Are my eyes that bad? - purchase points

[kevinkin]

I can not seem to find them in the battle editor, although they are displayed in the QB editor. I am looking at page 90 of the engine manual.

Thanks.

Kevin

[ASL Veteran]

I can not seem to find them in the battle editor, although they are displayed in the QB editor. I am looking at page 90 of the engine manual.

Thanks.

Kevin

There are no points in the regular scenario editor. Points are only listed in the QB purchase screen.

[womble]

And yes, their inclusion in the scenario editor has been requested. Enough times now that I don't believe BFC will ever put them in.

[kevinkin]

Note: Purchase and Rarity points are shown in the Editor to provide guidance on balanced force com- positions for Scenario Authors, but play no other role. A “+” after the purchase point value indicates a “lowest case” value for certain formations. Page 90.

This is from the battle editor section not QB. Perhaps they are getting ready.

At least my eyes are not that bad.

Thanks.

Kevin

[womble]

Note: Purchase and Rarity points are shown in the Editor to provide guidance on balanced force com- positions for Scenario Authors, but play no other role. A “+” after the purchase point value indicates a “lowest case” value for certain formations. Page 90.

This is from the battle editor section not QB. Perhaps they are getting ready.

At least my eyes are not that bad.

Thanks.

Kevin

Just to be sure I'm not getting confused: the bit I've bolded is a quote from the manual, yes?

[kevinkin]

Yes. Page 90 in version 3.0 of the manual (PDF). And Creating QBs starts on page 111 in the same PDF.

Kevin

[ASL Veteran]

Yes. Page 90 in version 3.0 of the manual (PDF). And Creating QBs starts on page 111 in the same PDF.

Kevin

The manual just needs to be corrected. Thanks for bringing that to BFC's attention.

[76mm]

The manual just needs to be corrected. Thanks for bringing that to BFC's attention.

Are you saying this is some sort of official capacity? If so it is very disappointing, I don't see why we can't have points in the scenario editor?

[ASL Veteran]

Are you saying this is some sort of official capacity? If so it is very disappointing, I don't see why we can't have points in the scenario editor?

I don't speak for BFC, but they do read the forums so hopefully the manual can be corrected. As noted above, this has been discussed at length and as far as I'm aware there are no plans to add points to the scenario editor. I personally don't see any need to have points in the scenario editor because

1. points are not an indicator of scenario balance.

2. A scenario maker does not need points to create a scenario if the OB is known in advance

3. If someone wants to make a custom QB by using the scenario editor, the better course to take is to ask BFC t improve the QB system such that custom scenarios for QBs are no longer necessary.

4. For a scenario designer who wants to create a historical or fictional scenario based upon a specific situation or set of circumstances no points are needed in order to complete that task. Point values are simply clutter in that situation. Only a QB player benefits from points in the editor.

I realize that I just listed a bunch of things but I don't really want to rehash the issues over again since it is just a case of 'I like this' or 'I like that' and there is no correct or incorrect answer here. I only speak for myself and I like the editor the way it is now. If BFC decides to add point values to the scenario editor at some point in the future they will do so and I will have no influence on that decision. BFC does what BFC does when BFC decides to do it. At this point in time, as far as I'm aware, there are no plans to add point values to the scenario editor at any time in the future.

[Whiterider]

1. points are not an indicator of scenario balance.

That´s something argueable. I tend to use them to make my own scenarios (using the qb generator), I can tell you my friends and me find it so useful. At least it´s an indicator that may help you to balance two armies once you get used to it.

If purchase points were available in the editor to make balanced scenarios, the process would be faster and easier. I fully recommend everybody to try this system

[poesel]

Points would indeed be useful if you want to make that kind of quick 'QB scenario'. Take a map, buy point equalish forces for both sides, tweak a bit and then be done.

Would make the creation of non-historical scenarios much easier. You save at least one iteration of testing.

[Whiterider]

In small scenarios works like a charm. I never tested bigger ones. Points can change by experience, fitness, etc. It works in quick battles I don´t see any reason why wouldn´t work in the editor.

[A Canadian Cat]

My opinion differs - I would like to see points in the scenario editor.

3. If someone wants to make a custom QB by using the scenario editor, the better course to take is to ask BFC t improve the QB system such that custom scenarios for QBs are no longer necessary.

Indeed that would be excellent. I would like to see a custom points option along side the Tiny, Small, Medium ... choices so I could create a QB with 10 000 points or 20 000. That would go a long way to solving the problem of people needing to use the scenario editor to create QB type battles.

