MarkEzra Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 ...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.... 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 Interesting point...How does one code that? It kinda sounds in opposition to the current Unit selection logic. I guess only the brains in Jars will have a clue. Always best to just ask them (Better on a Sunny day, Wives Happy and large Tax refund in pocket...Moody lot these programmers) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Interesting point...How does one code that? Within the context of CM I can't say exactly, but one thought that occurs to me would be to have the commander of the first force selected act as overall commander. Or the highest ranking commander, which would usually be the same person, I would think. So say you want to have a company of infantry supported by a platoon of armor. You'd probably pick the infantry first, which would be led by a captain, and the armor second, which would be led by a lieutenant. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Within the context of CM I can't say exactly, but one thought that occurs to me would be to have the commander of the first force selected act as overall commander. Or the highest ranking commander, which would usually be the same person, I would think. So say you want to have a company of infantry supported by a platoon of armor. You'd probably pick the infantry first, which would be led by a captain, and the armor second, which would be led by a lieutenant. Michael I do get the point. It is a matter of c2 linkage, and that effect code. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 It is a matter of c2 linkage... I think so. I'm not sure what else it might effect, I haven't thought it through that far. But improved C2 should definitely be one of the effects. How much so would depend on what kind of comms devices are available and how adept the troops and their commanders are in using them. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 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 I have no problem at all maintaining excellent C2 using the QB MIX force option usually starting with an infantry battalion then trimming it to the way I want to perhaps a company. I then buy single tanks, or any teams, ect.. that I want, and assign them usually to the Inf. Coy HQ. Tanks ect.. cost more that way, but the extra cost goes into having your whole force on the same radio frequency, and commander creating excellent C2. I NEVER use separate commands assigning all to the top officer on the map who’s main function is to be the comms hub for the force. With the above I get better C2 than in scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I have no problem at all maintaining excellent C2 using the QB MIX force option usually starting with an infantry battalion then trimming it to the way I want to perhaps a company. I then buy single tanks, or any teams, ect.. that I want, and assign them usually to the Inf. Coy HQ. Tanks ect.. cost more that way, but the extra cost goes into having your whole force on the same radio frequency, and commander creating excellent C2. I NEVER use separate commands assigning all to the top officer on the map who’s main function is to be the comms hub for the force. With the above I get better C2 than in scenarios. Interesting. I have to admit that the idea of buying vehicles separately ever attracted me. I always assumed that aside from the extra cost, they would lose something in cohesion and morale. Do you find that not to be the case? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Interesting. I have to admit that the idea of buying vehicles separately ever attracted me. I always assumed that aside from the extra cost, they would lose something in cohesion and morale. Do you find that not to be the case? Michael It works well. It only makes cohesion better. Try experimenting with the pros and cons of assigning elements to either the Coy HQ, or a platoon HQ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim1943 Posted September 22, 2013 Author Share Posted September 22, 2013 A little off the original subject that I started, but to the point of why I *do* like CMx2 QB's, to help with C2, in a vanilla US Rifle Co. I will delete the weapons platoon and reassign 2nd and 3rd Plt with one of the M1919 MG's and all three Plt with a 60mm mortar - the point are about the same. That way C2 is at the platoon level for these support weapons, which helps with spotting/morale/ect. Tactically, 2nd and 3rd Plt become my assault Platoons each with their MG and mortar, and 1st is held in reserve with its 60mm mortar. This highlights the great flexibility of the CMx2 QB system. That is how *I* want my unit TOE to be, because that is how *I* prefer to use them on the battlefield. Obviously you can do the same thing in a scenario, but that wouldn't work for PBEM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 My solution to the lack of a "Combined Arms" type of QB setting in CM2 is I only play "MIX" QBs with opponents (in my case, members of WeBoB) who I know will make a somewhat realistic force selection. That is, unless we both agree to play a "gamey" game. The Combined Arms setting would be a welcome addition to CM2. It was a bad idea to leave it out, IMO. "MIX" is no substitute for Combined Arms. "MIX" should just be a fun "wild card" option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim1943 Posted September 25, 2013 Author Share Posted September 25, 2013 Had a few minutes after work and so I fired up a quick QB against the AI in CMFI w/ GL. I set meeting engagement as US *Armor Only* against Italian *Armor Only*, medium points (2560). I purchased two platoons of shermans and two platoons of stuarts. I envisioned a swarm of cheap Italian tanks against my relatively smaller forces. What did I face instead? TWENTY Forward Observers with no artillery! 20?!? They had a few vehicles to round out the points. I have heard BFC say a number of times that the purchasing routines struggles on the smaller setting (ie. Tiny QB's). This was medium, and the AI spent 60% of his points on forward observers, with no artillery, on a armor only QB. BFC, can any plans to get us some form of 'Meeting Engagement' back? Thanks in advance Chad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim1943 Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 Just incase anyone does a search for this and wonders what the answer was, Steve answered that it is *not* in the plans currently. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1490316&postcount=323 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.