a QB (even if same month and year is set)!!!
    For example: In a QB the US has infantry, mech and armored categories, while in the scenario editor there are only infantry and mech categories available to the US. Armor is missing there, instead armored formations are mixed in with the mech infantry. That leads to the next problem: I chose a mech infantry bataillon (task force) in the QB setup, where each company consisted of 3 mech rifle platoons and a 4th weapons platoon. Now in the scenario editor unit setup, the mech infantry bataillon (task force) is a totally differnt formation, where the 3rd platoon in each company is a tank platoon...
    This inconsistency makes it really difficult to play it as you proposed 😔
  14. Upvote
    QuiGon got a reaction from Vanir Ausf B in QB points   
    The small size of QBs is one of my major gripes with the CM series. I would love to fight battailon(+) quick battles, but even if the battle size is set to "huge" it often doesn't provide enough budget points to do so. In CM:CW for example, a huge meeting engagement gives you ~13,000pts, but even a single M113 equipped US Mech Infantry battailon costs ~20,000 pts. I really wish there would be a bigger option than "huge" or even better: an option to set custom budgets.
     @Battlefront.com please add this. I would really really appreciate it! 🙏
    It's been requested over and over:
     
  15. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Commanderski in QB points   
    The small size of QBs is one of my major gripes with the CM series. I would love to fight battailon(+) quick battles, but even if the battle size is set to "huge" it often doesn't provide enough budget points to do so. In CM:CW for example, a huge meeting engagement gives you ~13,000pts, but even a single M113 equipped US Mech Infantry battailon costs ~20,000 pts. I really wish there would be a bigger option than "huge" or even better: an option to set custom budgets.
     @Battlefront.com please add this. I would really really appreciate it! 🙏
    It's been requested over and over:
     
  16. Like
    QuiGon reacted to RobZ in QB points   
    Why is there not a unlimited or custom points amount in quick battles? For a game like this such an option seems like basic requirement, but it doesn't exist.
    Me and a friend is making/playing a h2h campaign with CMFB and we use QB to play out the battles. But at times the battle sizes can exceed the QB points. The largest battle we had on our last campaign was with allies having a full tank battalion, full airborne battalion, 11 aircraft and lots of artillery. Axis side (me) had a full heavy panzer battalion, pzgren battalion, volksgren battalion, 3 seperate infantry companies, 1 stug company, 1 marder company and lots of artillery. This resulted in my points exceeding 22000 which is what you get with 150% addition for attacker side. This ment we had to set all this up in scenario editor which is a much longer process and some TO&Es are even different there making it harder to have consistent units. Size of battle seems to be non-issue as we played 3 hours in real time and finished the game with allied surrender.
  17. Like
    QuiGon reacted to IICptMillerII in Pre-orders for Combat Mission Cold War are now open.   
    To be as clear as possible:
    Cold War will release through Battlefront (BFC) in April as a completed game. All features, assets, and normal playability and functions will be present. This includes the PBEM/multiplayer functionality as it is with every other CM game. 
    In June, Slitherine will release Cold War on Steam. That release will come with a new mulitplayer feature, the Slitherine PBEM system.
    Between April and June, the Slitherine PBEM feature will be developed by Slitherine and added to Cold War. Players who own the game from BFC will have the opportunity to try out the new PBEM features and report back on any bugs they encounter.
  18. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Night combat friendly fire casualty caused by HMG   
    Maybe, but that was definitely not what happened in my case, where my troops where actively and purposefully engaging their comrades on their own.
  19. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Aquila-SmartWargames in Night combat friendly fire casualty caused by HMG   
    I've witnessed several small arms friendly fire incidents in a night battle playing the Italian forces in CMFI just yesterday. It was the first mission of the "Fleeting Moment" campaign and there it happened several times that some troops opened fire with their rifles on their comrades. I guess this can happen if they are out of comms, which can happen quite easily with the Italians and their lack of radios. Just to be clear: No area fire commands where used when the friendly fire incidents happened. One of the incidents was at pretty close range even, when my company commander opened fire on one of his subordinates using his pistol!
    After one of my troops got killed by one of his comrades I tried to reduce friendly fire by assigning fire arcs to all my troops, to prevent them to shoot in the direction of friendly forces.
    It certainly makes night battles "more interesting".
  20. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from mbarbaric in And now.....   
    I just heard the news and I'm absolutely stunned that this is actually happening now!!

    Thank you @Battlefront.com for making this dream of me a reality! I preordered right away
     
     
     
  21. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from CHEqTRO in And now.....   
    I just heard the news and I'm absolutely stunned that this is actually happening now!!

    Thank you @Battlefront.com for making this dream of me a reality! I preordered right away
     
     
     
  22. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from ratdeath in And now.....   
    I just heard the news and I'm absolutely stunned that this is actually happening now!!

    Thank you @Battlefront.com for making this dream of me a reality! I preordered right away
     
     
     
  23. Like
    QuiGon got a reaction from Howler in [Feature Request] TCP/IP WeGo mode?   
    This is actually my preferred choice for MP battles, but it is really missing the ability to rewind the action, as you can in SP. I would be so glad if that ability would be added!!
  24. Upvote
    QuiGon got a reaction from JSj in CMSF 2 BETA AAR #2 – Syrian Probe (Quick Battle)   
    This match was really fun to follow (on both sides) and taught me one or two things as well. Well done! 👍
    Any chance for a rematch between you two?
  25. Upvote
    QuiGon reacted to IanL in Canadian Defense - CMSF 2 BETA AAR #2 (Quick Battle)   
    Minute 151: Orders
    Well if the enemy insists on trying to get an ATGM team on KT1 I am happy to drop more mortar shells on them.

     
    Just for reference here is what the squad from 15 Platoon see compared to the Mortar HQ's call.

     
    Clearly the tank's ambush location is to well known. Time to reposition the tank again. There are plenty of spots I can put my tanks hull down so I can do this all day long.

     
    A slight tweak to the orders for the team from 15 Platoon. Included in that is some time to rest. They are tired from crawling already.

     
    A small change to the observation teams from 14 Platoon to compensate for the smoke.

×
×
  • Create New...