simast Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 And by maps, I mean the actual maps and not the battles. I am playing one WEGO game right now (the first meeting engagement battle in the list) and this: The fence is here so you wouldn't use your truck and rush into a good position too soon too fast. The map is full of other goodies. Every tree is placed to obstruct something... Also, found this line in the latest patch: some Meeting Engagement maps were re-balanced. I understand there is a lot of work put into these maps and don't want to undermine the effort, but why would you want to balance the maps at all? The only balance that should be done is with forces/OOB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 In order balance out-of-balance QB maps using OOB you would have to give one side or the other more purchase points. That's fine in theory, but the problem is if the map is picked at random you don't know before hand if you are getting a balanced one or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdp Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Some of the Meeting Engagement QB maps have been edited - more precisely the setup zones have been edited to provide more balanced setup conditions. /sdp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simast Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 In order balance out-of-balance QB maps using OOB you would have to give one side or the other more purchase points. That's fine in theory, but the problem is if the map is picked at random you don't know before hand if you are getting a balanced one or not. I get your point about QB unit purchase points, but the screenshot and my issue is with a scenario map, not a QB map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercovergeek Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I get your point about QB unit purchase points, but the screenshot and my issue is with a scenario map, not a QB map. that fence would only hold you up for a couple of seconds - maybe it was put there because the SD thought a fence should go there. Trees are placed to block your LOS? really? have a think about it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I get your point about QB unit purchase points, but the screenshot and my issue is with a scenario map, not a QB map. Although not specifically stated, the patch change you quoted only applies to QB maps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I understand there is a lot of work put into these maps and don't want to undermine the effort, but why would you want to balance the maps at all? The only balance that should be done is with forces/OOB. That's a pretty preposterous notion. You can't separate terrain balance from forces balance. If the defenders are at the top of cliffs with plentiful cover and concealment, the attackers are going to need overwhelming odds to balance the game we're playing. Or the map maker could tone down the elevation changes and add defilade where the attacker can approach. Balance is balance, no matter where it comes from. And QBs only get their balance from the map; can you imagine how difficult it might be to get two opponents to agree whether the given map ought to reward the disadvantaged side with 10 or should it be 20% more force points? And that's when the map is manually selected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simast Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 That's a pretty preposterous notion. You can't separate terrain balance from forces balance. If the defenders are at the top of cliffs with plentiful cover and concealment, the attackers are going to need overwhelming odds to balance the game we're playing. Or the map maker could tone down the elevation changes and add defilade where the attacker can approach. I know you mentioned the game here, but how would you approach such a battle in real life (given the fact CM engine was always striving to be as realistic as possible in depicting tactical combat)? I can already imagine the attacking force commander saying something like "this isn't fair! let's lower the elevation and balance the forces" Unless there are other factors involved? Like engine limitations? I just don't buy it. Given how realistically CM does everything else, it bothers me that we have these Call of Duty style map balance fences placed in the game. And QBs only get their balance from the map; can you imagine how difficult it might be to get two opponents to agree whether the given map ought to reward the disadvantaged side with 10 or should it be 20% more force points? And that's when the map is manually selected. I know map balance is needed for QBs since you can choose your own forces, but there is no excuse to balance the scenario maps, which is what I am referring to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercovergeek Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I know you mentioned the game here, but how would you approach such a battle in real life (given the fact CM engine was always striving to be as realistic as possible in depicting tactical combat)? I can already imagine the attacking force commander saying something like "this isn't fair! let's lower the elevation and balance the forces" Unless there are other factors involved? Like engine limitations? I just don't buy it. Given how realistically CM does everything else, it bothers me that we have these Call of Duty style map balance fences placed in the game. I know map balance is needed for QBs since you can choose your own forces, but there is no excuse to balance the scenario maps, which is what I am referring to. i wasnt there, so this is only a guess, but maybe, just maybe a commander might say, oh **** call for reinforcements theres more than we thought, lets pull back, wait for more guys and then go at them? or maybe skirmish after skirmish was an unbalanced, unfair slaughter - thats great, i dont want to play a game like that. If you do thats cool, but ill see you back here in 6 months complaining how you keep getting beaten 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Thing is, irl, if the terrain was preposterous for an attack ... you'd go and attack somewhere else. So a QB map assumes that the eventual decision to attack/probe/whatever has led to the battle being on terrain in which both sides ( the players ) feel they stand a chance. If you want to create a more "lopsided" affair, grab that scenario editor and get started, there's nothing stopping you. Assuming the map builder created that fence that annoys you just to stop some sort of truck rush may be inferring a bit much, maybe he just put it there to look good. Besides, how much is it going to slow you down ? 