Mic2Bec Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 In CMx1 there was this possibility to setup a 2000 pts battle with 10% - 50% casualties, the game would allow to buy say 3000pts and randomly kill 1000 pts of units purchased. This would allow to buy big formations, and felt a lot more realistic : - you would get damaged, more fragile units, few units were at full strength ever - it was a good compromise between idiotic automatic random purchase and control (specially since the current automatic purchase is even worse than the old) - the formations were more or less preserved (less unit by unit pick up) I would love to see this brought back, if it is possible with the new engine.:cool: otherwise I love the CMx2 series, lots of nice touches : - possibility to recover lmg / smg, and even demo charges (I just saw a normal unit pick up 2 satchels from dead pioneers)... my men spend a lot of time scrounging - tree brust stripping out foliage... - destroyable trees ... - arty lethality is nice too, part of the game consists in provoking your opponent to waste his arty by opening fire too soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 In CMx1 there was this possibility to setup a 2000 pts battle with 10% - 50% casualties, the game would allow to buy say 3000pts and randomly kill 1000 pts of units purchased. This would allow to buy big formations, and felt a lot more realistic : - you would get damaged, more fragile units, few units were at full strength ever - it was a good compromise between idiotic automatic random purchase and control (specially since the current automatic purchase is even worse than the old) - the formations were more or less preserved (less unit by unit pick up) I thought I remembered this. I miss it too, and like you hope there is a chance for its reappearance. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 +1 ...................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 +1 (and many other CM1 features that were great and are missed, and are slowly getting put back in thank goodness.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 +1 indeed. One of my favorite QB features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I only briefly played the CMx1 series but I seem to recall there was also an option for forcing relatively balanced force mixes as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I only briefly played the CMx1 series but I seem to recall there was also an option for forcing relatively balanced force mixes as well. Yeah, most of the force composition types had some sort of bounding of how much you could spend on any one aspect, from Arty to Tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 "Combined Arms". It is odd and disappointing that it is not in CMx2. It would be harder to do now that all vehicle type are lumped into the same category. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Well, auto selection in QBs for Tiny and small forces (the only ones I attempt) is abysmal, thus rendering QBs at this level an almost complete waste of time. So this option could allow the choosing a larger formation, which may in turn reduce the number of units, vehicular if not infantry, and you might then get some sort of sensible force to play with. However, given that the QB force selection problem seems to have received zero assistance, I wouldn't hold my breath over the re-intoduction of a casualty option. But who knows; BFC have produced a few surprises in recent history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 ...given that the QB force selection problem seems to have received zero assistance, I wouldn't hold my breath over the re-intoduction of a casualty option. But who knows; BFC have produced a few surprises in recent history. I remain somewhat puzzled as to why the option isn't there in QBs when it is in the scenario designer. Too hard to calculate points? Surely not... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 +1 in it's own way having skeleton units that had already taken casualties gave units each their own more unique flavor as well. I remember a lot of CMBO or BB battles where I had German squads that began with an MG42 and a couple MP40s - thats it - things like that. All sorts of possibilities with it, and it would fit well with the other modifiers such as fatigue, fitness, motivation, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
$Pec5 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 My favorite CMx1 QB feature was the ability to pick the specific point value of your QB. In CMx2 the options are far more limited compared to CMx1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 My favorite CMx1 QB feature was the ability to pick the specific point value of your QB. In CMx2 the options are far more limited compared to CMx1. +1 ... or even a +2 to that! ... I would love to have point values again for doing quick battles. (And make the Tigers cost 900 points too! ... I think a Tiger only costs about 1.8 times the value of a PzIV. But I have a feeling a Tiger costs many times more than a PzIV in real life .. taking into consideration manufacturing, maintenance and just the logistics of getting those beasts to the battlefield.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 +1 ... or even a +2 to that! ... I would love to have point values again for doing quick battles. (And make the Tigers cost 900 points too! ... I think a Tiger only costs about 1.8 times the value of a PzIV. But I have a feeling a Tiger costs many times more than a PzIV in real life .. taking into consideration manufacturing, maintenance and just the logistics of getting those beasts to the battlefield.) Points cost is, theoretically, "supposed" to represent combat effectiveness, not cost of production. Is a Tiger nearly twice as good as two PzIVs? Probably. 4 times as good? Probably not; I'd rather have a platoon of IVs than one Tiger in most cases. Costs in the real world, whether in logistic effort or manufacturing priorities are more covered by rarity, and in FI, Tigger should be very rare indeed, as there were a grand total of 17 on the whole island when Husky began, and the number of operational vehicles only went down. 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.