Blind Quick Battles

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I have started the process of making some double blind quick battles. I loaded a QB map in the editor, added some formations set at the typical setting, assigned some parameters, and saved them. The original AI plans are in place, there is no briefing text or maps,and no clue about what you are facing or what you have until you load the battle. I have set different weather and time of day conditions and used different formations in the battles.   I have played a few of them and can achieve a total victory as either side.  I am wondering if anyone would be willing to try one or two out and let me know what you think? 

Send me a message or an email and I will send you a link to a dropbox file.

[mjkerner]

Message sent, HT.

[A Canadian Cat]

I am glad you have a tester for this.  I do have a question for you: what are you doing for AI group assignments?  The reason I ask is the QB system has some automatic code that divides up the order of battle into the groups used by the AI plan but if you save a QB as a normal scenario and select some troops by default all troops are part of AI group 1.  I'm just sanity testing your process in case you missed that.  If you have that covered already then great job and move along with testing.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

@mjkerner check your email!

 

@IanL I had already thought about that but so far in the tiny meeting battles I have started with there has been only one AI grouping. But since you brought it up, how would you handle this issue? I was planning on splitting the forces roughly evenly over the number of groupings. For example in a company sized battle and 3 AI groups, each group gets a platoon and one group at random gets the company HQ. If I added a platoon of tanks, how much of an impact on the flow of battle would it make to change which AI group they get assigned to? Do you feel the difference would be great enough to make an entirely new battle? I have a numbering system planned out that will not use sequential numbers for battles. So battle number 1 and battle number say 235 might be the same map but different forces, so a player can play the scenarios in number order and may not remember how a certain battle played out the last time they fought on this map. Even if they do remember that last time the tanks came over the western hills, this time they might come from the north or the south because they are in a different AI group.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Heirloom_Tomato

[kohlenklau]

Hi Matt,

This is sort of like that "Quick Battle Bistro Bar" we both tried in December 2014!  

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117277-is-this-a-good-idea-kohlenklaus-quick-battle-bistro-bar/#comment-1565854:

Here are my thoughts and some new ideas to offer you. 

1. Is the double-blind really good? Once the player opens and sees his forces then the blind is over for his side and he either likes what he has or goes, WTF?

2. Use qb system as a start but save over to scenario folder like kevinkin does with his "hybrid QB's"

3. As per #1, set up a campaign core unit file for player side so it can be quickly imported in when you make the battle.

4. QB system can be used as a guide for points of typical forces on each side.

5. Open the hybrid QB in the editor, examine AI plans for the computer's side and make notes to guide purchases based on that and the assigning of AI groups to the purchased units.

You could use the above process to create a dummy battle and then import various player side core forces and save each one w a new name using your naming system.

No strat map, no op map, no tac map, no briefing.

I can help make some if you want. This could be great. If my ideas are hosed, no worry. Best wishes!

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

11 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I was planning on splitting the forces roughly evenly over the number of groupings. For example in a company sized battle and 3 AI groups, each group gets a platoon and one group at random gets the company HQ.

 That seems like a good starting point. You might look at the AI plan and decide that one of the groups would be a better place to put MG teams or mortar teams but divvying them up seems like a good starting point.

 

11 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

If I added a platoon of tanks, how much of an impact on the flow of battle would it make to change which AI group they get assigned to? Do you feel the difference would be great enough to make an entirely new battle? I have a numbering system planned out that will not use sequential numbers for battles. So battle number 1 and battle number say 235 might be the same map but different forces, so a player can play the scenarios in number order and may not remember how a certain battle played out the last time they fought on this map. Even if they do remember that last time the tanks came over the western hills, this time they might come from the north or the south because they are in a different AI group.

Yes, creating a couple of battles with the same force selection but different AI group assignments could be very valid thing to do.  Your example above is a good reason to do it.

[kohlenklau]

I had my coffee and now I see why you want the double blind so the battle can be played from either side. Got it.

 

 

 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I will explain my process a little more so everyone has all the details, well as I see things anyways!

I started with tiny meeting battles for the reason everyone is encouraged to start small. If i screw things up it is easier to find a problem if the size of the battle is small. I followed the game manual guidelines where a tiny battle is roughly platoon in size. This is the basis the whole battle is built upon. Each side has been given a platoon from the formations purchase options. All of the settings were left on typical, you get what the game randomly gives you. I set the date for the battle and then chose the formations for both sides, based upon what was available at in the purchase menu. So as an example, I could have taken American Rangers vs Italian Blackshirts or British Paratroops against German Pioneers. I made random choices for each battle. For some of the battles I kept the formations the same but changed the time of day or the weather conditions. So again sticking with the Rangers Vs Blackshirts, you have the same map but at night and in the rain or overcast at dawn with a heavy wind instead of very hot at midday with no breeze nor a cloud in the sky.

I know this may make for some lopsided battles but i think this is part of the appeal.  As the player, you will know you are against an enemy platoon but a platoon of what? The initial contact with the enemy will then force you to adjust your plans as the battle unfolds. I know there will be some players who hate this idea. Fine, don't play these battles. I know there will be other players who will love the challenge. 

I made no changes to the map in any way.  All the credit for the maps must go to the original QB map creator. Without their hard work, no of this would be possible!  Thank you very much!

As for the AI, so far the tiny meeting battles have had only one AI group so nothing too hard to figure out there. I added a casualty threshold and assigned some points, and unit destruction points for each side. So there is the terrain objective, take good care of your men objective and destroy the enemy objective.  Since there is already AI plans for both sides the battles are playable as either force. 

Are these battles playable head to head? Sure they are! Are they perfectly balanced from a point total perspective? Nope. If this is a problem for you, again don't play one of these battles. But neither player will know he is the underdog until contact is made.

