QB ME maps aren't cutting it

[sburke]

That map also sports some buildings with missing upper floors. And yeah, DC is correct, I was his opponent and I was in the town within two turns.

Mord.

And probably extremely happy

[Rocky Balboa]

That map also sports some buildings with missing upper floors.

Mord.

Sounds like the town was recently shelled or bombed out ...

[MikeyD]

also sports some buildings with missing upper floors

CMFI had all its parts & pieces flying together in pretty fast towards the very end. Unfortunately that meant some earlier QB maps got old flawed buildings 'baked in' despite having been fixed in the editor. A couple QB maps have a few buildings with uncooperative distance lods, a couple sitting at skewed angles that you couldn't reproduce in the editor now. I remember for an early Beta I threw together what might've been the first CMFI scenario (involving drunk G.I.s out looking for a brothel). Unfortunately, not one building on that map survived into the following Betas. The scenario had to be discarded.

[sburke]

CMFI had all its parts & pieces flying together in pretty fast towards the very end. Unfortunately that meant some earlier QB maps got old flawed buildings 'baked in' despite having been fixed in the editor. A couple QB maps have a few buildings with uncooperative distance lods, a couple sitting at skewed angles that you couldn't reproduce in the editor now. I remember for an early Beta I threw together what might've been the first CMFI scenario (involving drunk G.I.s out looking for a brothel). Unfortunately, not one building on that map survived into the following Betas. The scenario had to be discarded.

With a theme like that it was discarded? Have we no standards... specifically low ones?!

[JonS]

FWIW, I've recently started playing what I loosely refer to as "Custom QBs". There're various ways these can be created, but all rely on a trusted third party. Oh, and probably opponents who're friends ... or at least friendly.

Basically, "someone" sets up the basic parameters of the battle, which might be as slim as force size and battle stance (attack, defend, meeting, etc) or as detailed as including things like force type, map, time of day, and ground conditions.

The two players 'buy' each independently buy forces in the QB thingy (obeying any size and type restrictions) and note down what they bought. They then each independently go into the scenario editor and re-purchase exactly the same forces and save it as a scenario. (this two-step process is needed because the editor doesn't display points values, and the QB thingy can't be saved as a scenario)

Each player then sends his force scenario to the trusted third party (TTP).

The TTP then selects a map (or uses the one already selected) and imports the two force files. The map can be any map - a QB map, or a scenario map. He also has the freedom to edit the map, and forces, and the parameters (time of day, length, weather, and so on). It's a good idea, too, to delete any existing objectives, and the set up zones will need to be altered. Oh, if it's a scenario map, then the scenario briefings and forces and what not will also need to be deleted - basically you just want a naked map and the two force files. The TTP also decides what each player will be trying to achieve in the battle, or what their mission is, which doesn't have to be a mirror image of each others - one could be trying to take a hill while the other moves from one map edge to the other, or whatever.

The TTP also writes a bare-bones, side-specific briefing, complete with a mission for each player.

Then the two players go at it. There's no built in objectives built in to the scenario - it's up to the players to decide who won at the end according to who better achieved their stated objective (this is why it's a good idea that the two players know each other beforehand!).

The setup sounds reasonably complex, but it's actually fairly simple. If you want to try one, find an opponent and drop me a PM. I'll be the TTP - first PM wins

[LongLeftFlank]

I remember for an early Beta I threw together what might've been the first CMFI scenario (involving drunk G.I.s out looking for a brothel).

Whose Sophia-Loren-in-a-bustier mod are you using?

[Mord]

And probably extremely happy

You would think but I wasn't because it ended up being the same as our last game where I defended. I was hoping more for a clash, a tennis match of back and forths.

Sounds like the town was recently shelled or bombed out ...

Yeah, 'cept the roofs were floating in midair. I ended up editing it before we played...I believe it had something to do with the elevations in a couple of spots.

Mord.

[A Canadian Cat]

FWIW, I've recently started playing what I loosely refer to as "Custom QBs". There're various ways these can be created, but all rely on a trusted third party. Oh, and probably opponents who're friends ... or at least friendly.

Basically, "someone" sets up the basic parameters of the battle, which might be as slim as force size and battle stance (attack, defend, meeting, etc) or as detailed as including things like force type, map, time of day, and ground conditions.

The two players 'buy' each independently buy forces in the QB thingy (obeying any size and type restrictions) and note down what they bought. They then each independently go into the scenario editor and re-purchase exactly the same forces and save it as a scenario. (this two-step process is needed because the editor doesn't display points values, and the QB thingy can't be saved as a scenario)<snip>

A friend of mine and I are doing the same. For those not fast enough to get Jon S to be your trusted third party I wrote a set of instructions on how to do this. I introduced it here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1382032&postcount=1

Here is a direct link to the instructions:

http://www.lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/2012/Force%20Selection%20Instructions.pdf

[A Canadian Cat]

I started to go through the meeting engagement maps one by one. Here is the first installment of my results:

009Meet Large Town 009.btt

Already discussed on the forum

018Meet Large Rough 018.btt

Axis setup much larger and covers one side of map. Also closer to one objective.

