Runyan99 Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Can we add the flexiblility to remove individual squads/weapons from the quick battle oob? Sometimes it is difficult to use all of your points when you have to take a whole platoon/company...or nothing. Lots of times you may be able to add a whole new company of infantry, if you could just remove a MG team or two to get under the infantry point limit (say in a 1000 point combined arms engagement). This would be especially helpful in low-point QBs where you only have 500 points or so to spend, and whole companies are probably too big to purchase. Let me buy the company, and then remove a squad and a mortar or something to get back under the point limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eba Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Great suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 I concur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitsud42 Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Hear Hear! Please!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 A couple options would be to have the program cut off the extra units, or allow a flexible system where HQ units could be purchased and other units added (as appropriate). Personally, I think the initial suggestion of selective deletion is best, but I suppose there might be technical reasons why another approach would be preferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 I feel your pain on this issue, but there are a few reasons why this isn't a good idea and is very unlikely to be added to CM:BO. First, it would make it easier for players to purchase ahistorical OBs and to "cherry-pick" by taking only the portions of formations they deem most effective (taking the wheat and leaving the chaff behind). A simple example: in an Infantry vs. Infantry QB, a British player buys a rifle company, but deletes all his PIATS because he knows he won't be facing any vehicles, saving 36 points to use elsewhere. Second, there is a discount applied when buying units in large formations (for example, the three platoons in a rifle company cost less than three rifle platoons bought separately). Again, this is to encourage the use of historical formations. By allowing players to prune purchased formations in QBs, players could get discounts they were not entitled to, and so the discount would likely have to be done away with. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eba Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 I like Runyan99's suggestion for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it would allow you to do with a QB what scenario makers can do with the editor -- make reduced-strength units to reflect more historically-accurate battlefield situations. For example, almost none of the airborne units in Normandy had their full compliment of personnel and equipment. It would be nice to be able to simulate that in a QB, as well as in a scenario. While I'm on my soapbox, the scenario editor has several other features that I'd like to see available in QBs: the ability to play on a pre-designed map (which would allow terrain types in QBs that aren't possible now, such as rivers, bridges and bocage)and the ability to mix unit types (e.g., the US airborne troops fought alongside British armor in Market Garden and US armor at Bastogne). The QB generator in CM is fantastic and helps make the game endlessly replayable. I'd just like to see a bit more flexibilty. In essence, the ability to play scenario-quality QBs with the added unpredictability of an AI-purchased and placed opponent. I understand the concern that some folks will "cherry pick" ahistorical OBs, but why should the game not have desirable features just because some folks will abuse them? I've heard that same concern expressed about allowing QBs on pre-designed maps -- the fear that some folks will cheat in PBEM games. The solution, I think, is just don't play with those folks. But, don't limit the development of the game for the rest of us. The folks who cherry pick and cheat will soon have no one but themselves to play and the rest of us will have a better game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eba: While I'm on my soapbox, the scenario editor has several other features that I'd like to see available in QBs: the ability to play on a pre-designed map (which would allow terrain types in QBs that aren't possible now, such as rivers, bridges and bocage)and the ability to mix unit types (e.g., the US airborne troops fought alongside British armor in Market Garden and US armor at Bastogne).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I too would like to see more variety in QB terrains, the option to include a river and bridges would be high on my list The second option of mixing troops from different units and nationalities is already available in QBs' as far as I know (at least in "human buys" games). As for the ability to prune and shape units to fit under point allocations, I think that would defeat one of the purposes of the point allocation limit. IMO part of the skill is buying the best force you can for the scenario, with the points available. Company HQs have morale and mortar sighting abilities which do not exist at platoon level. By pruning Companies so you can still have these abilities even though the point limit would otherwise deny them to you would change the balance of the game. But why play with smaller point limits? Just up the points so you can buy what you want. Of course the standard counter to this is "well you don't have to use the function just because it's available, so don't deny it to others". Not to start a flame war here, just pre-empting at least one standard response to taking the opposite side of a suggestion. Unfortunately this argument would justify teslar tanks with teleporting abilities also(...well *you* don't have to use them....). Sometimes I have wanted to buy a Company only to find that the PIATs / HMGs or whatever that come with it put me over the "Support" point limit. I guess that is how those Companies arrived in the field, with their heavy weapons as well. Hardly realistic to tell the flamethrower and mortar teams to stay back at the depot and sit this fight out. So my view is to either deal with the limitations, or up the point limit for the game. And add rivers and bridges as setup options for QBs! :^) OberGrupenStompinFuhrer ------------------ OGSF will be happy to know that he pointed out a nice little bug with bazookas hitting the back doors of bunkers. No idea when this stopped working, but the fix was rather easy. It will be in 1.1. - Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mongo Lloyd Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 I must say that I agree with Leland on the issue of being able to selectively eliminate units from larger formations, but it would be nice to be able to play Quick Battles on pre-made maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eba Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 OGSF: So THAT'S what "No Restriction" means in the QB setup. You're right. Thanks. But I stand by everything else I said, dammit! I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eba: OGSF: So THAT'S what "No Restriction" means in the QB setup. You're right. Thanks. But I stand by everything else I said, dammit! I think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll roll over on being able to buy units for premade maps - I've wanted this feature as well. I don't see this as being as useful as including rivers and bridges in QBs' because a) possibly one of the players made the map and therefore knows it already, and after two or three games the terrain is "known". But it would be cool. OberGrupenStompinFuhrer ------------------ OGSF will be happy to know that he pointed out a nice little bug with bazookas hitting the back doors of bunkers. No idea when this stopped working, but the fix was rather easy. It will be in 1.1. - Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OGSF: Company HQs have morale and mortar sighting abilities which do not exist at platoon level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I'm pretty sure that any HQ (even a platoon HQ) can spot for onboard mortars. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kking199 Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 In the same vein of QB tweaking... a minor but very helpful change when selecting units would be to give the "difference" in points allowed and spent for each category so the user can quickly "see" how many points he/she has left to spend or overspent. Call it the "Over/Under" Example... Infantry Support Vehicle Allowed 800 300 500 Purchased 565 212 0 Over/Under 235 88 500 (Well my formatting went all to hell, but I think you can get the idea) Make the Over "red", Under "green" this way I can quickly scan and see what I can afford or what i need to drop. BTW... I like the current point allocation system, not saying it doesn't frustrate me from time to time but I understand why/how it functions and I agree with the design decision. ------------------ "Sure, there were a lot of bodies we never identified." - TSgt Donald Haguall '44 In Combat from Normandy to the Ardennes - Charles Whiting [This message has been edited by kking199 (edited 11-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts