Unit point cost in the editor?

[invernomuto]

Hi,

Although I like the CM editor very much (I'm planning to make a few PBEM scenarios for CMFI), I find it could be very useful to view the unit costs for balancing purpose (like for QBs). It could be an interesting addition to the game in future patches / CM 3.0.

[ASL Veteran]

I think you would find point values to be less useful than you might think.

[womble]

I think you would find point values to be less useful than you might think.

Perhaps for a veteran, but for someone who's not quite so deeply steeped in WW2 militaria, having some basis for comparison, even for individual elements, without having to Google is going to be handy. And if the points values aren't useful comparisons of worth on the field, then they're pointless in QB selection too...

[Ted]

I was wondering the same thing.

Why points in the QB and not in the editor?

(I'm sure this has been discussed before)

I'm trying to design my first CMBN scenario and have very little clue of relative strengths especially in the infantry aspect.

I find myself going to the QB and writing down point values and then going back to the editor to choose troops.

[ASL Veteran]

And if the points values aren't useful comparisons of worth on the field, then they're pointless in QB selection too...

I can make just about any point combination 'fair' through the manipulation of the victory conditions for one thing. The terrain is another big factor. If you have a King Tiger positioned at the end of a billiard table that's 3000 meters long then it could hold off many times it's value in points without breaking a sweat. If you have a King Tiger in the middle of a dense forest, then one engineer squad with a demo charge can ruin the King Tiger's day. So yeah, using point values for scenario creation is almost useless. I can see that perhaps if there is someone new to the genre maybe they might get some benefit from it, but the factors I've just pointed out will probably outweigh the raw point totals involved.

[MikeyD]

In war if you're engaging with the enemy on an equal footing you've already done something wrong. If you're reduced to charging an occupied building with fixed bayonets you've already done something wrong. Probably quite a long time ago, in logistics and supply meetings months earlier.

[womble]

I can make just about any point combination 'fair' through the manipulation of the victory conditions for one thing. The terrain is another big factor. If you have a King Tiger positioned at the end of a billiard table that's 3000 meters long then it could hold off many times it's value in points without breaking a sweat. If you have a King Tiger in the middle of a dense forest, then one engineer squad with a demo charge can ruin the King Tiger's day. So yeah, using point values for scenario creation is almost useless. I can see that perhaps if there is someone new to the genre maybe they might get some benefit from it, but the factors I've just pointed out will probably outweigh the raw point totals involved.

Sure, we can all come up with specific situations when one unit or another is not going to be as useful as its points might suggest, or is going to completely outdo expectations. But if you're just setting up a "standard fight" but with some story and a nice map, where you're not trying to change how the odds look from if it were a QB, at least to start with, knowing that some Italian formations are "worth" a lot more per squad by looking at the points would be a good start.

Sure, the points won't be useful all the time, when you've got a specific situation in mind, but there are times when they would be useful, and it's surely a matter of displaying them.

[ASL Veteran]

Sure, the points won't be useful all the time, when you've got a specific situation in mind

Also known as a 'scenario'. There is a fundamental difference between a 'scenario' and a 'quick battle' and the approaches players make to each is different. If you are using point values to make a scenario then you aren't making a scenario. You are making a glorified quick battle. By adding points to the editor all you would be doing is have the designer 'buy' each sides forces rather than having each player buy their own. A designer who used points to make his scenario would more than likely be using a quick battle map for his battle. The result of that would be a poor man's scenario that's half quick battle and half scenario and satisfying to very few. Scenario players would immediately pick up on the lack of depth and quick battle players wouldn't be able to buy their own force. It would be like driving a Ford Pinto.

[womble]

Also known as a 'scenario'. There is a fundamental difference between a 'scenario' and a 'quick battle' and the approaches players make to each is different. If you are using point values to make a scenario then you aren't making a scenario. You are making a glorified quick battle. By adding points to the editor all you would be doing is have the designer 'buy' each sides forces rather than having each player buy their own. A designer who used points to make his scenario would more than likely be using a quick battle map for his battle. The result of that would be a poor man's scenario that's half quick battle and half scenario and satisfying to very few. Scenario players would immediately pick up on the lack of depth and quick battle players wouldn't be able to buy their own force. It would be like driving a Ford Pinto.

We differ on semantics. I define "Scenario" as "something put together in the editor" (and therefore allowing many different features, like headcount, supply etc, and different VPs and all the surrounding ephemera like briefings etc.) Doesn't have to have any particular "interesting" or "one-sided" setup, any more than a QB does. It's still a scenario. You seem to want all scenarios to have some sort of twist that immediately invalidates any concept of "value".

Heck, having the points value in the editor would be useful in tinkering with QB loadouts using unfamiliar formations: much easier to fiddle with the things you've picked if you can go back and forth between the game field (or some flat parade ground chosen for the purpose of comparisons) without having to repick from scratch. Combined with the putative ability to export an OoB and import it to QB, I can see that would make it a lot more common for people to use a variety of different formations rather than sticking to the "old favourites".

