QB points

[RobZ]

Why is there not a unlimited or custom points amount in quick battles? For a game like this such an option seems like basic requirement, but it doesn't exist.

Me and a friend is making/playing a h2h campaign with CMFB and we use QB to play out the battles. But at times the battle sizes can exceed the QB points. The largest battle we had on our last campaign was with allies having a full tank battalion, full airborne battalion, 11 aircraft and lots of artillery. Axis side (me) had a full heavy panzer battalion, pzgren battalion, volksgren battalion, 3 seperate infantry companies, 1 stug company, 1 marder company and lots of artillery. This resulted in my points exceeding 22000 which is what you get with 150% addition for attacker side. This ment we had to set all this up in scenario editor which is a much longer process and some TO&Es are even different there making it harder to have consistent units. Size of battle seems to be non-issue as we played 3 hours in real time and finished the game with allied surrender.

[landser]

MP, I guess? Balanceism 

CMx1 allowed setting the points didn't it?

QB was more fun in CMx1 for me. There's a lot to like about Cmx2, but QB isn't at the top of that list in my view. Three things come to mind

One, there is no longer a Combined Arms selection. This setting in CMx1 seemed to do a good job of getting the AI to pick reasonable force composition. If I let the AI pick in CMx2 it's usually a mess. And if I pick them I already know what they are.

Two, no custom points, as above, arbitrarily restricting the scenarios that can be created using the QB

Three, no procedural maps. I know there is pushback on this point. And the hand-made maps included in CMx2 are usually top-drawer. But there is also something to be said for randomness and the lack of balance in a given scenario. I wish both options were possible in the current engine.

 

[Lt Bull]

On 4/16/2020 at 3:41 AM, RobZ said:

Why is there not a unlimited or custom points amount in quick battles? For a game like this such an option seems like basic requirement, but it doesn't exist.

I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I  can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.

Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.

I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).

eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.

[RobZ]

That is a very nice chart to get exact numbers for QBs. The campaign we play doesn't use points per say during the battles. We do a lot of manual work with writing numbers and unit setups and so on and when we play battles the settings are always maxed out so we can buy what we need freely. Like from my example in the first post I had a full heavy panzer battalion, that's not cus I decided I want it, but I had that unit on the campaign map where the battle occured. I lost 11 tanks that battle which means those losses would carry over with that battalion into next battles if that happens. But ye that chart is for sure usefull if I decide to play a game with certain amount of points.

[Bulletpoint]

On 4/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, RobZ said:

Why is there not a unlimited or custom points amount in quick battles? For a game like this such an option seems like basic requirement, but it doesn't exist.

Because they don't think we are capable of handling such great power.

 

[Kaunitz]

On 4/20/2020 at 11:14 AM, Lt Bull said:

Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.

Thanks a lot, that's very usefull!

The follow-up question we could try to answer concern the differences between the different types of quickbattles, apart from the point budgets. I will try to investigate the differences, but maybe someone already knows more than I? As far as I know, the more you lean towards "assault", 

• the deeper in the defender's deployment zone the terrain objectives ought to be / the further the defender's deployment zone reaches?
• the less weight casualties should have compared to the terrain objectives for determining victory
• (in an assault only, the attacker gets some information/contact markers on the defenders' positions)

Edited April 25, 2020 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

Okay so it seems that point 1 is not true for most QB maps. For probes/attacks/assaults, the location of objectives and the deployment zones are identical. So the only difference between the battle types is the difference in the point budget and the allocation of victory points to terrain objectives and casualties, as described in the v.4 manual, pp. 27, 119.

To me it seems as if the more you go towards assault, the easier it will be for the attacker. The attacker gets more points and more tolerance for losses (and some info on enemy positions). The defender gets ... nothing?

Players could agree on using progressively shorter time limits for attacks and assaults though. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

57 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Okay so it seems that point 1 is not true for most QB maps. For probes/attacks/assaults, the location of objectives and the deployment zones are identical. So the only difference between the battle types is the difference in the point budget and the allocation of victory points to terrain objectives and casualties, as described in the v.4 manual, pp. 27, 119.