4. For a scenario designer who wants to create a historical or fictional scenario based upon a specific situation or set of circumstances no points are needed in order to complete that task. Point values are simply clutter in that situation. Only a QB player benefits from points in the editor.

I disagree. Even if BFC creates a custom points option for QBs I would still like to see points being shown in the scenario editor. I would find it useful for a first draft of force balance. Clearly any scenario needs to be balanced by testing and playing around but I could probably cut a few of the initial iterations out of I had a better rough guess of the initial force balance.

However, has you said, BFC are well aware of the requests we make here on the forum and they have an idea of what direction they want to go. Hopefully they will listen to me in this case instead of you

[womble]

1. points are not an indicator of scenario balance.

Well, so much for QBs then.

I realise that it's entirely possible for a designer to make the context of their scenario such that a force outnumbered 10:1 in points has an even chance to gain a victory, but in more "normal" scenarios, points are, if they have any relevance to QBs, an indicator of the balance. Especially helpful to those just starting out on their scenario-creating odyssey. It's interesting to consider just how much a US leg infantry battalion is worth compared to an Italian one, in straight-up numbers. Having to swap between QB and scenario for every instance where you don't fully comprehend the value as assessed by BFC of a particular asset (how much more is a 150mm battery than a 105mm?) is an embuggerance that could be eliminated. As has been said, it provides a jumping-off point a bit more refined than "Battalion attacking, Company defending".

Or are you saying that the numbers in the QB purchase screen are just pulled out of someone's ass?

[ASL Veteran]

Well, so much for QBs then.

I realise that it's entirely possible for a designer to make the context of their scenario such that a force outnumbered 10:1 in points has an even chance to gain a victory, but in more "normal" scenarios, points are, if they have any relevance to QBs, an indicator of the balance. Especially helpful to those just starting out on their scenario-creating odyssey. It's interesting to consider just how much a US leg infantry battalion is worth compared to an Italian one, in straight-up numbers. Having to swap between QB and scenario for every instance where you don't fully comprehend the value as assessed by BFC of a particular asset (how much more is a 150mm battery than a 105mm?) is an embuggerance that could be eliminated. As has been said, it provides a jumping-off point a bit more refined than "Battalion attacking, Company defending".

Or are you saying that the numbers in the QB purchase screen are just pulled out of someone's ass?

(sigh) Just because both sides forces are each valued in the game as totalling 1000 points doesn't mean that both sides have an equal chance of victory. For one thing how are the point values set or assigned by the game itself? Are they 'fair'? Second, just because someone purchases 500 points worth of M4 shermans doesn't mean that they will match up against 500 points worth of King Tigers .... surely you can agree to that? The type of terrain has a big influence on the outcome of a battle as well or is the map selection process for QBs completely irrelevant? How about environmental conditions - do you think that Heavy Fog might play out differently than clear visibility? How about Mud?

The point you are missing is that for a QB the point selection process is simply a structure by which two opponents can purchase a force that they think gives them an opportunity to win a battle against an opponent under a certain set of circumstances and parameters that are typically agreed to in advance. Just tossing two random forces that are valued at 1000 points each (according to the game's criteria of assigning points) on a random map under random environmental conditions with two random players who didn't play any role in the selection process will absolutely not guarantee that both players have an identical chance of victory. Heck, even in a mirrored game both sides might not have an equal chance of victory because of the skills of the two opponents. Points are not a means to an end with regard to balance and in terms of scenario creation points don't contribute anything of value to an experienced scenario designer.

In a QB the force is hand picked to match the player's tactics and method of play where in a scenario the player is forced to match their tactics and method of play to correspond with the force they are given. Thus a player who is skilled at defeating opponents with a hand picked QB force may be crushed in a scenario that has a different force of equal point value simply because the player has no control over the force composition itself. A scenario and a QB are two entirely different experiences. The key part of QBs is that the player is creating a customized force and the point system provides the structure for that to happen. Since the scenario player has no control over the composition or structure of the force they are tasked with commanding the point value of the force is functionally irrelevant.

Aside from the fact that the player has no input on the force selection process why are points irrelevant? The force compositions, the map, the situation being portrayed, the victory conditions, the environmental conditions all contribute to the flow of the scenario and it is the interactions of all of those factors that must be considered when attempting to create something that hopefully someone will enjoy playing. Putting point values at the top of that list, in my opinion, would just make the scenario creation process more difficult for a designer because the points would serve more as a distraction than an aid.

