[B] Why No Setting Options For Wind In Quick Battles[/B]

[Shorker]

When doing the setup for a QB there is no option for wind condition like it was in CMx1.

Why that??? :eek:

I think this is a change for the worse and it is very annoying. :mad:

I'm doing a QB re-match via PBEM right now with a club mate and all his

smoke grenades are useless because of the strong wind. So the fun (and fairness) of the match is massively reduced now...

My arguments:

1. Wind conditions are very important for the game (strategy) - one should be able to know them before the units are purchased (like planes...)

2. Maybe some people think it's "exciting" to have an unpredictable factor in the game to make it more "realistic" - OK, why not - but these players could set the wind options on "random" then if they like it that way.

But there should be an OPTION at all. (please!)

After all the decisions about the battle settings be should be left to the customer/player.

[c3k]

Interesting obsvervation. I never noticed that lack of option in the QB menu.

Thanks.

Ken

[ZPB II]

While I do agree that it would be a nice option to set for quick battles, I have to say that it is your opponent who made a mistake, not the game.

Before you have a chance to give any orders or artillery targets, you can check the wind from Menus -> Conditions. It will say something like "Gentle, from NW." You don't buy smoke, you buy artillery. Artillery has a pool of rounds allotted, smoke or HE both take away from the same pool.

So if your opponent buys artillery and uses them to fire smoke WITHOUT CHECKING WIND CONDITIONS, he has made a mistake and has to bear the consequences.

Wind can also be useful in dispersing the smoke, in completely windless conditions smoke grenades sometimes don't form enough cover. Always remember to check the wind when using smoke.

(one can use the rounds intended for smoke by pre-targeting the positions that compromise the approach with a delayed barrage, if the enemy isn't there you can always cancel it. But blaming purely wind conditions sounds like a bit of an excuse. )

On the other hand, if the success depends purely on infantry smoke grenades and tank smoke launchers, maybe the selected QB forces aren't optimal for the task at hand?

[womble]

You can also check the wind in the Map preview, although the only way I can see it making a difference is if you're playing mirrored scenarios and in one playthrough you get a different wind situation to the other, meaning one side has a distinct disadvantage (through not having persistent smoke screens). And if you're doing that, it's probably a scenario generated in the editor, where the wind strength can be specified.

[Oddball_E8]

You cannot effect the wind in quickbattles because you are not the master of wind

[mjkerner]

You cannot effect the wind in quickbattles because you are not the master of wind

In my family, the males are noted for being the Masters of Breaking Wind. Does that count?

[Oddball_E8]

In my family, the males are noted for being the Masters of Breaking Wind. Does that count?

Well we all know that it isn't really wind they are breaking. Its gasses, and chemical warfare is a big no-no...

Even in quickbattles...

[Shorker]

Yes, there are ways to adjust your tactics to the wind conditions - thank you both for the tipps - BUT when there is an option for day, night, dawn, rain, fog - etc. why not for wind conditions?

What would the QB players say if it won't be clear wether they are fighting

at night or day...?

When doing a QB mirror match on the same map, you will have different wind conditions - and it's not only the smoke -> e.g. you can't hide AT guns in high grass or cornfields when there is strong wind.

As I said before - if people like to have this as some "spicy, extra exciting,

unforseeable element" in their QB battles, then they could choose "random" settings - but there should be an option for it like it was with CMx1.

That is my wish to BFC as customer and PBEM/QB player.

[MikeyD]

I recall someone in command (most probably Steve) once commenting that they see a 'law of diminishing returns' the more commands & options & button & windows get added. Instead of helping, the added features begin cluttering the UI and confusing the player which in turn frustrates him and drives him away from the game. Adding 'that one more button' may not sound like that big a deal but remember everybody has a different command or control to add at the top of his wish list. They can't add them all. People seem to forget there's a fully functioning scenario maker in the game. If you want a battle to be 'just so' why confine yourself to QB parameters?

