BFC: Any plans to bring back "QB Combined Arms"?

[Sim1943]

BFC

Are there any plans to bring back any form of the QB 'Combined Arms' setting from CMx1?

For those who missed out on CMx1, 'Combined Arms' was a QB setting that limited the played to so many points of infantry, support weapons, vehicles, armor, artillery and fortifications. The effect of it was that you had a lot of infantry supported by some SW, some vehicles, a few tanks and a little artillery. In other words, it forced the player to create a pretty balanced force. When combined with the 'Short 75' rules, it made for some great QB PBEM games that were very competitive and great for ladder games since the OOB rules were enforced by the game.

The game currently has no way of doing this, outside of a huge list of house rules that can not be enforced. Currently you can do 'Infantry Only', 'Mech Only', 'Armor Only' or 'Mix'. Problem is, 'Mix' is anything you want - ie. a force of all AA guns, or a force of all Scout Teams.

The added side benefit of 'Combined Arms' is that it would greatly help the AI in its QB purchase. I have given up with letting the AI purchase for QB's - all AT guns, or all AA guns, or five FO's with artillery and that's it. When I play QB's, I have to purchase for the AI which honestly takes away significantly from the experience. Not knowing what you face is a huge element of this game.

All I am wanting to know is if a QB Combined Arms setting is even in consideration for upcoming titles.

Personally, I would love to see it return not just for QB PBEM, but also for AI PBEM games.

Thanks in advance

Chad

[MarkEzra]

Thank You for Posting! I have forgotten how valuable that setting could be to PBEM players. I will soon be working up my own QB wish list and shall include this. What Unit Type % do you (and anybody else) consider appropriate. OR:

Force Selection Armor Heavy (Arm 60% Inf 30% Arty 10)

Force Selection Inf Heavy (Inf 60% Arm 30% Arty 10)

OR: Some other way.

[Freyberg]

I would love to see a range of settings, beyond just 'combined arms' - like the heavy/light etc above.

[Sim1943]

I no longer have CMx1 games so I cant look at what they were back then, but the idea to have varying levels of points is a great one!

While this could go any number of ways, I personally think that the categories that everything could fall under would be (and IIRC these were the categories from CMx1, though things are much more detailed in CMx2 so some changes are necessary):

Infantry - Infantry squads, HQ's, engineers, specialist teams

Support Weapons - crew served weapons or guns (tripod MG's, on-map mortars, AT/AA/INF guns)

Vehicles - 'Light' vehicles (jeeps, trucks, AC's)

Armor - 'Heavy' vehicles and tanks (SP guns, all tanks)

Artillery - All off-map assets, including aircraft

Fortifications - All fortifications

With that being said, I don't think that they need to all add up to 100%. In other words, you could say *up to*: 70% Infantry, 10% Support Weapons, 15% Vehicles, 15% Armor, and 10% Artillery. That way, if you maxed out in everything but infantry, you would still *have* to spend 50% of your points on infantry (10+15+15+10=50% on non infantry items). Fortifications would depend on scenario type - max for 'Assault' and min for 'Meeting Engagement'.

Honestly, with how it stands right now I don't want to get into PBEM. My only current options with PBEM are scenario or QB. In a scenario, being able to see the OOB takes away half of the fun - fun still, but it takes away knowing that at 10 minutes into the game they get two Panthers and where they arrive. For a QB I would have to get my opponent to agree to an exhausting list of House Rules to attempt to recreate 'Meeting Engagement' and 'Short 75' - and even then I have to trust that they are being honest. Sure if they are not I can drop them as a PBEM opponent, but by that point you've already invested a whole bunch of hours into the game just to find out that your opponent cheated. Much better to have the system enforce the rules.

By no means am I saying the game is broken, or QB is broken. The current QB system is great, it just has its limitations - especially when playing against the AI. Some form of 'Meeting Engagement' setting would help with both AI and PBEM play, especially competitive play.

Thanks in advance

Chad

[Sim1943]

Heres a link to the thread I started on this last year around the time CMx2 v2.0 was coming out:

CM v2.0 - 'Combined Arms' for QB's?

[Col Deadmarsh]

BFC

Are there any plans to bring back any form of the QB 'Combined Arms' setting from CMx1?

For those who missed out on CMx1, 'Combined Arms' was a QB setting that limited the played to so many points of infantry, support weapons, vehicles, armor, artillery and fortifications. The effect of it was that you had a lot of infantry supported by some SW, some vehicles, a few tanks and a little artillery. In other words, it forced the player to create a pretty balanced force. When combined with the 'Short 75' rules, it made for some great QB PBEM games that were very competitive and great for ladder games since the OOB rules were enforced by the game.

