Gamey Game Play

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's my impression the nihilism is a pose to hide a deeper apathy: The QB points system isn't something Battlefront really cares about, so they tossed us a working point-based system and now just want to get on with what they want to get on with.

Agree 100%, unfortunately. I don't think they wanted to do it, but felt compelled by the reaction to CMSF.

The US rocket price might be some suppressed anger or resentment coming to the surface.

(In fact I'm working on a paper that puts forth a psychological profile for Steve based entirely on CMBN's engine and contents. It's provisionally titled "75mm is Big Enough." If anyone has other suggestions...?)

LOL! But sure to post that up when it's finished. You might want to include the fact that Steve accurately predicted the reception to the CMSF QB system years before they made it.

BFC in 2002:

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what system is employed, QB gamers *will* figure out a way to pervert the system. This was true in CMBO and is true in CMBB and will be true in whatever game we make in the future. Well, unless we remove certain player choices like the ability to Cherry Pick ones own forces. Removing that and a few other variables would absolutely "fix" the problem. But me thinks people would complain far more loudly about that!

Steve

[Ranger33]

BFC in 2002:

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what system is employed, QB gamers *will* figure out a way to pervert the system. This was true in CMBO and is true in CMBB and will be true in whatever game we make in the future. Well, unless we remove certain player choices like the ability to Cherry Pick ones own forces. Removing that and a few other variables would absolutely "fix" the problem. But me thinks people would complain far more loudly about that!

Steve

This notion is great, it's just that their implementation of this idea in CMSF was piss-poor. The forces were essentially picked at random by the AI, with no regard to the terrain, objectives, or opposing forces. 4 out of 5 times the forces were completely mismatched. Tank companies vs recon battalions, FO's with no artillery, 20 HUMVEEs w/ TOW missiles vs some insurgents in technicals, and so on. Plus the fact that having automatic and human selection of units in the same game would have been simple to implement and left everyone much happier.

I understand that they don't want to waste time endlessly balancing the point value of things, but changing the value of US rockets, when people have been asking for it from day one, would not take that much effort. I think it's just like their refusing to add a "Delete" button to the saved games page for 5-6 years. They do it (or not) because they like to watch us squirm

[LukeFF]

b.) Don't arty my set-up? Why not?

Because what would be the point then of playing the match? If you get your thrills by wiping out your opponent's force in his setup zone in under 5 minutes, then have at, but you're going to find most people here (including myself) want to play a match against a human opponent that actually requires thought.

Oh, and your description of Warbirds is still exactly why certain flight sims these days have problems drawing people to multiplayer servers.

[WynnterGreen]

b.) Don't arty my set-up? Why not?

Because what would be the point then of playing the match?

I'm pretty sure it's a display of

tactical skill to render his (opponents) best effort less effective..

Dropping Arty on setup zones is also designed to

create the mutual respect by his own conduct.

It's also an excellent way to avoid timid souls

who wish to negotiate success prior to playing.

[Apocal]

Oh, and your description of Warbirds is still exactly why certain flight sims these days have problems drawing people to multiplayer servers.

Jet Day for WarBirds was my day away from that particular game.

LOL! But sure to post that up when it's finished. You might want to include the fact that Steve accurately predicted the reception to the CMSF QB system years before they made it.

If the game was capable of choosing a sensible force mix, it wouldn't have been too bad.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If the game was capable of choosing a sensible force mix, it wouldn't have been too bad.

I like the idea myself. I've considered a system where you select general categories of units and the AI selects the exact ones. For example, the player could ask for 2 companies of dismounted infantry, a platoon of armor and artillery support. The AI then selects the exact unit types and amount within those guidelines.

But I think it might be hard to do. For one thing, the AI needs to have some idea about the relative combat power of units so that it doesn't give one player Jagdtigers, the other player Stuarts and call it even. That means you have to assign point values. So in order to have a CMSF-style QB system that works you have to first build a CMBN-style system as the basis.

An alternative is to have a large pool of pre-made OOBs for each QB size that are picked from randomly. So for example, if you were playing a large QB with UK attacking Waffen SS the AI would randomly pick one of dozens of premade Waffen SS forces optimized for defensive play (fortifications, mines, ect.), then a UK force tailored for attack with a total combat power (measured in QB purchase points) of about 1.6 that of the Waffen SS force.

[Ranger33]

I know the point has already been made, but I just had to show off the force chosen for me by the AI just now

I thought I would have a little fun by throwing two sets of "Armor Only" Italian forces at each other. My force consists of 4 Semoventes (nice), 3 R-35's (fun!), a Carro Comando (makes sense), and not one, not two, not eight, but ELEVEN forward observers. Oh, and zero artillery for them to call in

**I think this is actually due to there not being enough rarity points available to field more than a few tanks, so the AI uses up the rest of the points on the only unit it can, which is FO's. Still, some mortars for them to call in would be nice.

