derbius Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I think I remember from early CM games (but I may be mistaken) that one used to be able to "order" companies or battalions and then have them "take casualties" before deployment to reduce their unit costs. As far as I can see here in CMRT either you have fully-formed formations or you have to customise by buying individual units one at a time. Also, is there any way to start with a "typical" combined arms combo and edit it from there? I can make one myself of course but I wouldn't know whether my balance of inf, armour, arty and support weapons was properly balanced for the time. Of course I could always forget about what was typical and just give myself what I liked but I would prefer to at least have the option of historicity. (And historically I am guessing that not many formations ended up at full field strength for very long... Am I missing an option somewhere? Apologies if this is a FAQ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Unfortunately the answer is 'no' on all counts. These features, or something like them, would be great to have but, unless this had changed with CMBS and I don't think that it has, there has been no substantial alteration to force selection in QBs since the advent of CMBN. As a consequence, unless you are prepared to pick the forces for both sides, which totally destroys a major element of the game - FoW - the solo QB experience is largely moribund. Even if you pick forces for your own side, there is every possibility that your opponents force will be totally inappropriate to having a decent battle i.e. your infantry force will be faced with an all-tank force or an anti -tank force. So QBs only really work for H2H, where both opponents pick their own force. Having a decent combined arms selection available for all sizes of QBs for solo battles is something of a holy grail and, given the lapse in time, I very much doubt that it is on the horizon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I agree that the QB system for solo play requires much better auto force selection. I just do not understand what technically is stopping implementation. The answer may be "out there". But if so it is not obvious. What a shot in the arm a great QB system would give each and every CM product.Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I think I remember from early CM games (but I may be mistaken) that one used to be able to "order" companies or battalions and then have them "take casualties" before deployment to reduce their unit costs. If I understand your question I think you can, to a certain extent, have an under strength unit in a Quick Battle. However the QB set up will not automatically do it for you. When you are in the purchase screen you can delete squads, vehicles and certain teams out of your selected formation. (And yes this makes the formation cheaper) You can also adjusts the fitness level of the troops to account for exhausted, slightly wounded, worn out conditions if you wanted. If you open the editor you can do even more adjusting to include how much ammo each platoon has. Hope this helped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Also, is there any way to start with a "typical" combined arms combo and edit it from there? You got good answers except for this one. Yes, I know there are issues with the automatic force selection and I personally pledge to help make that better but you can press the suggest button and use that as a starting point. In games where the automatic force selection is not quite up to your standards push it again. And again if needed. Since we are talking about wanting a place to start I suspect that a few suggestions would yield a choice you can use as a starting point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 You got good answers except for this one. Yes, I know there are issues with the automatic force selection and I personally pledge to help make that better but you can press the suggest button and use that as a starting point. In games where the automatic force selection is not quite up to your standards push it again. And again if needed. Since we are talking about wanting a place to start I suspect that a few suggestions would yield a choice you can use as a starting point. Ian, just wondering in what capacity you are able to influence the force selection procedure - Beta tester maybe? Using the suggestion button is, indeed, a good way to cycle through a variety of potential selections, so as to obtain something that you are happy to put into the field. Unfortunately, if you are playing solo, this does nothing to aid the other sides selection, unless you are happy to compromise FoW. It is this, for me, that cripples the QB selector. This is particularly noticeable in tiny and small sized battles which, of course, have only a small number of units on the roster. The 'combined arms' choice in CMx1 was pretty good for that and it would be great to see something like that available in CMx2. However, I'm thinking that it is technically more difficult to do in the current engine, which is why we haven't seen something like it emerge up 'til now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Ian, just wondering in what capacity you are able to influence the force selection procedure - Beta tester maybe? Correct. I will spend a lot of time pressing the suggest button so you don't have to What I have noticed is that some people still don't like the auto selected forces. All I'm doing is catching the 9 AT guns or all armoured cars type errors. I make not warranty that the % balance between force type will make *you* happy Using the suggestion button is, indeed, a good way to cycle through a variety of potential selections, so as to obtain something that you are happy to put into the field. Unfortunately, if you are playing solo, this does nothing to aid the other sides selection, unless you are happy to compromise FoW. It is this, for me, that cripples the QB selector. Quite true. The OP was looking for a way to start with a combined arms force and then tweak it - that is all I was commenting on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Maybe I am misreading Ian, but it sounds like you and or others are actively working on / testing QB system 2.0.("All I am doing ...")?Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derbius Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 James points out the other key problem with the QB selector - poor unit balance for random computer opponents. If for example you have tanks and he has no or next to no anti-armour capability the game is ruined... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 LOL hee hee. Naw I'm not saying that. What I meant by "All I'm doing..." is "When I test force selection all I'm doing is..." In other words any testing I do is looking for really odd off the wall force selections not trying to create some perfect force selections that will satisfy everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Using the suggestion button is, indeed, a good way to cycle through a variety of potential selections, so as to obtain something that you are happy to put into the field. Unfortunately, if you are playing solo, this does nothing to aid the other sides selection, unless you are happy to compromise FoW. It is this, for me, that cripples the QB selector. It has been suggested by someone else here a while ago, that you do this. Then save that QB. Rinse and repeat 10 times or so. Now you wont know ( unless you're a super-brain ) which QB save has which specific selection - especially once some time has passed, you may not even remember what your own forces are. It's not perfect FoW, but it can be made to work, using the limitations of our human memory 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Good workaround - or have a friend do it for ya. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I guess a hybrid would have a "designer" add OOBs for both sides on QB maps (AI plans and all) and post a set of say 4-5 for each type of battle. I think one could produce a few of these a week given the head start on the maps and have a collection for posting pretty quickly. Also, knowing the OOBs the plans could be made less generic if the "designer" wanted to take more time. The OOB units would have to placed in set zones and AI groups assigned by the designer. These would be launched from the scenario folder not the QB one. Players would get more historical OOBs (from the designer's perspective) and FOW with lots of credit going to the original QB maps. Would this work?Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 LOL hee hee. Naw I'm not saying that. What I meant by "All I'm doing..." is "When I test force selection all I'm doing is..." In other words any testing I do is looking for really odd off the wall force selections not trying to create some perfect force selections that will satisfy everyone. To be fair, it is the all AT gun, all AC, all HMG, all mortar selections etc.etc. that are the true bane. I don't generally mind some of the odd combinations that crop up; in fact I quite like having to make do with what I'm given but those ones pretty much kill the battle from the get-go. Keep up the good work; fight the good fight and so on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I have to say I'm really surprised that Charles and Phil haven't spent a morning stopping those "all AC or all ATG" selections from ever happening. I guess the problem is the immense detail and variety of the OOB options available to the auto-chooser. Would it be more feasible to have the thing be a lot more scripted, along the lines of "Pick [an appropriate amount for the points value] of (Random [PzGr|Gr|Fus]) as the base; add armour; add arty; add the last 10% as random stuff like AA/ATG"? You might get slightly less variation, but the wild variations currently generated for "Mix" are functionally useless as they arrive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Or the sort of SQL script does not work with the CM unit database. But some form of filtering must be available to the programmer behind the user interface. Alas ... too late for a summer intern now. Kevin 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.