[smbecket]

ASL Veteran: IMHO you are taking too narrow a view of the game. Not everyone plays it the same way. I play exclusively with an old Army friend by email. Currently with CMBN. I build the maps we use and develop a different "Scenario" for each game. Sometimes we battle over the same objectives; sometimes we have different objectives. Regardless, we each have the same number of points to build our force. We pass the scenario file back and forth as we each secretly select our troops. Unfortunately, since the Scenario Editor does not list the point values we have to enter the QB menu, setting up a bogus battle each time, and select our units there. Each and every parameter and change in a units status must be written down so we can re-create it in the Scenario Editor. It is an unmitigated agony. The CMBN Scenario Editor and the QB Editor do not list the units in the same fashion; some BNs are under the Armored Inf.(Mech. Inf) in one editor and under Armor in the other. Far worse, however, is the fact that not all the TO&Es are exactly the same from one to the other. Case in point: in the QB Editor the American Armored Inf. BN HQ CO. does not have an Assault Gun Plt. nor does it have any vehicles in the Recon., MG, or Medium Mortar Plt. It used to have them but not now. Further, the number of Recon. Teams are different. There are many other anomalies but I will not bore you by reciting them all even if I could remember them. It is extremely frustrating to try to build a large force other these conditions! Especially when we were building a 20 k point force per side for a game we just started. So let me give a resounding +10 to the idea of having the points listed under the Scenario Editor. I have been meaning to plead for this for the past year but just never got around to it.

[ASL Veteran]

Regardless, we each have the same number of points to build our force.

You are playing a quick battle then. You can call it a scenario because you are setting it up in the editor, but you aren't playing a scenario you are playing a quick battle. Ditto for Womble. You are both quick battle players who want to mess around in the editor - and that's fine. It's just not scenario making in my book. It's making quick battles.

[Vanir Ausf B]

But the point is they are using the scenario editor to create gameplay experiences in which having the point values listed would be helpful. Whether those gameplay experiences should be labeled as scenarios or quick battles is besides the point.

[ASL Veteran]

But the point is they are using the scenario editor to create gameplay experiences in which having the point values listed would be helpful. Whether those gameplay experiences should be labeled as scenarios or quick battles is besides the point.

Except that if they are just playing quick battles, then wouldn't it be better to make some alterations to the quick battle generator that will allow them to do what they want to do using the quick battle menus? That way you don't even need to go into the editor at all or alter it. I mean, if you aren't going to do even the basics like write a briefing or do an AI plan why would you even want to go into the editor if you could create what you wanted using the quick battle menus.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, that would be a better option if BFC were willing to do it. But it would almost certainly be more work than just adding the point values to the editor.

[womble]

...if you aren't going to do even the basics like write a briefing or do an AI plan...

And if you are? Oh look, a "scenario".

[ASL Veteran]

And if you are? Oh look, a "scenario".

Look, this is obviously a big issue for you and it's really irrelevant for me. I like it the way it is and you want it changed. I don't know about the initial poster, but everyone else who's in this thread supporting your position are quick battle players so that should tell you all you need to know about who this is important for. If you've never made an actual scenario from scratch then you wouldn't understand where I'm coming from or why points in the editor are irrelevant. You can take it as a put down if you want to, but it's not intended as one. It's simply a different way of doing things and a different perspective on what something is or isn't. If you want to put two trucks from opposing sides on a flat map and call it a scenario, who am I to say otherwise. Call it what you want to.

So feel free to take your case to BFC - although I suppose you just have by posting in this thread. If they decide to make a change then so be it. As far as point values being simple to add - like anything we just don't know how simple it would be to add point values to the editor. It seems to me that it would be even more simple to increase the amount of points each player can spend for the different sized battles. You can already make your own quick battle maps and you don't need points in the editor to do that.

So that's it, I'm going to check out of this circular discussion because it's obvious to me that no minds are going to be changed. Just be aware that there are opinions out there that don't match with your own. I'll now give you guys the last word if you want it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It seems to me that it would be even more simple to increase the amount of points each player can spend for the different sized battles.

There is already on option to do that in the QB setup screen. Although curiously it can only be adjusted for one side.

[A Canadian Cat]

Although I like the CM editor very much (I'm planning to make a few PBEM scenarios for CMFI), I find it could be very useful to view the unit costs for balancing purpose (like for QBs). It could be an interesting addition to the game in future patches / CM 3.0.

I would like to see this as well. There are some people who want the flexibility of the editor with the support of points like the QB games. We would like to see the editor get a points total just like the QB force selection.

Yes, I know there are those that do not see value but we do. Rather than raining on our request they should start a thread to ask for something they want. BFC is really good at prioritizing features.

[MikeyD]

I could never understand the willingness to construct meticulous battle in the QB editor but the apparent horror of touching the scenario editor. People are willing to bend themselves into pretzels trying to purchase exactly the QB force they want. In the editor there's no gynmastics required. Just pick-and-place. Heavy cruises and jeeps? Sure, go ahead!

[womble]

I could never understand the willingness to construct meticulous battle in the QB editor but the apparent horror of touching the scenario editor. People are willing to bend themselves into pretzels trying to purchase exactly the QB force they want. In the editor there's no gynmastics required. Just pick-and-place. Heavy cruises and jeeps? Sure, go ahead!

It's the minimaxer in us. We just gots to get the best value. Simply being able to dish ourselves 3 score King Tiggers is too easy.

[sburke]

I could never understand the willingness to construct meticulous battle in the QB editor but the apparent horror of touching the scenario editor. People are willing to bend themselves into pretzels trying to purchase exactly the QB force they want. In the editor there's no gynmastics required. Just pick-and-place. Heavy cruises and jeeps? Sure, go ahead!

'cause you gawt to haggle!

[Ted]

Using the editor with a premade map is more than just creating a quick battle.

Needles to say with the editor you can do initial setups anywhere on the map, create fixed start points and vary setup zones, reinforcements can be brought in over multiple turns in multiple locations and victory locations with point values can be assigned, something that cannot be done in a QB.

I believe there are a lot of well constructed maps both that came with the game and designed independently that scenarios can be made from.

All I'm saying , for me, having point values giving relative strengths of different units in the editor would make it easier for me to have a good starting point.