What's New For CMFB Quick Battle Games

[kevinkin]

Mark

Great stuff indeed.

Will the player get a chance to see credits on the QB maps so they can knowledge the designer if they use a portion of the map in another free standing scenario? I know the teacher is not looking over our shoulder, but I feel giving credit advances the community and fosters use of the maps and all the hard work.

Kevin

 

[MarkEzra]

No. However scen and master often do provide that info. Since CMFG qb maps use the title of the scen or master maps it shouldn't be difficult to figure.

So why don't I give credit so richly deserved? 

I make most of them and I change all of them. So when it comes to taking bows know it's a beta team effort. But when the compliants and bug reports roll in I want to be able to take full responsibility for the mistake.

[eniced73]

Mark, I almost exclusively play QB - so your work is very very much appreciated.

 

Curious as to how you rate the systems ability to pick adequate forces since you play almost exclusively QB's.  My experience with QB's from ShockForce and up has been well not up to par as far as giving a decent sensible challenge.

 

Is BF working on the "logic" behind the QB system?  Any talk of allowing us to select certain percentages similar to the CM1 line?

[Bud Backer]

Curious as to how you rate the systems ability to pick adequate forces since you play almost exclusively QB's.  My experience with QB's from ShockForce and up has been well not up to par as far as giving a decent sensible challenge.

 

Is BF working on the "logic" behind the QB system?  Any talk of allowing us to select certain percentages similar to the CM1 line?

I do play QB, but almost never against the AI (except to run a test which is very specific and controlled) so my experience with the auto-force selection system is not that of a player looking for a great battle. In the early days of my CM play, I did play against the AI and had a mix of force picks, some fine, some not well balanced. The force picker has, to my understanding, been improved since then as that was years ago. 

I think that while Shock Force is a fun and great game, due to design limitations it has not been updated continually as CMBN/CMFI/CMRT/CMBS have so using it as a yardstick for any current CM game's capabilities will not give representative results. 

From everything I've gleaned from posts here, it's that BFC is continually making small, incremental improvements across the entire engine. Not everything gets touched each iteration of the engine but over time almost every aspect of the game just keeps improving. I'd hope the aspect you're concerned about will be one of them. As someone who loves QB and who finds that feature the core of the CM experience, I'll be doing everything I can to report issues and make constructive suggestions. 

 

 

[MarkEzra]

I test the qb maps using random unit selection and the maps original size... Tiny map,tiny unit, ect. I'm seeing good setups, interesting setups and fewer wtf setups. 

[DougPhresh]

Really great stuff!

When you say 'counterattack' is that the AI reaction to touching objectives or can it be triggered beforehand, based on time remaining?

[MarkEzra]

Really great stuff!

When you say 'counterattack' is that the AI reaction to touching objectives or can it be triggered beforehand, based on time remaining?

Unfortunately no.  Triggers function in Scen designs but not QB designs.  So counter attacks are a variable time setting.  I hope the new engine will address this along with many other features  on players and my bucket list.  I can say that BFC pays attention to QB Player comments and request. But like all things BFC... it takes coding time.

[womble]

Bah. The quotes box is all wrong. But...

That's something I hadn't realised. At all. I'd assumed that QB plans could have triggers. I guess it's a problem with triggers having to be a specific kind of "VL" when they're defined. Which is probably a fast-and-dirty kludge that Phil and Charles were forced into using to get triggers to work at all with the resources available in the engine... So one day it'll get revisited and done "fresh" with its own mechanic rather than a borrowed one that doesn't translate into QBs (where all VLs are "Occupy"), and we can have triggers in QBs.

[Wiggum15]

The problem with quick battles was always the AI.

Even when defending they made silly choices, standing in the open, not using trenches, tanks up front...

Thats why i never had fun playing QB.

[MarkEzra]

If you read the 2015 bone thread you will know that illusive pbem side swapping bug will soon be a thing of the past. This was the result of some excellent beta testing work. They are simply the best crew I have worked with. 

You may also have notice the improved TOE logic as well. 

Hope you all a a merry Christmas

[fry30]

Didn't read your name; just kinda read through what I thought was another wishlist. Was about to write something witty like, "dream on" when I realized these were actual features. Rock on.

[MarkEzra]

A Fellow dead head. What a long, strange trip it's been!

[DougPhresh]

I have some questions about QB points!

In BS Huge points can buy 2 Battalion Tactical Groups plus artillery and air (20k points? Specifics are eluding me)
In FI it can buy infantry battalions but not a full German tank battalion
In RT it seems to be only 8000 points which is a Soviet mech tank battalion or 1 German tank companies

I'm wondering why there is a disparity.

Two questions:

1) Can this be standardized across all titles so a huge battle is X where X is say, a Tank Battalion, Plus Inf Company, Plus Support or whatever is considered appropriate?

and
2) Can there at least be enough points in Huge to buy any formation? If there is a large enough map, why not field a German tank battalion?

 

[MOS:96B2P]

I have some questions about QB points!

In BS Huge points can buy 2 Battalion Tactical Groups plus artillery and air (20k points? Specifics are eluding me)
In FI it can buy infantry battalions but not a full German tank battalion
In RT it seems to be only 8000 points which is a Soviet mech tank battalion or 1 German tank companies

I'm wondering why there is a disparity.