20 more seconds ? Hardly serious in the timescale of a battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I know map balance is needed for QBs since you can choose your own forces, but there is no excuse to balance the scenario maps, which is what I am referring to. ............ Some of the Meeting Engagement QB maps have been edited - more precisely the setup zones have been edited to provide more balanced setup conditions. /sdp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simast Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 i wasnt there, so this is only a guess, but maybe, just maybe a commander might say, oh **** call for reinforcements theres more than we thought, lets pull back, wait for more guys and then go at them? You mean you will use overwhelming force to beat the opposition? And will not bring an excavator and try to level their defensive positions before the battle? Makes sense. Which is also my point. So a QB map assumes that the eventual decision to attack/probe/whatever has led to the battle being on terrain in which both sides ( the players ) feel they stand a chance. QB has nothing to do with this.. Anyway, I did notice this and thought this can be relatively easily avoided for scenario maps. If no one else thinks this way, I am fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I think most scenario maps are not balanced at all and actually do use OOB to even things out. Many of them are based on aerial or satellite imagery so any balancing feature are coincidental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 ...balance fences... You are a troll and I claim my five pounds. You are simply persisting in talking nonsense, so: gibber gibber drool flapmonkey. There you go. A response that makes as much sense as the question. Bye. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 That fence wasn't put there for balance. I put it up to keep the damn hippies off my lawn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 That fence wasn't put there for balance. I put it up to keep the damn hippies off my lawn. Successfully, it seems 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 There are two (at least) competing theories of gameplay at work: 'authenticity' camp and the 'chess game' camp. The first has the scenario/map designer trying to reproduce an actual location or event. The new map editor features make this an easier task. The second tries to accommodate the H2H player's obsession with 'play balance' - that one side not be given an unfair advantage over the other. The 'authenticity players tend to get annoyed with 'chess game' style maps and the 'chess game' players tend to get annoyed with 'unfair advantage' reality-style maps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 This is just too good not to bite at The fence is here so you wouldn't use your truck and rush into a good position too soon too fast. I've no idea who's map this is, but if I wanted to block trucks, you'd have something more substantial than a fence in the way. The map is full of other goodies. Every tree is placed to obstruct something... Well I guess it obstructs the LOS from behind the tree at the very least So no fences in scenarios, no trees, how about houses can we use them ? If you think I sit there and place everything for design effect, you have no idea how I make maps P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newlife Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 That fence wasn't put there for balance. I put it up to keep the damn hippies off my lawn. I thought the 105 howitzer zeroed in on the painted TRP was there to keep the riff raff away. The fence was just to get them bunched up... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Yeah, come on. A chessboard is "balanced." Every other map is going to be "unbalanced" to some degree unless, say, you simply made each player's "half" a mirror image of the other's. If that's what you want -- a gladiatorial arena for a glorified game of digital team paintball -- go abead and build your own. Or just play World of Tanks and have done. Me, I am at the very opposite end of the spectrum; I like nothing better than to play games with mismatched forces but the stronger force having to struggle through god-awful terrain and the weaker force having to make best possible use of thatterrain.Like, oh, nearly all real WWII battlefields. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 That fence wasn't put there for balance. I put it up to keep the damn hippies off my lawn. I guess I should forget about bringing that case of beer over then, huh? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I get your point about QB unit purchase points, but the screenshot and my issue is with a scenario map, not a QB map. It's quite obvious from the screen shot that the truck will get to where it's going faster by going down the road. Putting a truck on open ground will slow it down to a crawl anyway, so your theory is flawed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I guess I should forget about bringing that case of beer over then, huh? Michael No Sonny. Now why would yer think that? Kids today. Leave the beer by the fence. Sheesh do I have to splain everything? And leave some of that funny weed you kids keep smoking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simast Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 *sight* Found some more cheap hippie jokes: How do you know a hippie stayed at your place? (He is still there) How do you get rid of the hippie staying at your place? (Offer him a job) Where do you hide money from a hippie? (Under a bar of soap!) What do you call a hippie who just broke up with his girlfriend? (Homeless) How many hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb? (None, hippies screw in tents) Why do hippies wave their arms when they dance? (To keep the music out of their eyes) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I have designed a few maps/scenarios. So far from my limited experience: Fences have negligible impact on any effort to restrict movement. I use heavy forest to channel vehicles for the AI side. Trees seem to not block LOS for my AI troops. I use buildings or actual terrain to prevent game starting with troops unintentionally in LOS of each other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.