Jump to content

Please up the budget for quick battles


Recommended Posts

~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge does fit a Soviet Motor Rifle battalion, but typically not the artillery support that comes with it - the dream is still to have control over the actual points available, but I'm not sure that's too far off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I still remember when CMBN first came out, and players complained that Tiny QB's had only a Platoon or two of Infantry and a Vehicle...Then, BF increased it across the board and Tiny Battles had a Reinforced Company more worth of Troops and couple Vehicles. 

I still prefered the Former :-/

Edited by JoMac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, QuiGon said:

~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.

Seconded! More flexibility with the QB system would be a welcome addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An option to pick a point total instead of a size sounds reasonable to me (admittedly, not a programmer)

That would allow players to pick battles by size, as now, and have as an alternative, the player could pick a point total, up to whatever, 50,000, 100,000, whatever they're willing to subject their processor to. And then the program gives each side their fraction of the points 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 2:31 PM, JoMac said:

I still remember when CMBN first came out, and players complained that Tiny QB's had only a Platoon or two of Infantry and a Vehicle...Then, BF increased it across the board and Tiny Battles had a Reinforced Company more worth of Troops and couple Vehicles. 

I still prefered the Former 😕

Why would anyone ever complain that a "tiny" battle was tiny? They could just choose a bigger battle size if hey wanted more points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 7:43 PM, ng cavscout said:

An option to pick a point total instead of a size sounds reasonable to me (admittedly, not a programmer)

That would allow players to pick battles by size, as now, and have as an alternative, the player could pick a point total, up to whatever, 50,000, 100,000, whatever they're willing to subject their processor to. And then the program gives each side their fraction of the points 

Exactly. Just type in how much points you want and that's it. So simple really yet so much more flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically. I'll pick a battle size that's one higher than the battle size I actually want and manually choose the map and unit purchases for both sides if I'm playing AI QMB and I want to see expensive toys.  You don't have to spend all those points if it's just going to swamp the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Why would anyone ever complain that a "tiny" battle was tiny? They could just choose a bigger battle size if hey wanted more points?

Pack it in with that logical thinking 😏

Maybe you could help me by pointing out where you see anything not logical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a joke - he was pointing out that your "Why complain about how small a Tiny battle is when you could just play a larger battle" comment is completely sensible. 

"Why not have it go to ten, and make ten louder? This one goes to eleven", etc.

Points are arbitrary, and what classifies as a Tiny battle is also arbitrary - Tiny seems to suggest a platoon-level scenario in CM terms, so that's a reasonable yardstick, but not all platoons are made equal, and what makes for a sufficiently interesting Tiny battle may not be consistent across the titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being able to set point values for both sides would be the holy grail of Combat Mission quick battles. Modding the point value for some units would be a nice second. I find it surprising that at the lowest levels of exp/motivation, the M113 is only 10pts less than a BMP-1. The M113 is a battle taxi with a tac-ai that seems to want to avoid battle, which makes sense. Makes it difficult to do a US attack with mech forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bulletpoint

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

That was a joke - he was pointing out that your "Why complain about how small a Tiny battle is when you could just play a larger battle" comment is completely sensible. 

domfluff has nailed it - however Mrs Combatintman keeps telling me I'm not funny ... maybe she has a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

Being able to set point values for both sides would be the holy grail of Combat Mission quick battles. Modding the point value for some units would be a nice second. I find it surprising that at the lowest levels of exp/motivation, the M113 is only 10pts less than a BMP-1. The M113 is a battle taxi with a tac-ai that seems to want to avoid battle, which makes sense. Makes it difficult to do a US attack with mech forces.


Any points-buy system is inherently flawed, no matter the game, especially any with fixed points that don't take account of any kind of context.

As a silly, extreme example: you could spend all of your points on artillery you can't use, because you didn't buy an FO - clearly the artillery in that context is not worth the points you spent on it.

Having said that, it's even less meaningful to compare between different sides - it's not terribly useful to compare a BMP-1 to an M113, because the Soviets can't take an M113, and the US can't take a BMP-1 - if you want a transport, then you've got one option as the US, and it's really a question of whether it's worth it relative to the rest of the US TO&E. Obviously it can still be overpriced, but that's relative to itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2021 at 10:26 PM, ChrisND said:

New QB points for the patch:

Huge: 22,500

Large: 14,100

Medium: 8,850

Small: 5,568

Tiny: 3517

EDIT: I posted the numbers for an Attack scenario. For Meeting Engagement, Huge is 18,020.

Thanks, that's quite an improvement, although a maximum of 18,020 points for a meeting engagement is still not enough IMHO. I'm currently playing a ~30,000 point PBEM meeting engagement on a 4 x 4.5 km map, using the Scenario Editor to put the troops together, which is rather cumbersome as it doesn't show a budget. A flexible solution, where we can define our own budget would be really helpful :)

Edited by QuiGon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the notion that a text field to enter a number would be the way to go.

I mean just the formation selection screen shows several premade (realistic) formations costing close to 30,000 points. And that's not even high quality troops.

(also, I would really like to have the points values displayed in the editor. If you take formation variations into account it is nearly impossible to "translate" from a QB selection display to the editor)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, there's a number of things that would make Quick Battles more of a thing, but they're presumably not the main focus of the game.

- Custom points
- Having the Quick Battle Forces match the Scenario Editor TO&E, and include all of the vehicles and teams that faction can access (Uncons in CMSF get the short end here, where their "single vehicle" choice can only ever be a Taxi).

Those are the "easy" ones.

(None of the following are stuff I think are actually plausible for implementation, but just some thoughts)

For the QBs to be a more competitive system would require a more extensive rework, I suspect. I think there's actually something to be said for a *more* restrictive system, where you can select plausible formations and their supports, but can't fully customise them. Possibly not as the default, but as an option.

Then you start getting into the more extensive system - formal support for mirrored battles, perhaps, or a bidding system for selecting sides.

Points-buy as a concept is inherently flawed (and always has been), but there aren't many attempts to get away from it. DBA goes down the "more restrictions" route, and replaces points with the concept of representing each army with exactly 12 units, in historical proportions. Bidding is an easy way to push the problems of balance and scale onto the players, but it's not all that common in approach - Combat Commander has a blind bidding system which generates a battle and attacker/defender pair based on your selection of force size - in that instance, platoon/detachment/company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, db_zero said:

I would love to see a mode where you can just pick anything-no points, all you can eat buffet. 

Just have an "unlimited" option in the pulldown menu. The opponents can use a honor system on limits they have chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 6:46 AM, QuiGon said:

~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.

Here's what the points are in the  patch:

 

Attack: Attacker 22,500 Defender 13,540
Probe : Attacker 21,604 Defender 14,436
Assault: Attacker 23,396 Defender 12,644
Meeting Engagement : Both sides 18,020
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...