[MarkEzra]

There is no control of exact time or exact wind direction/strength in QB.s Arguments for inclusion are easy enough to make and I'll certainly speak in favor of them. But MikeyD point is the essence of reality in coding a game as complex as CM2xx. What was available in CM1 QB's (insert name of pet thing you and I really miss here!) just isn't that simple. It's always the same two reasons: Coding time and what's on the to do list. Coding time is limited by the number of coders and their insistent whinning they have no life. And the list of what needs to be included in the next game is nearly as old as it is long.

So thank you for your ideas to improve my favorite part of the game. I will be sure to speak up for them (and my own) when ever I can.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I recall someone in command (most probably Steve) once commenting that they see a 'law of diminishing returns' the more commands & options & button & windows get added. Instead of helping, the added features begin cluttering the UI and confusing the player which in turn frustrates him and drives him away from the game. Adding 'that one more button' may not sound like that big a deal but remember everybody has a different command or control to add at the top of his wish list. They can't add them all. People seem to forget there's a fully functioning scenario maker in the game. If you want a battle to be 'just so' why confine yourself to QB parameters?

I would almost bet money that comment was in reference to in-game commands rather than options on a setup screen. I seriously doubt that anyone ever quit playing the CMx1 games after being rendered dazed and confused by the QB options screen. It's also contradictory to warn against the perils of too much complexity in one breath and then suggest a vastly more complex solution (make a scenario) in the next.

[Shorker]

I seriously doubt that anyone ever quit playing the CMx1 games after being rendered dazed and confused by the QB options screen.

Good argument.

@MikeyD: I'm not playing "just so" - I'm doing PBEM battles with my club mates and I would like to set the wind conditions in the same way like I can set daylight or rain or fog etc. - there is absolutely no reason for leaving this on "random" forever and frustrating customers.

I used a lot of your mods in CMx1, you have my greatest respect and this is not meant offensive or something against you - absolutely not! - but I'm wondering about those users in this forum who are not members of the Battlefront Team (or company) but always declare themselves to be experts about BFCs intentions and capabilities.

I often read: "No, they won't do this and that" - "this is too complicated" -"BFC is so small, they don't have the time" and so on and on.... :confused:

Gentlemen: "SORRY WE CAN'T" is not the slogan that made Obama President or America a super power. You know what I mean?

I'm trying to give reasonable feedback and input to the game makers in order to help improving this game.

P.S. @VanirB: I followed your invocation and played several games with conscript tanks... forget it! It is a real pain! :eek: *gg!

[Michael Emrys]

...but I'm wondering about those users in this forum who are not members of the Battlefront Team (or company) but always declare themselves to be experts about BFCs intentions and capabilities.

I often read: "No, they won't do this and that" - "this is too complicated" -"BFC is so small, they don't have the time" and so on and on.... :confused:

I think I can be described as one who makes that kind of statement, although I try to be more cautious in how I phrase it, so it might help if I tell you what I am trying to do when I do that. I expect the motives of others doing the same sort of thing are not too different.

The thing is, Steve and some others on the team have spent a lot of time over the years explaining why they do or don't do certain things. Those of us who have been around a long time have read those explanations and may have gotten some insight into the thinking behind them. So rather than have a new member's question go unanswered or wait until Steve can take the time to reiterate what he has said a dozen times before, an older member may step in to try to provide an adequate answer. Mind you, what we say is not official and may not always be strictly correct. But it may be the best answer—indeed the only one—you'll get for some time and it's meant to be helpful. It simply is not realistic to expect and demand that Steve is going to drop whatever he is working on to rush to the board to answer every question as soon as it appears. It might be nice if BFC had a dedicated PR person whose sole job was to constantly monitor the board and customer e-mails and then gather and transmit answers/solutions to customers' problems/suggestions. BFC might hire such a person if we are all willing to pay an extra $5-10/product to pay for this person's salary. Until that day arrives, I guess you are stuck with us volunteers and all that that implies.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

P.S. @VanirB: I followed your invocation and played several games with conscript tanks... forget it! It is a real pain! :eek: *gg!