Give the battle at this link a try and let me know what you think!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zzlmx4c5buqfnv9/Meet Tiny Town (steep hills) 064 battle 095.btt?dl=0

[kohlenklau]

Platoon vs Platoon? Cool! I will definitely give it a go. Thanks Matt.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

Or this one

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f5y4ambaxt4fge6/Meet Tiny Agricultural (water) 273 battle 003.btt?dl=0

[kohlenklau]

So, these are now scenarios and should go in the scenario folder. Correct?

Which if yes, is cool because then modtags can be added in the editor.

 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

Yes these are scenarios and need to go to the scenario folder.

[Heinrich505]

Heirloom_Tomato,

  I tried the TinyAgricultural Battle, played it through as Axis, and then played it as Allied.  I played it on Elite.

  In the Axis battle, I aggressively moved into the farm, flanked a little to the right, and got MGs in the second story building.  I think I did all this in the first 15 minutes.  After that I pretty much mowed down the Allies as they rushed up the road.  Total victory in around 30 minutes.  My guys were untouched, not even one wounded. 

  In the Allied battle, I again aggressively moved into the farm, thinking the AI might do the same.  I was in the second story in force in 15 minutes, and no Axis in sight.  Then the AI appeared and tried to get across the road, but they were not going to make it.  My fire from the 2nd story and covering Brens from my entry zone area down the road cut them down like wheat.  Total victory at the 30 minute mark.  I had one wounded.

  They were fun little battles, quick, but not very challenging.  I wonder if you could make the AI more aggressive.  I am guessing you had only one AI plan.  I didn't play each side more than once.

  Is this the feedback you were looking for?

Heinrich505 

[kohlenklau]

I also played the CMFI Tiny Agricultural Battle and have beefed it up a tad. Renamed as V1 at the end. 

Beefed up = adjusted AI plan and such. 

Here she is and load in scenario folder and play either side.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vi60xni71briyqb/Meet Tiny Ag (water) 273 battle 003V1.btt?dl=0

Edited August 22, 2016 by kohlenklau

[Heirloom_Tomato]

@Heinrich505 I believe there was three AI plans with the map. I did not make any changes to the AI plans with any of the battles I had posted. All I did was add some real units and make sure they were in the setup zones, add some battle parameters and saved. 

It looks to me, if i am going to keep making these, then I should also look at the AI plans and try to make some adjustments.

I am glad you had fun, and that a complete victory was possible from both sides. It would be interesting to see how the battle would play out H2H...

[Heirloom_Tomato]

So after giving this some more thought, I have come up with two ideas, Quick Scenarios or QS and Advanced Quick Scenarios or AQS.

A Quick Scenario is a quick battle map with units hand picked for each side and some points set for casualties and enemy force destruction. These QS battles will feature the original AI plans and feature no map changes. For each QS, I will load a common briefing file stating the original map name and giving credit for the map to Battlefront.

An Advanced Quick Scenario will feature all of the above but will have some tweaks to the AI to better represent the units chosen and to try and take advantage of triggers. These AQS battles may feature reinforcements and might come with a recommendation to play as one side or the other.

Both types of battles will have the player entering the battlefield "blind". They will have no idea of what they will be commanding or what they will be up against. See the earlier posts in this thread for rough ideas of sizes of battles and the forces involved for each.

I will plan on uploading them in blocks to the Scenario Depot once I have a group of them made.

I think it needs to be stated this idea could not come about without the fantastic QB maps Battlefront and @MarkEzra have provided. I enjoy working with the editor and find making a good map to be a real challenge. With a large selection of maps ready to go, it is very easy to come up with playable scenarios in short order. Thanks for all your hard work on these maps. 

[A Canadian Cat]

That sounds good @Heirloom_Tomato!

[kohlenklau]

AQS. Sounds great. That is the term I will use. Thanks Matt.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I have just submitted the first 16 Tiny Meeting QS to the Scenario Depot III. 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Thank you very much for the FI and BN scenarios. 

I see that you have RT also, so if the motivation is there, I'd love to see some of these for that one too!

[Heirloom_Tomato]

@Vergeltungswaffe What type and size of Red Thunder battles are you thinking of?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The same type of smaller battles you've been doing.

Platoon up to company sized is wonderful. 

The type doesn't matter since you set it up in such a unique way that practically everything is a surprise.

It's great for pbem or single player that way.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Vergeltungswaffe

[Heirloom_Tomato]

Wondering about the idea of giving these QS battles a difficulty rating. Since I set the parameters for the battle, I could raise or lower the thresholds, making it harder to achieve a total victory. 

For example, set the enemy casualties to 50% and friendly casualties to 30% for a regular match. For an elite match, the enemy casualties would be set to 60% and friendly to 20%. Then for the hardest level of all, Iron, set the enemy level to 75% and friendly to 10%. 

The battle's difficulty level would be identified in the name, for example Tiny Meet QS 001 Iron, Tiny Meet QS 001 Elite, and Tiny Meet QS 001. Simply pick your challenge and play.

Would this work or am I overlooking something with regards to how the victory point system functions?

[A Canadian Cat]

Seems like a good idea.  One suggestion - use different names from the in game difficultly level names to prevent confusion.  How about Tiny Meet QS 001 Arduous, Tiny Meet QS 001 Tough, and Tiny Meet QS 001

Also there is a tool that helps you to envision what your scenario's victory points would feel like. I find it useful to establish the amount of points to assign to each category.

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=4236

 

[Ales Dvorak]

On 28. avgust 2016 at 7:04 AM, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I have just submitted the first 16 Tiny Meeting QS to the Scenario Depot III. 

Thank  you.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Ales Dvorak