[ASL Veteran]

I disagree. Even if BFC creates a custom points option for QBs I would still like to see points being shown in the scenario editor. I would find it useful for a first draft of force balance. Clearly any scenario needs to be balanced by testing and playing around but I could probably cut a few of the initial iterations out of I had a better rough guess of the initial force balance.

I think you would be better off without the points. If you decide to try your hand at a historical scenario the process, for me anyway, goes something along the lines of this

Read a book

Find a battle description in the book that is detailed enough that I can create something out of it.

From the information available try and figure out if I can actually identify the location of the battle on a map in the real world

If I have discovered the appropriate location then find out what forces opposed each other. So if the 1st Guards Tank Army attacked the 1st Panzer Division then you already have your basic force structure figured out because you know basically what the two sides will consist of.

Try and determine a flow or general idea of what you are trying to depict in the scenario. This is a very important step because it is a critical element in deciding what size map you need and what areas you want your map to include.

Block out the appropriate map size in Google Earth so you have your map borders.

Create the map in the editor

You already have an idea of what forces will be in the battle because you already know the OB, so now you place what feels like an appropriate force on the map for each side and start creating an AI plan. The process of creating the AI plan will quickly give you some idea as to whether your initial plan for the scenario will work or not.

If your starting point is 'I'm going to have a Meeting Engagement with two forces that total 1000 points' then I think you are starting at the wrong spot as a scenario designer. Your starting point should be 'what am I trying to do?' or 'what situation am I trying to portray' and a focus on points inhibits that process in my opinion.

[poesel]

If your starting point is 'I'm going to have a Meeting Engagement with two forces that total 1000 points' then I think you are starting at the wrong spot as a scenario designer. Your starting point should be 'what am I trying to do?' or 'what situation am I trying to portray' and a focus on points inhibits that process in my opinion.

I'm not sure why you are arguing against points in the scenario editor. You don't need them, ok. They don't make sense for historical scenarios. But nothing is taken away from you if there would be points in the editor. And other people who make other types of scenarios find them useful.

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not sure why you are arguing against points in the scenario editor. You don't need them, ok. They don't make sense for historical scenarios. But nothing is taken away from you if there would be points in the editor. And other people who make other types of scenarios find them useful.

Yes that's true. The fact is that points aren't currently in the scenario editor and resources would have to be applied in order to include them. How difficult it would be and whether it is worth the effort or not is for BFC to decide and up until this point they have decided not to include them. I'm simply stating that I prefer the status quo and that I don't see any need to devote any resources towards changing the status quo for all the reasons I've outlined above. In my opinion a bunch of numbers included in the editor TO&Es would just clutter my screen and I would rather not look at them if I don't have to. Right now I don't have to and that's the way I prefer it. :cool:

[A Canadian Cat]

If you decide to try your hand at a historical scenario the process, for me anyway, goes something along the lines of this

Read a book

...

You already have an idea of what forces will be in the battle because you already know the OB, so now you place what feels like an appropriate force on the map for each side and start creating an AI plan. The process of creating the AI plan will quickly give you some idea as to whether your initial plan for the scenario will work or not.

+1 to what you said about historical scenarios.

-1 for saying that creating a matching point meeting engagement = bad

First of all I don't think creating a meeting engagement scenario is bad at all and second I would use the points for creating an attack defend scenario too. Taking all those things you said about terrain etc. I would, as a starting point, pick the amount of points I would like to see for each side and create my forces accordingly. It is just a helpful aid.

I'm simply stating that I prefer the status quo and that I don't see any need to devote any resources towards changing the status quo...

Yep, gotcha. I would prioritize a custom points option for QBs above points visible in the scenario editor.

[Battlefront.com]

Over the years there has been a very small number of requests to have points shown in the Editor. Small, at least, in comparison with heaps of other requests

There's often a legitimate argument to be made in support of pretty much anything because it rests on opinion. But having a legitimate argument for something isn't good enough for us to go out and do it. If that were all it took we'd have the worst game of all time, and it would likely still be in Beta It's been a long time since I've reminded people of the Simpsons episode with Danny Devito:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F

Basically, there are only so many bells and whistles we can cater to before we lose focus on the central stuff that makes people want to play the game in the first place. Of course anybody arguing for a specific feature can also argue that their specific feature won't do that. But line up 1000 customers each with their own specific "no big deal" request and you'll see that it amounts to hundreds of features that only a few people would ever use. And each one causes some degree of clutter, complication, or contradictory behavior.

