Additional Quick Battle Options

[HarryB]

I would really like to see some additional options available when setting up a Quick Battle, specifically relating to the ability to have reinforcements. Something like Reinforcement A, B and C with the ability to set the percentage of your forces that would be in each group and a range of turns they could show up on.

The thing I like about Quick Battles as opposed to canned scenarios is the fog of war. In a QB, you don't know exactly what you will be facing, whereas in a canned scenario you know exactly what equipment your opponent will have. The ability to have reinforcements in Quick Battles would add more variety and unpredictability to those games. Overall I enjoy playing QB Meeting Engagements the most, but the structure is somewhat predictable; all forces are on the map from the beginning and it's a bum rush for the victory locations. If you only had a certain percentage of your forces available at the beginning it would change the way the battle would play out because you wouldn't be able to make a coordinated assault from turn one. Instead, you would have to work things out on the fly as additional assets became available. I think this additional unpredictability could make the games more interesting and fun.

[Sublime]

Not a bad idea. A reinforcement option for QBs is actually a pretty good idea. Would add a lot to QB games IMO. of course there'd need to be some tweaks to prevent gamey tactics like having reinforcements burst out behind enemy lines or something,

[HarryB]

I don't think it would be too hard to have the game deploy reinforcements into 'reinforcement zones', set up when the map is created. Given that the maps are all user created, all the creator would need to do is designate areas where reinforcements could deploy and let the game plop them in. The 'gameyness' would have to be taken out by the map designer. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to use the initial setup zones for reinforcements, at least for meeting engagements; for attack/defense games it would be a bit trickier, especially for the defender, he would need to have specific reinforcement zones set up.

[Felix_45]

The thing I like about Quick Battles as opposed to canned scenarios is the fog of war. In a QB, you don't know exactly what you will be facing, whereas in a canned scenario you know exactly what equipment your opponent will have.

How is it that you know exactly what your opponent has in a canned scenario?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I like the idea. Perhaps units designated as reinforcements could be purchased at a discount. The later in the battle they are scheduled to appear the bigger the discount.

I would probably only allow it in MEs or for the attacker in attack/defend games.

[HarryB]

How is it that you know exactly what your opponent has in a canned scenario?

I only play pbem games against a human opponent, and if we were going to play a canned scenario I'd want to look at it first to see if it was something I would be interested in. If one guy picks out the scenario to play, he would either have to do it blind, or he has to look at it. If one guy looks at it, the other player has to as well. The only other way is to have a third party create or suggest the scenario, and both of us would have to trust his judgement.

I would probably only allow it in MEs or for the attacker in attack/defend games.

No, you'd want to have reinforcements for the defender as well. Remember, in 'Valley of Trouble' for CMBO when the Panther showed up on the hill...

[HarryB]

I like the idea. Perhaps units designated as reinforcements could be purchased at a discount. The later in the battle they are scheduled to appear the bigger the discount.

I really didn't think about how to implement it for attack/defense scenarios, since most of the games I play are going to be meeting engagements. The way I pictured it was that on the initial setup screen there would be reinforcement A, B and C, and for each of them the guy setting up the game would select the percentage of the forces for each and the range of turns that they would randomly appear in. These settings would apply to both players, but the arrival would be calculated separately for both players.

So, let's say you have Reinforcement A set at 15% of the total force points, with potential arrival between turns 10 and 40. When the initial pbem file is generated, the game would decide randomly for each player when Reinforcement A would arrive. The Americans might get it on turn 17 and the Germans on turn 25. Reinforcement B could be set at 20% or whatever and arriving between turns 15 and 50, etc. Whatever the guy doing the setup wants.

When each player goes into the unit purchasing screen there could be some sort of drop down menu for doing the purchasing for the initial on map force and for each reinforcement group, with the points available calculated based on the percentage set in the initial setup screen.

[Vinnart]

In a game I used to play called “sudden Strike” capturing objectives would award the player with reinforcements. It was a good concept for team play.

I would like the option to buy radios for platoon leaders during purchasing for QB’s.

[Felix_45]

I only play pbem games against a human opponent, and if we were going to play a canned scenario I'd want to look at it first to see if it was something I would be interested in. If one guy picks out the scenario to play, he would either have to do it blind, or he has to look at it. If one guy looks at it, the other player has to as well. The only other way is to have a third party create or suggest the scenario, and both of us would have to trust his judgement.

Okay, yes of course if you look at both sides then you know exactly what is up, I thought you were referring to something else other than that by your wording in your original post.

[LJFHutch]

So long as it's not implemented in a gamey way I'm all for it. I can see many situations where it would feel quite gamey though

[HarryB]

In a game I used to play called “sudden Strike” capturing objectives would award the player with reinforcements. It was a good concept for team play.

I personally would not be for getting reinforcements based on taking a location; that would be very gamey and make me feel like I was playing 'Command & Conquer'. I never played 'Sudden Strike', but it's very much an RTS with a certain level of realism. It never claims to be a simulation in the way that CMBN is; they are just two different types of game.

All I am looking for is a way to increase the variability and enjoyment of playing Quick Battles and I think the way I have outlined it, or something similar would do the trick. To get it done, the decision makers at Battlefront would have to decide that it was doable and worth the effort; I think it is on both counts.

Would anyone at Battlefront care to comment? I'm not holding my breath, but I would be curious to hear what someone on the inside thinks of this.

[MarkEzra]

....The thing I like about Quick Battles as opposed to canned scenarios is the fog of war. In a QB, you don't know exactly what you will be facing, whereas in a canned scenario you know exactly what equipment your opponent will have. The ability to have reinforcements in Quick Battles would add more variety and unpredictability to those games.

BFC is always listening. In regards to Reinforcements: I personally like the idea, and for what it's worth, have mentioned the same to BFC. The current QB Maps have the AI using two group plans. So the AI defender can, in effect, receive reinforcement. It also allows those reinforcements to participate from ambush/overwatch position on the map until a variable time movement order is given. The next module map expands on this concept. Play testing has been encouraging. Naturally I can only be more detailed post release. While not what you actually want, it will move QB's a bit more in that direction. My belief and my experience is: Not only is BFC always listening, it is always thinking. Thanks for posting...an interesting conversation

[Vinnart]

I would also like ammo bearer units to appear with ammo as they do in the regular battles. Also, halftracks that come with a crew to man their gun.

[benpark]

The next module map expands on this concept. Play testing has been encouraging. Naturally I can only be more detailed post release.

The above is certainly intriguing. I'm hoping for a system that is somewhat more reactive as far as how the scenario designer can set things up. Triggers would be ideal, but whatever is in store- improvements are always appreciated.