The game currently has no way of doing this, outside of a huge list of house rules that can not be enforced. Currently you can do 'Infantry Only', 'Mech Only', 'Armor Only' or 'Mix'. Problem is, 'Mix' is anything you want - ie. a force of all AA guns, or a force of all Scout Teams.

The added side benefit of 'Combined Arms' is that it would greatly help the AI in its QB purchase. I have given up with letting the AI purchase for QB's - all AT guns, or all AA guns, or five FO's with artillery and that's it. When I play QB's, I have to purchase for the AI which honestly takes away significantly from the experience. Not knowing what you face is a huge element of this game.

All I am wanting to know is if a QB Combined Arms setting is even in consideration for upcoming titles.

Personally, I would love to see it return not just for QB PBEM, but also for AI PBEM games.

Thanks in advance

Chad

Where's the "like" button for this post? Because I want to hit it repeatedly!

[Michael Emrys]

Currently you can do 'Infantry Only', 'Mech Only', 'Armor Only' or 'Mix'. Problem is, 'Mix' is anything you want - ie. a force of all AA guns, or a force of all Scout Teams.

But that would seem self-defeating to me. There are good historical reasons for choosing a balanced combined arms force and it seems to me that the game reflects those reasons pretty well. To choose an unbalanced force, let alone a radically unbalanced force such as described in your example, would mean that there is something your force will not be able to do, or at least do well. That shortcoming could be critical depending on the overall situation.

The added side benefit of 'Combined Arms' is that it would greatly help the AI in its QB purchase.

Now there you might have a point. From the very first appearance of the game I gave up on letting the AI pick its own forces. I don't mind picking its forces for it for two reasons. One is that I am trying to duplicate a particular type of battle anyway. The other is that my short term memory is sufficiently shot by now that I have no trouble forgetting what it is I bought for the AI. Some times I even have to check to see what it is I bought for myself.

Michael

[James Crowley]

Where's the "like" button for this post? Because I want to hit it repeatedly!

Here,here!!!!!

This area of the game, used so often by me in CM1, is dead to me now.

To my mind, QBs against the AI are broken, assuming that you want to fight against an opponent with a force that has some historical fidelity and a degree of balance. Having some sort of combined arms setting would seem to be the only way to aid that goal.

I would like to see specific settings, such as those suggested by Mark but also a semi randomised setting such that you would not know the force mix but would, at the very least, know that you will not be fighting a group of mortar ammo bearers, artillery spotters or 10 HMG teams etc.

Also I would like to see the generated force supplied with a sensible chain of command and an overall leader. Now, even when you occasionally get a half ways decent force mix, it is usually in two or more 'bits' , sometimes with their own independent leader, sometimes with no leader, and rarely with an overall leader at all.

[MikeyD]

Why is nobody building and posting properly constructed combined arms scenarios? CMSF has 3rd party scenarios by the hundreds. Its like CMBN improved QBs have made people lazy. QB in the best of times is a properly made scenario's weak sister.

[James Crowley]

QB in the best of times is a properly made scenario's weak sister.

Very true but in the absence of the hot looker an available plain Jane is better than nothing, which is pretty much what we have got now.

I would rather have an advertised feature work in a decent manner than rely on unpaid third party volunteers who, currently, are not volunteering.

[ASL Veteran]

QB in the best of times is a properly made scenario's weak sister.

Not really .... QBs and scenarios are totally different animals. The most important part of a QB is that the player chooses his own force. That is the fundamental essence of a QB. The player can't do that in a scenario. With a scenario you have to fight the battle with what you are given. Sure, many players cross over from one format to the other, but I think most have a preference and choose to play primarily one way or the other in my opinion.

Then there are the fog of war concerns in that a player who thinks that is of the utmost importance may shy away from scenarios because he never knows if the opponent has peeked or not. That fear can be eliminated with a QB.

[Michael Emrys]

Also I would like to see the generated force supplied with a sensible chain of command and an overall leader. Now, even when you occasionally get a half ways decent force mix, it is usually in two or more 'bits' , sometimes with their own independent leader, sometimes with no leader, and rarely with an overall leader at all.

This has bothered me too. Even when setting up my own force, not having an overall commander can lead to problems. Probably that commander should have some kind of rating even if it is only "under the hood" of how good he is at combined arms. Some units were fortunate enough to have trained in combined arms together before seeing combat; others worked it out in the heat of battle; still others never got it.

Michael

[Sim1943]

Not really .... QBs and scenarios are totally different animals. The most important part of a QB is that the player chooses his own force. That is the fundamental essence of a QB. The player can't do that in a scenario. With a scenario you have to fight the battle with what you are given. Sure, many players cross over from one format to the other, but I think most have a preference and choose to play primarily one way or the other in my opinion.