Two questions:

1) Can this be standardized across all titles so a huge battle is X where X is say, a Tank Battalion, Plus Inf Company, Plus Support or whatever is considered appropriate?

and
2) Can there at least be enough points in Huge to buy any formation? If there is a large enough map, why not field a German tank battalion?

 

I think it was delliejonut that posted the below table showing the purchase points for Quick Battles in the WWII titles.  The purchase points in CMBS is different from the WWII titles:  CMBS: Attack Tiny 3,343, CMBS: Attack Small 5,614, CMBS Attack Medium 9,475, CMBS Attack Large 16,037, CMBS Attack Huge 27,193 etc.....    At least within the WWII titles the QB points seem to be standardized.

Attack	Assault	Probe	Meeting Engagement
TINY	TINY	TINY	TINY
Defender   738	Defender   695	Defender   780	Defender   951
Attacker   1164	Attacker    1206	Attacker    1121	Attacker    951
SMALL	SMALL	SMALL	SMALL
Defender   1185	Defender   1112	Defender   1257	Defender   1547
Attacker    1908	Attacker    1981	Attacker    1836	Attacker    1547
MEDIUM	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	MEDIUM
Defender   1945	Defender   1822	Defender   2068	Defender   2560
Attacker    3175	Attacker    3298	Attacker    3052	Attacker    2560
LARGE	LARGE	LARGE	LARGE
Defender   3236	Defender   3027	Defender   3445	Defender   4282
Attacker     5327	Attacker     5536	Attacker     5118	Attacker     4282
HUGE	HUGE	HUGE	HUGE
Defender   5076	Defender   5076	Defender   5787	Defender   7209
Attacker    9342	Attacker    9342	Attacker    8631	Attacker    7209
VICTORY POINTS
TERRAIN / CASUALTIES	TERRAIN / CASUALTIES	TERRAIN / CASUALTIES	TERRAIN / CASUALTIES
650 / 350	750 / 250	500 / 500	400 / 600

[DougPhresh]

A German Panzer Battalion is in the 22-35k range.
A Black Sea Ukrainian/Russian Tank Battalion is in the 11-20 range.

Would it be possible to have those numbers bumped up just a little?

[MarkEzra]

@DougPhresh  I'm not the guy to ask... that's a BFC TOE design choice.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A German Panzer Battalion is in the 22-35k range.
A Black Sea Ukrainian/Russian Tank Battalion is in the 11-20 range.

Apples to oranges there.

A German WW2 tank battalion is 96 tanks, a pioneer platoon and a flak platoon.

A Russian Tank Battalion 41 is 41 tanks and nothing else.

Originally the plan for Black Sea was to set the total QB purchase points so that a US Stryker battalion (mounted, sans UAVs) plus a platoon of Abrams tanks would proportionately cost roughly the same as a German armored panzergrenadier battalion (mounted) plus a platoon of Panther tanks. This equation got knocked out of whack in one of the Black Sea patches when the cost of infantry was greatly reduced, which effectively increased the total number of purchase points available unless you are playing an armor-only QB.

Regardless of that, the fact is that it isn't possible to match up QB unit counts in Black Sea and the WW2 titles because the disparity in unit prices between US and Russia in Black Sea is much greater than the disparity between Germany and any Allied nation in the WW2 games. If you normalize Black Sea point totals using US units you will always be able to buy a lot of Russian and Ukrainian forces. If you normalize using Russian units then your US force sizes will be relatively small.

Ultimately what I would like to see is the Force Adjustment toggle given more granularity and extended to both sides.

 

[Buzz]

 

Ultimately what I would like to see is the Force Adjustment toggle given more granularity and extended to both sides.

^^^ That would be a good thing ?

[A Canadian Cat]

I would personally prefer a custom point setting feature for QBs. Then there would be no need for an additional force adjustment control.

[sburke]

Ooops Gawd I hate touch pads.  

Edited December 29, 2015 by sburke

[Michael Emrys]

A German WW2 tank battalion is 96 tanks, a pioneer platoon and a flak platoon.

You sure about that? My recollection is that about from mid-war on, the Heer had 54 tanks in a battalion. WSS may have had more, I don't know.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

You sure about that?

I am very sure that's what they are in CM Normandy and CM Red Thunder. The "late" Heer panzer battalion in CM Final Blitzkrieg will have 76 tanks (each company has 3 platoons instead of 4). I don't know about the historical accuracy.

[DougPhresh]

Would it be possible to have purchased fortifications placed neatly during the deployment phases rather than scattered all across the map?

Even better would be having purchased foxholes placed under teams as in CM1 titles but I understand if that's not desirable or possible.

[Michael Emrys]

(each company has 3 platoons instead of 4). I don't know about the historical accuracy.

Well, what I am familiar with is three platoons of five tanks each plus two in the company HQ. Three companies plus three in the battalion HQ add up to 54. That was of course assuming no losses. I encountered those numbers in several sources, but none of them were contemporary German documents, so take it for what it's worth.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, what I am familiar with is three platoons of five tanks each plus two in the company HQ. Three companies plus three in the battalion HQ add up to 54. That was of course assuming no losses.

That's how it is in the game except there are 4 panzer companies plus another 5-tank platoon in the support company.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B