[Seedorf81]

I know the point has already been made, but I just had to show off the force chosen for me by the AI just now

I thought I would have a little fun by throwing two sets of "Armor Only" Italian forces at each other. My force consists of 4 Semoventes (nice), 3 R-35's (fun!), a Carro Comando (makes sense), and not one, not two, not eight, but ELEVEN forward observers. Oh, and zero artillery for them to call in

**I think this is actually due to there not being enough rarity points available to field more than a few tanks, so the AI uses up the rest of the points on the only unit it can, which is FO's. Still, some mortars for them to call in would be nice.

The other way around, masses of arty and airsupport, but no-one to call it in (the few HQunits get "DENIED" if they try), has the same frustrationlevel.

Or that you're given a nice balanced force by the computer, and you deploy them in a genial way, only to discover that your QB AI-opponent has 5 or 6 stationary AT/FLAKguns with no decent protection.

[agusto]

I get the most fun out of the QB maps by refining them in the Editor with improved AI and details (if i feel like they need them) and making Scenarios out of them that i can play vs the AI. Of course this partailly takes away the element of suprise when you know what the enemys force consists of, but if i select a sufficient number of troops for the computer i usually cant remember in detail what and where they were anyways.

There are some great QB maps that come with the game, really.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There are some great QB maps that come with the game, really.

+1

Attk Large Hills 252 is a gem.

I also like improving QB maps, as well as converting scenario maps to QBs.

[Battlefront.com]

Time to chime in

If the game was capable of choosing a sensible force mix, it wouldn't have been too bad.

It still would have been hated, but it would have had more supporters than it did. Nope, without a question of a doubt we learned that QB players want to game the system. That's a huge part of what thrill they get out of playing. How to take a bunch of points and one up the other side before the game even starts. Which means any system which reduces, not to mention eliminates, choice is bad no matter how it is implemented.

When we looked into improving the CMSf system we quickly realized that it was, from a customer's standpoint, a lost cause. We could have spent a ton of time and made only a few more people happier and some less spiteful. But the majority would still spit after mentioning our names. The key to winning wars is picking your battles. This was a battle we could not win so we regrouped and came out with a new attack plan. Good call on our part based on the reception since CMBN.

For sure the system isn't perfect. The auto picker absolutely goofs up selection. Prices for this or that unit based on this or that condition can come up all wrong. But overall I think the system does a much better job of things now than it did back in CMx1 days. Still room for improvement though. Especially when we can identify a particular combo that produces really "off" results (like Ranger33's example, which we'll look into).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I like the idea myself. I've considered a system where you select general categories of units and the AI selects the exact ones. For example, the player could ask for 2 companies of dismounted infantry, a platoon of armor and artillery support. The AI then selects the exact unit types and amount within those guidelines.

But I think it might be hard to do. For one thing, the AI needs to have some idea about the relative combat power of units so that it doesn't give one player Jagdtigers, the other player Stuarts and call it even. That means you have to assign point values. So in order to have a CMSF-style QB system that works you have to first build a CMBN-style system as the basis.

Yup. And that is sorta what we have now. CMBN (and later) system is a combination of both the old CMx1 pure point system and CMSF's more restrictive formational concepts. But it will never work to have someone state, specifically, "I want 2 companies of infantry" and have it work out balanced with the other guy who says "I want 1 company of tanks". There's only so much we can do with that and I can assure you it's not enough to make it balanced more than just occasionally. Or put another way, it would be worse than what you guys are playing now

An alternative is to have a large pool of pre-made OOBs for each QB size that are picked from randomly. So for example, if you were playing a large QB with UK attacking Waffen SS the AI would randomly pick one of dozens of premade Waffen SS forces optimized for defensive play (fortifications, mines, ect.), then a UK force tailored for attack with a total combat power (measured in QB purchase points) of about 1.6 that of the Waffen SS force.

This was, actually, the original concept for CMSF's QB system. It was abandoned as being too restrictive as standard play. But as an option? I think it could work out pretty well. The unfortunate thing is it would be a major effort to develop and get right, yet we figure only a minority of players would opt into it. So it's not likely to happen simply because there's other things we can do with the same time that would make more people happier more of the time.

Steve

[BLSTK]

That seems an odd choice for a date, but to each his own...

Michael

Was she bear or merely scantilly clad?

[Vinnart]

Don't use auto pick. Create and craft your own force. This is the best, and most fun way to make a flexible efficient force, and is a welcome feature. Thank you BF for bringing this system back after CMSF! I like the current system, and find I can get tight C2 in the way I put my force together.