At least at this point we don't see adding points into the Editor as a feature to cater resources towards. And we would have to do something more than nothing to make it happen. First of all because the points are influenced by QB settings not present in the Editor. Which means we'd have to come up with a sort of "neutral" state for the points to be consistent. And I'm sure there would be unwelcome technical issues that are purely code structure related vs. conceptual.

Page 90 will be edited In fact, usually erroneous text like that indicates we had it in our heads to do something and a glitch or something came up that made it too problematic to do compared to the perceived value. The result is the feature was shelved but it was after the manual was written.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

+1 to what you said about historical scenarios.

-1 for saying that creating a matching point meeting engagement = bad

First of all I don't think creating a meeting engagement scenario is bad at all and second I would use the points for creating an attack defend scenario too. Taking all those things you said about terrain etc. I would, as a starting point, pick the amount of points I would like to see for each side and create my forces accordingly. It is just a helpful aid.

You are only just dipping your toes in the water so I can see why you might hold that view. After you have a few more under your belt though I am confident that you will come over to the 'Dark Side' and see things as I do.

[MikeyD]

What I've always loved about the editor is precisely that there are no rules. You can put twenty King Tigers or enough heavy artillery to flatten the place into a scenario - no restrictions, no limits. Its your world to do with as you please.

As to play balance. Its been too long since I've made a scenario (other pressing duties) but my past favorites have been where I set up a tactical situation without giving a thought to how the scenario might be 'won'. That's none of my concern, that part's up to the player to figure out and good luck to him. You think about how to 'win' while scenario making and you find yourself dotting the landscape with overly-convenient stone walls to hide behind and ideal overwatch positions - in other words you turn your map 'gamey'.

[ASL Veteran]

What I've always loved about the editor is precisely that there are no rules. You can put twenty King Tigers or enough heavy artillery to flatten the place into a scenario - no restrictions, no limits. Its your world to do with as you please.

That might be fine if you are just making something for yourself. If you plan on putting something out there for everyone else to try you better have a thick skin if you plan on putting something like that up in the repository.

As to play balance. Its been too long since I've made a scenario (other pressing duties) but my past favorites have been where I set up a tactical situation without giving a thought to how the scenario might be 'won'. That's none of my concern, that part's up to the player to figure out and good luck to him. You think about how to 'win' while scenario making and you find yourself dotting the landscape with overly-convenient stone walls to hide behind and ideal overwatch positions - in other words you turn your map 'gamey'.

Well I generally don't make any map alterations after the map is completed and since I don't place any forces on a map until after the map is completed I don't modify the terrain to affect the outcome. Nobody should confuse my mention of 'flow' of battle with scripting. What I mean be flow of battle is a mind's eye .... structure .... that I have for the battle that helps me determine map size and what it includes. That is a necessary function for when you set your victory conditions and the force size you intend to use. I guess you could think of it as a sort of outline before writing an essay. Except that the scenario designer provides the outline and the player writes the essay. Without structure it would be nearly impossible to select a historically significant piece of ground and settle on a map size because there are no map boundaries in the real world. The map boundaries are an artificial limitation that the designer imposes and if the designer doesn't have a plan before he blocks out his map then it would be almost impossible to even begin creating something. Of course this problem doesn't exist with a fictional scenario because with a fictional scenario you can pick any piece of ground. With a historical scenario you have to select a piece of ground that is within the realm of where the units actually were when the battle took place that is consistent with the size of the force you want to involve. Once you've committed to a spot it is almost impossible to switch locations unless you want to start again from scratch.

[Jock Tamson]

I would like to see a new type of QB:

"Challenge QB"

allow the designer to create QB maps where Opfor has already been purchased and deployed and planned. The designer then sets a points limit for the player and any other purchase limitations he wants.

Maps like this would have a lot of replayability and could encourage more community activity as they would take a lot less time to set up.

[A Canadian Cat]

You are only just dipping your toes in the water so I can see why you might hold that view. After you have a few more under your belt though I am confident that you will come over to the 'Dark Side' and see things as I do.

LOL I look forward to it.

It's been a long time since I've reminded people of the Simpsons episode with Danny Devito:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F

Basically, there are only so many bells and whistles we can cater to before we lose focus on the central stuff that makes people want to play the game in the first place.

Indeed my friends and I use that excellent example of "reductio ad absurdum" on each other all the time. As I think I said earlier, or at some point, in the end you guys will make good decisions about how you spend you time and what you put into the game. Or at least you will annoy all 1000 of us with our pet requests but at the same time create a game that 999 (there is always one crank that rage quits) of us absolutely love and keep playing.