Suggest making setup zones more even size and taking away the objective closer to the Axis setup

050Meet Med Open 050.btt

Totally broken for a meeting engagement - setup for an allied attack.

Suggest reworking setup zones and objectives or just take this off the Meet list.

059Meet Small Agricultural (water) 059.btt

Setup zones are not bad but all objectives are near the allied zone.

Suggest reworking the objectives.

064Meet Tiny Town (steep hills) 064.btt

Looks good

067Meet Tiny Agricultural 067.btt

One object is partly inside the axis setup zone and the other is closer to the axis side.

Suggest add an objective partly inside the allied zone and center the middle objective.

[A Canadian Cat]

096Meet Med Agricultural 096.btt

Allied setup zone much smaller than axis. Single objective is closer to the Axis setup.

Suggest evening up the setup zones and adding an additional objective on the other side of the map closer to the allied zone than the axis zone.

111Meet Small Forest 111.btt

Missing objectives entirely and Axis zone has a bulge in towards the middle.

Suggest get ride of the bulge and create objectives.

117Meet Small Rough (steep hills) 117.btt

Allied setup zone is smaller. Objective is close to the allied setup zone

Suggest make the allied setup zone larger and either centralize the objective or add one closer to the axis side.

[TheBlackHand]

Sometimes one side gets a huge advantage by setting up on a hill, and the opponent has to fight up hill the entire battle.

I haven't had a chance to get back to the battle we were planning (the unit selection process and it's constant crashing really killed my interest) . . . but I noticed the same thing. That map looks like it gives the Germans a distinct advantage. When I opened it the first thing I thought was "hey, I've seen this before". I didn't realize the maps weren't randomly generated. The next thing I thought was, "hey, this looks like an Allied assault", then I thought, "well, that's going to be tough for the Allies since I have roughly the same number of troops as he does and he's gotta climb that hill!"

Why weren't the QB maps set up to be randomly generated the way they were in CMX1? I assume there is a good reason, like maybe the game design is too complicated or something.

[z1812]

As I said earlier I have noticed the same problems with Meeting Engagement Maps particularly for H2H games.

However it is not too difficult to take any QB map and delete the designed AI, Setup Zones, objectives and preplanned artillery. Then it is a matter of setting new set up zones and objectives and tweaking the map if you wish. Naturally it would only be for H2H games as there would be no A.I. Of course remember to save it with a different name.

[sdp]

Thanks for your review of the MEs; as said before you'll get a revised batch to download as soon as I can produce one.

Concerning the "broken" buildings; they should be fixed in the upcoming patch - as mentioned before this phenomenon in part has to do with the very rapid production of this title. We'll do our best to fix the issues!

/sdp

[JonS]

I wrote a set of instructions on how to do this.

Great minds think alike

Nice work Ian.

[A Canadian Cat]

Great minds think alike

Nice work Ian.

As long as it is not "Fools seldom differ". Which is the quote my mother would always say back to me when ever I used the "great minds think alike" quote.

The only thing that gets to be a pain quickly is the setting of all the soft factors down to the squad level. I tend to use typical when adding units and then record it all but I admit it gets tedious at times. My friend sets his by platoon or higher to make his life easier.

[womble]

As long as it is not "Fools seldom differ". Which is the quote my mother would always say back to me when ever I used the "great minds think alike" quote.

The only thing that gets to be a pain quickly is the setting of all the soft factors down to the squad level. I tend to use typical when adding units and then record it all but I admit it gets tedious at times. My friend sets his by platoon or higher to make his life easier.

How about setting the soft factors to some midpoint and then making and noting some variations? And maybe limiting yourself as to the number of variations per company?

[Baneman]

I tend to believe the bulk of my army will be Regular, Normal, 0 and set the selection to that for purchasing the entire force.

Then I can tweak individual units, but generally it wont be as much work.

I figure there'll only be one or two Veterans sprinkled in and about 20% Green guys or so. Then I might up the command value of, say, the Green squads' platoon leader since HQ would probably want them to have strong leadership.

Then I might drop 1 or 2 leaders down a peg ( there's always an "upper-class twit" who's been promoted to where he can't cause too much trouble ).

The Veterans probably get stuck with the -2 muppet 'cos they'll ignore most of what he says anyway.

But maybe I think about it too much

[GreenAsJade]

As I said earlier I have noticed the same problems with Meeting Engagement Maps particularly for H2H games.

However it is not too difficult to take any QB map and delete the designed AI, Setup Zones, objectives and preplanned artillery. Then it is a matter of setting new set up zones and objectives and tweaking the map if you wish. Naturally it would only be for H2H games as there would be no A.I. Of course remember to save it with a different name.

