Picking units in a QB

[A Canadian Cat]

Slysniper, you can do that with core units now. (Or can't you import them in QBs?--I hardly ever do QBs.)

Nope no import into QB just into scenarios.

[Vinnart]

i THOUGHT OF A POSSIBLE SIMPLE ANSWER TO HELP THE GAME IN THIS AREA.

Why not allow you to save your selections in a file for future QB use. Then each game you would not have to go through the task of deselcting. Most players have a handful of typ. set ups they like to use for a certain size battle anyway. So it would be a great time saver to just have them saved in a file you could reselect, pull it up. Still be able to make adjustments, then proceed. It would also let you see how you once created forces and keep track of adjustments you come up with as you try different formations with time.

I like the import Idea as I have a force orginazation I seem to use rather consistently. I am so happy BF returned to allowing the player the freedom to cherry pick. Putting the force together as one sees fit is part of the fun IMO.

[slysniper]

I like the import Idea as I have a force orginazation I seem to use rather consistently. I am so happy BF returned to allowing the player the freedom to cherry pick. Putting the force together as one sees fit is part of the fun IMO.

Yes, but also improved from the old games in that there is point penalties as you stray away from using proper formations.

[poesel]

Why not allow you to save your selections in a file for future QB use.

You are not the first to ask but every time an opportunity for a +1!

Such a feature would be a great relief. Especially with the setup troubles we had. A great time saver would a simple save/load feature be.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, but also improved from the old games in that there is point penalties as you stray away from using proper formations.

There were more point penalties for straying from official TO&E in CMx1 than in CMBN.

[Battlefront.com]

This is a topic that hasn't come up in a LONG while. There's plenty of discussion to search through for those who are interested. But yeah, we definitely side with the "it's really not that big of a deal" side of things. Given the benefits that come from the system, some of which are technical in nature, we're not going to change the system from what it is. Which means people have to get used to it or move onto another game.

I'm confused why anybody thinks this has to do with RealTime play. In fact, until I read that comment I never in a million years would have imagined there could be a link between them. So I'm curious what the perceived link is between formation purchasing and RT play? Because I'm pretty much baffled by that comment.

Steve

[Vinnart]

we definitely side with the "it's really not that big of a deal" side of things.

I'm curious what the perceived link is between formation purchasing and RT play? Because I'm pretty much baffled by that comment.

Steve

I agree. For me something like being able to save a set up to reload is definitely on the “Would be nice” list. There are other features of priority as far as I am concerned that I am more interested in seeing in future builds. At any rate the new system is SO much better than CMSF’s was, and is a step in a good direction to please more people. Overall, I like the CMBN system.

As for RT, I am guessing the desire is to make purchasing quicker to get a QB game going faster, but I could be wrong.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, the thing that saddens us is that UI work sucks up quite a bit of time. We could literally spend months doing nothing but improving user controls or the user experience. No problem finding stuff to do. But we have to strike a balance with the other needs. This is why big companies have several programmers doing nothing but UI work, several doing nothing but graphics work, several doing... well, you understand

I suppose that's what the RT comment was aimed at. Whatever it is, until reading his post I never thought there could ever be a connection with RT. And since I designed the system, I think that safely means it wasn't designed for RT.

Steve

[Apocal]

Allow the community to mod the UI?

[Battlefront.com]

Impossible. The UI artwork is easily modifiable already, but the functionality of it must be coded. And by coded I mean compiled into the main App. Which means the only way to allow 3rd party modification would be to either release the source code (suicide for us) or create a useful enough API that drop in UI mods could work. The API would probably take us much longer to write and support than the useful features it could yield. So that's a no go as well.

Steve

[Apocal]

Impossible. The UI artwork is easily modifiable already, but the functionality of it must be coded. And by coded I mean compiled into the main App. Which means the only way to allow 3rd party modification would be to either release the source code (suicide for us) or create a useful enough API that drop in UI mods could work. The API would probably take us much longer to write and support than the useful features it could yield. So that's a no go as well.

Steve

OK, thank you for replying.

[Artofwar]

pltaskess I tend to agree with you but then I enjoy micromanaging and want my cake and eat it too. :eek: sometimes I want to just check something out and I usually have it set to tiny battle so then just to check something out I have to delete and delete and delete just to get to the setup phase.

but I realized one can just pick FORWARD OBSERVER SECTION - and then attach individual special teams and vehicles to this section lol. This is possib le if you like choose battle size tiny, combat force mix, unit purchase human for both sides then when you get to the screen to choose units choose "Forward Observer Secton" and attach individual sections and vehicles to this so it will work for example some Recon dudes, a bar, a mortar, a bazooka, a tank or jeep :cool: I get in the mood for this sometimes.

Screw realism Screw OOB sometimes ALL I want is easy playability.

[A Canadian Cat]

Actually I keep D company and delete up from there. Or 3 Platoon and delete 1 and 2. In fact I have been known to add two infantry battalions and then delete the first one. Just so I can have H Company.

I just wanted to clarify a mistake that I have been making. I play on Warrior level and sometimes Iron (I have one opponent who makes me:-) but I am sure this applies to Elite as well. The enemy only sees the lowest level name of a unit "1 Squad", "1 Squad / A Team" or "2nd Medium Tank". Even the HQ units only show their own level "1 Company HQ" or "1 Platoon HQ".

So all my machinations to show off H company or 4 platoon don't really work unless your HQ units are spotted. For some reason I had it in my head that the whole unit chain was shown - my bad.

[womble]

I just wanted to clarify a mistake that I have been making. I play on Warrior level and sometimes Iron (I have one opponent who makes me:-) but I am sure this applies to Elite as well. The enemy only sees the lowest level name of a unit "1 Squad", "1 Squad / A Team" or "2nd Medium Tank". Even the HQ units only show their own level "1 Company HQ" or "1 Platoon HQ".

So all my machinations to show off H company or 4 platoon don't really work unless your HQ units are spotted. For some reason I had it in my head that the whole unit chain was shown - my bad.

True, but if you've got 6 x 2nd squads, and 3 x 1st squads and 3 x 3rd squads, and your opponent is really keeping an eye on that data, the misinformation can still work, leading him to believe you have 6 full platoons rather than 6 platoons at 2/3 strength.

Also, if you doubleclick an enemy unit, it and all the ones that would go yellow if they were yours, go orange. So he'll see that the 1st squads are not from the same platoons as the 3rd squads and tear his hair out looking for the missing squads.