[Battlefront.com]

Just so you guys know... I'm looking over some internal picker "weights" for some formations and they appear to be in need of adjustment. Normal Dude will be going over all of these with a fine toothed comb for the next release. That should help avoid some bad picks which are currently able to happen. Perhaps I see even some reason for Range33's situation, though I'm not entirely sure about that one yet.

Short of it... there are some things we can adjust fairly easily to improve the overall picking, but it's never going to be "perfect".

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just so you guys know... I'm looking over some internal picker "weights" for some formations and they appear to be in need of adjustment. Normal Dude will be going over all of these with a fine toothed comb for the next release.

Does that include the price of US rockets, by chance...

[Battlefront.com]

No. The pricing mechanism is a separate thing and I don't want to get into point discussions. As I said years ago, I'm not interested in that completely pointless exercise any more. That is a place where madness lies and I don't like madness (excepting the ska band. Them I like!).

However, Normal Dude can certainly make them picked less frequently compared to other Formations. They shouldn't be coming up so often since they were, at the time, quite rare. Since that would largely address the problem I think that's a better place to spend our time.

Steve

[winkelried]

They shouldn't be coming up so often since they were, at the time, quite rare. Since that would largely address the problem I think that's a better place to spend our time.

Steve

Hear! Hear!

Considering myself rather on the grog side i always (even in CMx1) considered QBs to be inherently gamey - they pitch artificially selected (and limited) forces against each other in a bit of a too clean environment (don't get me wrong there is certainly a market/community for this - so it is important that CM has this kind of gameplay).

I prefer you guys investing in the scenario development tools (as you did with the higher number of AI groups or the overlay) - there is a lot of room for becoming even better: Triggered AI, taking over damage on the map from one battle to the other in campaigns, AI vs AI play to facilitate early playtesting etc.

And there is certainly some challenging stuff for the TacAI to be done like formations (wedge, line, column or just a follow command) or "AT-sniping" in MOUT etc. etc. And last, but not least Market Garden, Bulge, Eastern Front :cool:

looking forward to the new challenges you'll give us

[Vanir Ausf B]

QBs are not inherently gamey. They are as gamey as the players want them to be. Most of the same TO&E tools available in the editor are in the QB selection screen. How you make use of them is up to you and your opponent. There are house rules popular with QB players specifically meant to limit gameyness. Scenarios can be plenty gamey too if the designer wants them to be.

QB maps are generally pristine environments, but that is easy to change. I like loading QB maps into the editor and adding craters and rubbling a building here and there for better Bazooka cover

[winkelried]

QBs are not inherently gamey.

Playing CM for 10 years now - played a lot of excellent, nerve-wrecking QBs - but still ... a good scenario PBEM/H2H feels a lot more realistic

[MikeyD]

People become so fixated on manhandling the QB picker that they seem to entirely forget there's a scenario editor sitting waiting to be used! CM isn't limited to or limited by its QB editor. You can pick up QB maps, pick whatever opposing forces you like, adjust the AI order and victory conditions however you like, then you resave as a standalone scenario. If you do half a dozen at a time and let 'em sit for a few days the chances of you recalling the particulars of the opposing force are slim. Gameplay without predetermined limits.

[winkelried]

People become so fixated on manhandling the QB picker that they seem to entirely forget there's a scenario editor sitting waiting to be used! CM isn't limited to or limited by its QB editor. You can pick up QB maps, pick whatever opposing forces you like, adjust the AI order and victory conditions however you like, then you resave as a standalone scenario.

too true ... so what would be nice, is to have an unlimited force selection option in the QB - you would have the "protocol" to set up a QB, but could select much more freely the forces w/o seeing the enemy's troops. for the victory conditions/setup zones the scenario editor is just fine.

[cjslax6]

I've become of the opinion that there should not be any artillery call in the set-up phase for either side. This includes delayed shots. The fact that the attacker can call artillery anywhere on the map is very frustrating. I'm in a QB now, and I had a planned fall back position to the one set of protection far on the reverse side of a hill. Lo and behold artillery started raining down at exactly 15 mins in and I know that there could not be any spotting on it.

Some people will argue that in an Attack the attacker would have pre-planned bombardment, but how would they have dialed in the location without ever seeing the geography ahead? I'm fine with the spotting positions and calling in artillery, but the accurate spotting of unknown terrain is frustrating. It's funny I didn't experience it much on CMFI, I guess the terrain in QBs at CMBN makes it much easier

[Vanir Ausf B]

What size map are you playing on? It's easier to make those guesses on a 1km x 1km map than a 2x2.

[JonS]

Some people will argue that in an Attack the attacker would have pre-planned bombardment, but how would they have dialed in the location without ever seeing the geography ahead?

Air OP? Some big hill or church steeple that,s just off map? Fully predicted fire from calibrated guns on theatre survey? Etc.