And this would be a "Quick Battle"???

That sounds to me like a "slow battle, design it yourself from a template".

Not to mention the search through the existing QB maps for a suitable starting point, because there is absolutely no way to guess what they will look like till you open them (loading 29% wait every time) ... they are so wildly variant.

GaJ

[JonS]

And this would be a "Quick Battle"???

That sounds to me like a "slow battle, design it yourself from a template".

Not to mention the search through the existing QB maps for a suitable starting point, because there is absolutely no way to guess what they will look like till you open them (loading 29% wait every time) ... they are so wildly variant.

Sure, that's all true. But what you end up with at the end is:

* a customised scenario that someone has thought about

* victory conditions that make sense

* a map that will work for the type of scenario being played

* the ability for players to select their own forces.

You are right that it's not really 'quick', but it is a LOT quicker than building a whole scenario from scratch. Really, the only QB element is that players can select their own forces, which for some players is in itself a huge consideration.

I think it combines the good bits of scenarios (customisation, context) with the good bits of a QB (force selection, speedier than maing a scen from scratch) with a grand dollop of FOW. Win!

Hmm. I think that'd make for an interesting tourny concept - players have say 2,000 points, and a set of criteria (armour only, Polish, whatever) then they square off on a map that neither have seen. You'd probably want to restrict it to all forces from a single nationality, or sumfink. Still, it'd be interesting, and interesting to see how different purchasing strategies affect play styles.

[JonS]

As long as it is not "Fools seldom differ".

Well, that was running about in the back of my head ...

The only thing that gets to be a pain quickly is the setting of all the soft factors down to the squad level. I tend to use typical when adding units and then record it all but I admit it gets tedious at times. My friend sets his by platoon or higher to make his life easier.

True. I tend to set everything to vanilla, then purchase up to near the points limit, then adjust the parameters for a few units to spend my last few cents (usually by upping the capabilities of some HQs). It's easier to deal with a few exceptions than to try and accurately record everything.

It's also easier in play, too, if all the units perform in a consistent way. Having one platoon Crack and the other Conscript becomes too frustrating and limiting. Better, I think, to have two platoons that are Regular.

[Baneman]

Sure, that's all true. But what you end up with at the end is:

* a customised scenario that someone has thought about

* victory conditions that make sense

* a map that will work for the type of scenario being played

* the ability for players to select their own forces.

You are right that it's not really 'quick', but it is a LOT quicker than building a whole scenario from scratch. Really, the only QB element is that players can select their own forces, which for some players is in itself a huge consideration.

...

Yeee-eess, but surely having to do this negates the whole point of having maps labelled "Meet", "Attack" etc. ?

It will only take a bit more care in defining these labels in future and we're good.

Existing ME's that aren't so good are already being looked at if what I've comprehended what I've read in this thread.

And changing some maps doesn't take an awful lot of work.

I'm actually playing a very enjoyable QB ME now on an Attack Map that we jiggered into an ME map, so if everyone who has adjusted a map could upload it to someone "official", we could rapidly improve the situation - ( thinking BFC could stick the new and/or changed maps into the patch )

[JonS]

Yeee-eess, but surely having to do this negates the whole point of having maps labelled "Meet", "Attack" etc.?

Yeah, well, I've never been very interested in traditional QBs anyway, so you're talking to the wrong guy about that

Edit to clarify: I'm talking about a different type of thing. It isn't a traditional scenario, and it isn't a traditional QB. It merges the 'good bits' of both to create a hybrid type of scenario. For that, how the map is labelled as is irrelevant.

[eltorrente]

If I take a QB ME map, alter the setup zones and/or victory locations, and save it in my QB maps folder - will my opponent see the map, or does he need to download it from me?

[Baneman]

Good question. In my case described above, I sent it to my opponent, but primarily to see if he agreed with the changes I'd made.

But I imagine if you set up the battle, the map is buried inside a la any scenario, so I think he should get the map along with everything else when your ema file gets to him.

But I could be wrong on that.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

I concur with your observation about MEs in CMx1. Not only were they not all wine and roses, but I got stuck with some highly unfavorable terrain during the Invitational Tourney, as a result of map that was supposed to be mirrored, but wasn't.

All,

I think using a trusted third party in MEs is the way to go, and I came up with a diabolical twist. You can buy anything you want, but you have a 50% chance of having to fight it yourself! This goes a long way toward encouraging balanced force purchases. If that's a no go, it's very important that players negotiate each and every issue ahead of time. If not, trouble is likely. CMx1 had/has the Fionn rules and others for reasonable purchases, but I do not know if something similar exists for CMBN and CMFI.

On a completely separate note, the extreme overhead map views look like some sort of bizarre embroidery--on acid. While others may read them easily, they short out my brain and don't even read as terrain.

Regards,

John Kettler