Then there are the fog of war concerns in that a player who thinks that is of the utmost importance may shy away from scenarios because he never knows if the opponent has peeked or not. That fear can be eliminated with a QB.

I have found that I can only really enjoy a scenario once. Because if I come back and play it again, I know the enemies OOB, I know approximate placement, I know more or less how it is going to play out. Obviously that greatly influences my decisions the second time around. And that's against the AI, let alone another human player. Having already played or already seen the setup would change my strategy significantly in a PBEM.

With that in mind, QB's are perfect - especially when playing against an opponent. As ASL Veteran pointed out, and as was said above, fog of war is huge. Not knowing what is potentially over the hill adds considerably to gameplay. Whether against the AI or PBEM, if I know the other sides OOB it significantly detracts from my enjoyment. Throw on top choosing your own troops and mix it into a semi-competitive atmosphere and QB is a great combination.

No, its not for everyone. And that's fine. Right now you can choose from campaigns, scenarios and QB's. My issue is that as it stands right now, I can not enjoy QB's because I have to purchase for the AI when playing alone, or exhaust my opponent with house rules that can not be enforced.

BFC, any plans to bring back any form of 'Combined Arms'?

Thanks in advance and good discussion.

Chad

[MarkEzra]

That MikeyD.... Weak Sister! I could just scratch his eyes out... LOL It's not so much a weak sister as a very different kind of sister. There are (obviously) 3 generally accepted types of CM wargamers.

Campaigners

Scenario-ist

QB'rs

Each group has it's wants and needs. The CMx2 Engine shafted QB'rs... BFC has since worked hard to get QB back on track. CMBN has been a big step forward. The Maps work and with each module improved in quality and quantity (MG with it's Master Maps!!!!) But there is more that can be done. Hopefully BFC will CONTINUE to provide programing time to the QB engine, provide more player setting options like date/time/wind strength/direction(?)/unit cost options/unit mix options... and whatever else the community can think of.

The character of the QB Engine should reflect the more multifaceted needs of QB players. Historical Maps are coming. So those players will want to not only control force Mix but Nationality mix as well. PBEM Players need to control balance (by unit mix or specific cost limits or whatever) and hopefully BFC can address this issue sooner than later.

Much has been done to improve the QB Engine. I firmly believe more can and will be done.

[Sim1943]

Much has been done to improve the QB Engine. I firmly believe more can and will be done.

I love the new system - the detail, the maps, the flexibility and options. It just needs a little more in my opinion. While there are I am sure a number of options, the one that stands out to me the most is a 'Combined Arms' setting of some sort. It would help with AI play and PBEM play, especially competitive PBEM play.

[Doug Williams]

BFC

Are there any plans to bring back any form of the QB 'Combined Arms' setting from CMx1?

For those who missed out on CMx1, 'Combined Arms' was a QB setting that limited the played to so many points of infantry, support weapons, vehicles, armor, artillery and fortifications. The effect of it was that you had a lot of infantry supported by some SW, some vehicles, a few tanks and a little artillery. In other words, it forced the player to create a pretty balanced force. When combined with the 'Short 75' rules, it made for some great QB PBEM games that were very competitive and great for ladder games since the OOB rules were enforced by the game.

The game currently has no way of doing this, outside of a huge list of house rules that can not be enforced. Currently you can do 'Infantry Only', 'Mech Only', 'Armor Only' or 'Mix'. Problem is, 'Mix' is anything you want - ie. a force of all AA guns, or a force of all Scout Teams.

The added side benefit of 'Combined Arms' is that it would greatly help the AI in its QB purchase. I have given up with letting the AI purchase for QB's - all AT guns, or all AA guns, or five FO's with artillery and that's it. When I play QB's, I have to purchase for the AI which honestly takes away significantly from the experience. Not knowing what you face is a huge element of this game.

All I am wanting to know is if a QB Combined Arms setting is even in consideration for upcoming titles.

Personally, I would love to see it return not just for QB PBEM, but also for AI PBEM games.

Thanks in advance

Chad

Hi Chad. I agree with you. The QB "Combined Arms" setting from CM1 should never have been left out of CM2. This was a total "Duh" moment for BFC.

Does BFC think that the "Mix" setting in CM2 in any way equals the old "Combined Arms" from CM1? If so, they are sadly mistaken.

The "Mix" setting in CM2 allows the players, or the AI, to select an all infantry, all armor, or anything in between, force. To put it bluntly, this sucks, unless you are playing an opponent that you know will select a balanced "combined arms" force.....OR.....you just want to have a "go wild" battle.

I would LOVE to see, and would pay money to see, the return of the old "Combined Arms" setting for CM2 quick battles. It should never have been removed.

Edit: Oh, and keep the Mix setting also.