It was in the real war too

[ZPB II]

but I'm wondering about those users in this forum who are not members of the Battlefront Team (or company) but always declare themselves to be experts about BFCs intentions and capabilities.

I often read: "No, they won't do this and that" - "this is too complicated" -"BFC is so small, they don't have the time" and so on and on.... :confused:

Gentlemen: "SORRY WE CAN'T" is not the slogan that made Obama President or America a super power. You know what I mean?

I'm trying to give reasonable feedback and input to the game makers in order to help improving this game.

These forums contain enough feature suggestions to spend a small lifetime working on. Just because your feature suggestion, no matter how quick or small you consider it to be, is not implemented or acknowledged right away doesn't mean you have to be offended in any way by it. Feature creep is a very real issue and anyone familiar with software development should know this.

Constructive feedback is always welcome.

[Canada Guy]

Oddball,

How does one find a poster from a concert that was held 6 blocks from my house. Even odder is that you know about this concert and I have never heard of it.

I am sorry I missed it.

[Childress]

You cannot effect the wind in quickbattles because you are not the master of wind

This fellow was:

free upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%C3%A9tomane

[Shorker]

@Michael: Good explanation - thank you for doing so and for your time. So I see that this (rather messy) forum is not the right place for me to give customer feedback and ideas.

Maybe this is only good enough for to report a bug (if one is detected)

@Zebulon: "Constructive feedback is always welcome." / "Feature creep is a very real issue and anyone familiar with software development should know this."

???

Sorry, but what is your function, here? You are a customer like me and you are a forum user like me - nothing else. I'm afraid that you are one of the forum/BFC "experts" that I was talking about earlier.

You know about everything and you like to hear yourself talking, can it be?

This is not meant offensive - I really wish you all the best and farewell - but I' have to put you on my ignore list. I don't have time for this.

I'm listening to reasonable arguments only.

"feature creep is a very real issue..." - no, it is not when the feature called "wind" is already in the game - every smart software developer should knows this.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Not to hijack the thread or anything but in addition to no wind, there's also none of the folowing:

Ground conditions

Temperature

Hilliness (A HUGE OMISSION!)

The lack that I can't choose what type of hills I have in QBs is bothersome. I can't understand why that would be omitted as it can be a huge determiner in what force to select.

[ASL Veteran]

Hilliness (A HUGE OMISSION!)

The lack that I can't choose what type of hills I have in QBs is bothersome. I can't understand why that would be omitted as it can be a huge determiner in what force to select.

:confused: The maps are not randomly generated ..... your hilliness will be determined when you select the map to play on. I'm not really sure I understand what you would like to do with this hilliness request since there is no way you can say 'I want huge hills' or 'I want a hill over there and over there' and have the map spontaneously create them.

[Col Deadmarsh]

:confused: The maps are not randomly generated ..... your hilliness will be determined when you select the map to play on. I'm not really sure I understand what you would like to do with this hilliness request since there is no way you can say 'I want huge hills' or 'I want a hill over there and over there' and have the map spontaneously create them.

Ah...ok. I forgot that they were all made by humans.

Still, there should probably be an option for this as some people like hills and some don't. Wouldn't be difficult to classify a scenario as to what type of hills to expect.

[ZPB II]

Ah...ok. I forgot that they were all made by humans.

Still, there should probably be an option for this as some people like hills and some don't. Wouldn't be difficult to classify a scenario as to what type of hills to expect.

The map preview function fills this need nicely, it means you get to see what kind of terrain in what kind of conditions will be fought in before you buy any units or commit to the battle. Classification is always a tricky grey area. I've made maps that have hills in one end and desert in the other, I don't know how to classify that. (it's a very small text box where you need to convey this kind of information)