To me it seems as if the more you go towards assault, the easier it will be for the attacker. The attacker gets more points and more tolerance for losses (and some info on enemy positions). The defender gets ... nothing?

Players could agree on using progressively shorter time limits for attacks and assaults though. 

The problem is that the different types of battles are meant to be played out on different types of maps. So that the extra points the attacker gets in an assault are countered by the map being more difficult to attack, and that he will have to reach objectives deeper in the map. That's how it's supposed to be. BUT many scenario designers don't understand that, so they just ship identical versions of the same map, labelled as probe, attack, assault... Even in the QB maps that come with the official game.

In effect, this turns the battle type selection into just a kind of difficulty setting, where probes is the most difficult attack missions, and assault are the easiest.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[DougPhresh]

Unlimited points would go a long way. The points aren't even calculated the same across titles!

In some games, I can buy nearly a mechanized brigade, in others I can barely get  a full tank battalion.

A unified standard of Platoon/Company/Battalion/Brigade/Unlimited across titles would go a long way IMO.

[Lt Bull]

18 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

The points aren't even calculated the same across titles!

!!! If this is correct then I need to qualify that all the QB Points/Ratio tables I have released were based on CMBN.  TBH, I didn't bother checking the other CM titles I have (all the WW2 ones) as I did not think it would have been any different in those games.  Looks like I guessed wrong. I might have more work to do if I am going to fully paint the picture.  Will be interesting to see how Battlefront altered things across the various titles, given the QB points system they implemented in the first instance and then apparently modified across subsequent releases is just so oddly configured.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Lt Bull

[Hapless]

On 4/27/2020 at 9:12 AM, Kaunitz said:

The defender gets ... nothing?

Because casualties matter less and the ground objectives matter more, arguably the attacker has to spend more time and effort completely clearing the ground objectives to get his points.

[Kaunitz]

On 4/28/2020 at 3:47 PM, Hapless said:

Because casualties matter less and the ground objectives matter more, arguably the attacker has to spend more time and effort completely clearing the ground objectives to get his points.

Hm. Never thought of it this way. I find it a bit strange if "more tolerance for casualties" benefits the defender rather than the attacker. So a better name for the assault missions should be "search and destroy". 

In my opinion assault missions should feature a big separate point budget for the defender to buy field fortifications. Unless you put them into a separate budget, noone is ever going to buy them because they're ridicolously overprized. Would you rather buy 2 squares of barbed wire or a full squad? Field fortifications are supposed to funnel the enemy into killzones, not to be more expensive than the troops that constitute your killzones! Also, field fortifications are still underpowered (CM:BS doesn't even feature "bunkers"  - so you get no overhead protection whatsoever for infantry positions in the title which has plenty of airburst HE ammo....for me this is a major issue that totally messes up the balance. No wonder everyone is astonished by the "lethality" of the modern titles...)
 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Kaunitz

[holoween]

Fortifications arent useless.

I tend to play large or huge QB and at least at that size field fortifications are quite usefull.

Foxholes especially provide the best possible cover as far as my testing could determine and only cost 5 points each. And they allow setting up strong defensive positions where there isnt one on the map.

 

Also the lethality of the modern titles is mostly a result of not adjusting to the environment youre fighting in. In ww2 you can sit a tank into hulldown for several minutes and it will most likely be fine because neither itself nor the oponent will spot or hit. In the modern titles simply poking up for 10-15s at a time accomplishes the same.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by holoween

[holoween]

As an example. This Position was only marginally more expensive by adding the foxholes yet it took an M1A2sep platoon and a striker platoon around 15min to clear on the assault and quite a bit more time to scout out which made a significant contribution to me eventually winning the match.

[Kaunitz]

3 hours ago, holoween said:

As an example. This Position was only marginally more expensive by adding the foxholes yet it took an M1A2sep platoon and a striker platoon around 15min to clear on the assault and quite a bit more time to scout out which made a significant contribution to me eventually winning the match.

Interesting stuff, holoween! Indeed in larger battles I think that some fortifications can be more worthwhile in terms of cost/effectivenes due the relation between point budget/mapsize.

May I ask how the battle went/why it did take longer for your opponent to clear the position?