Really, how hard could this be?

[A Canadian Cat]

I have found that I do not miss the combined arms enforcement setting at all. I actually found the points split in CM1x to be difficult to deal with. How many times did I find myself with three tanks and 90% of the points to buy a fourth but there was nothing I could do to get it. I had to compromise my earlier tank selection or get some lesser vehicle. Because you could not use any more points for infantry that you did not use for that fourth tank and you could not drop a small amount of infantry to get a few spare points for that fourth tank. Grrrrr :mad:

The new mixed system is so much easier to deal with. I have no trouble picking a combined arms force with the new system and I usually have no trouble punishing someone who decides to go all in one way or another. In the new system having combined arms *is* a force multiplier. I remember one game I decided to really go heaving on armour so I had very little infantry. Still ended badly for me. Sure I crushed my opponent's tanks but without enough infantry support there was nothing I could do to stop his bazooka teams from flanking my tanks - not a good scene.

I can see where the idea that it might help the AI would come from - but I suspect that the better approach would be to just fix the AI's purchasing algorithm.

Don't get me wrong I will not complain about having an implementation of Combined Arms back in the game. I just will not use it

[SlowMotion]

Where's the "like" button for this post? Because I want to hit it repeatedly!

This forum SW really needs Like or +1 button.

[Sim1943]

Don't get me wrong I will not complain about having an implementation of Combined Arms back in the game. I just will not use it

I would assume that a number of players like 'Mix' for what they are trying to accomplish. That's why its in there, and that's why it doesn't need to change. 'Meeting Engagement' is not for everyone, but for those who prefer it, it is missed badly.

[Buzz]

I too enjoy the "Weak Sister!"

There are (obviously) 3 generally accepted types of CM wargamers.

Campaigners

Scenario-ist

QB'rs

Hopefully BFC will CONTINUE to provide programing time to the QB engine, provide more player setting options like date/time/wind strength/direction(?)/unit cost options/unit mix options... and whatever else the community can think of.

The character of the QB Engine should reflect the more multifaceted needs of QB players.

Historical Maps are coming. So those players will want to not only control force Mix but Nationality mix as well.

Much has been done to improve the QB Engine. I firmly believe more can and will be done.

Thanks for your years of valuable input and your contribution Mark.

[Canada Guy]

I have just started playing QBs but the last 2 were the same. I played either with Mortars, HMGs and AA Vehicles or was playing against the same force mix. Playing against 7 American AA vehicles was challenging and as the HMGs kept advancing and not deploying, it was fairly easy work. Throw in a Sherman or an infantry squad or two and those AA vehicles would have torn my units to pieces. (I only had 7 German squads and 4 SiG 33s).

Very strange mix.

[Vinnart]

I agree again, as this has been brought up before. I like the new MIX option for complete user flexibility. I would NOT want to see it gone. For the majority I think they can use it to make sensible force mix selections, but I have heard there are pinheads that put together ridicules force types like all FO’s. The latter can be avoided as it is by human choice, but the AI can put together some rather peculiar mixes on its own with the MIX option sometimes. For inf only it seems to work reasonably well though.

That said, I do see many more benefits to bring back the Cmx1 COMBINED ARMS option rather than to not have it. I do think it would be especially good for the AI to have a more specified mix structure to follow to put together more sensible mixes. As far as humans go it creates a more structured format that may make it easier for some players who do not know how to create a balanced mix force.

[Oddball_E8]

I miss the setting mainly because even if you pick a "mix" force for the AI it will inevetably pick way too much armor.

I use QB's to have a quick bit of fun where i get to pick my own force against what I hope will be a dectently balanced enemy force.

But with CMx2 it usually isn't very balanced.

[womble]

I miss the setting mainly because even if you pick a "mix" force for the AI it will inevetably pick way too much armor.

The AI force picker is (though, apparently improved) still pretty dimwitted. It would be productive to make adjustments to that algorithm, whether or not a "Combined Arms" set of point bracket restrictions was added. Ideally, such adjustments would make CA restrictions nugatory for AI force selection purposes (since, as has been said, in most situations a proper CA force will beat one that's too heavily biased one way or the other).

[Michael Emrys]

As kind of sidebar to the main thrust of this discussion, my chief gripe about the Mixed force selection process is that there is no overall commander for the final force. Infantry and armor and whatever else have their own commanders and fight their own battles with only modest cooperation provided by the player himself. Now, I know that that is often how it was in the real war as well, and I have no problem with it most of the time. But in those situations where the various arms achieved better cooperation, I'd like to see that implemented.

How to go about this and what would be the result? Well, how about an option where the player can spend points and gain better C2 between the various arms present? Is this considered an avenue worth pursuing?

Michael