• Was the opponent unable to hit or were his hits less effective in taking your pixeltruppen out? I wonder if part of the perceived protection might have been due to the very flat terrain (hitting close to the target requires more accuracy in this case)?
• Did he have no artillery?
• You say it was more difficult to scout out? Aren't foxholes spotted very easily?

Edited May 3, 2020 by Kaunitz

[holoween]

4 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Interesting stuff, holoween! Indeed in larger battles I think that some fortifications can be more worthwhile in terms of cost/effectivenes due the relation between point budget/mapsize.

May I ask how the battle went/why it did take longer for your opponent to clear the position?

• Was the opponent unable to hit or were his hits less effective in taking your pixeltruppen out? I wonder if part of the perceived protection might have been due to the very flat terrain (hitting close to the target requires more accuracy in this case)?
• Did he have no artillery?
• You say it was more difficult to scout out? Aren't foxholes spotted very easily?

The forward platoon was in defilade so hard to spot but what i was trying to say it that the actual assault on the position took 15min with more additional time needed to scout around before launching the assault. Also while its relatively easy to spot foxholes its quite difficult to spot if they are occupied if the troops are hiding.

He did have arty but that was busy supressing atgms covering the position. And arty isnt great against spred out foxholes.

It took an abrams platoon and a striker platoon 15 min to clear and thats 1 platoon in defilade and 2 in enfilade positions. in comparison later 2 abrams wiped a similarly positioned platoon in the open in 2min. So yea the resilience there is entirely due to the foxholes.

[QuiGon]

The small size of QBs is one of my major gripes with the CM series. I would love to fight battailon(+) quick battles, but even if the battle size is set to "huge" it often doesn't provide enough budget points to do so. In CM:CW for example, a huge meeting engagement gives you ~13,000pts, but even a single M113 equipped US Mech Infantry battailon costs ~20,000 pts. I really wish there would be a bigger option than "huge" or even better: an option to set custom budgets.

 @Battlefront.com please add this. I would really really appreciate it!

It's been requested over and over:

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by QuiGon

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Agreed.

It would definitely be nice to have more choices, including being able to set a points number.

[A Canadian Cat]

7 hours ago, QuiGon said:

The small size of QBs is one of my major gripes with the CM series. I would love to fight battailon(+) quick battles, but even if the battle size is set to "huge" it often doesn't provide enough budget points to do so. In CM:CW for example, a huge meeting engagement gives you ~13,000pts, but even a single M113 equipped US Mech Infantry battailon costs ~20,000 pts.

 

3 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Agreed.

It would definitely be nice to have more choices, including being able to set a points number.

 

Yep, if you are playing a trusted opponent you can get there yourself using the scenario editor. Check out this post:

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

Yep, if you are playing a trusted opponent you can get there yourself using the scenario editor. Check out this post:

 

Exactly what I've done for years.

Would just be nice to have a quick, easy points drop down or the like.

[QuiGon]

On 5/17/2021 at 1:13 AM, IanL said:

Yep, if you are playing a trusted opponent you can get there yourself using the scenario editor. Check out this post:

 

That's actually what I ended up doing. The search function lead me to it. It's much more cumbersome though than just setting a bigger QB budget.

And the problem doesn't end there. I'm playing a MP match of CM:CW this way, so I put together my force in the quick battle purchase screen with a budget of 30,000 points that we agreed on. Then I went to the scenario editor to put the same force together there, that I created in the QB setup, but... I couldn't! The formations available in the scenario editor are quite a lot different than the ones available in a QB (even if same month and year is set)!!!

For example: In a QB the US has infantry, mech and armored categories, while in the scenario editor there are only infantry and mech categories available to the US. Armor is missing there, instead armored formations are mixed in with the mech infantry. That leads to the next problem: I chose a mech infantry bataillon (task force) in the QB setup, where each company consisted of 3 mech rifle platoons and a 4th weapons platoon. Now in the scenario editor unit setup, the mech infantry bataillon (task force) is a totally differnt formation, where the 3rd platoon in each company is a tank platoon...

This inconsistency makes it really difficult to play it as you proposed

Edited May 18, 2021 by QuiGon