Tiger Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 I'd like to be able to pick at least one quality lower than it is now. "low" quality troops, conscript and green troops (as it is now). "medium" quality troops allow green, regular and veteran troops (adds green, maybe conscript as well?) "high" quality troops allow regular, veteran, crack, elite troop quality (adds regular to current system). Allow the ability to pick the lower-end troops to allow more diversity in troops types, in this case adding a lower quality troop pick. -john [This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Here! Here! I agree with you 100% Tiger. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangorn Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 I would like to be able to buy regulars with low quality troops, so we can use the random quality option - greens vs. veterans games are short and dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 I'm in favor of this too. As it is right now, all my squads are pretty much the same. I want to be in situations where I'm thinking about whether I should've put that veteran squad in the building instead of having my green troops hold that location. Let's see this in the next patch. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 How about let's not? Boy, this sounds like a really good addition to the game. Let's have Steve and Charles take time from making CM2 and introduce a marginally useful feature which you can already get using the scenario editor! I apologize if I sound overly sarcastic, but, well... no I don't. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 16, 2000 Author Share Posted October 16, 2000 This would not take much to do. 2-3 string variables from the QB starting screen in the quality variables selection. Points based on unit quality are on the next screen and are already done. Would like to see this implemented for QBs. Choosing random quality is basically useless without a little more leeway here. Fangorn, your opponent, if given the choice of being able to pick from green to veteran (medium troop quality suggestion), instead of just veteran and regular, has a very good chance of throwing in some green troops, rather than have everything regular-veteran. Cheaper to buy. Same goes if someone gets high quality troops. There's more of a chance lower quality would be picked, same reason as above. -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocky Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Agree I would like the flexibilty of the above options Would allow more subterfuge in your battles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about let's not? Boy, this sounds like a really good addition to the game. Let's have Steve and Charles take time from making CM2 and introduce a marginally useful feature which you can already get using the scenario editor! I apologize if I sound overly sarcastic, but, well... no I don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe I don't have hours on end to make my own scenario or didn't that cross your mind? Putting it into the QB screen wouldn't take long at all. You make it sound like Steve and Charles will have to spend months on end to implement this. It's a simple fix and it would provide us with more variety. Why are you against that? If all you care about is CM2, then don't post to this board. Some of us are more interested in in the Western Front and want CM to be the best possible gaming experience around. Some of us don't look at CM1 like it's a guinea pig for the real thing--CM2. Comprende? I plan to buy CM2 but my real love is for the Western Front and I'm sure I'll be playing this more even when the new installment comes out. And since I'll be playing this so much, I'd like to give my thoughts on improving it. I think this is a small fix that would make a lot of players happy. Basically, it means more options. More things to consider when forming your overall strategy. ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Blahblahblahblah, I want everything and I want it now! My ideas are brilliant, implement them now!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Man, since you've been here, all you've done is ask for changes. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a moron who fails to comprehend the full extent of the Deadmarsh vision. You don't have time to mess around with the scenario editor yet you want Steve and Charles to take the time to implement a feature which is already available in the scenario editor? Uh, sorry, but that's just silly. I promise you, it would take longer to code your proposed change than for you to do it yourself in the editor. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadayne Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 um, guys.... please excuse Chupacabra -he just got back from "monday night drinkies" ------------------ This space for rent. [This message has been edited by Jadayne (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Chupacabra, Usually I find your posts funny and interesting to read. Today, you sound like you have a bug up your @$$! Chill down man, go out on the ol' porch and breathe in some fresh air or maybe drink a little java - no wait, scratch that last one, it'll make you more hyper. It's obvious that you are alone with your negative views, and have no real valid points why it shoudn't be done. As can be easily seen by the "blah blah blah" ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Mmm, okay, then answer me two questions - 1) Is this feature currently available in the scenario editor, yes or no? 2) Will this feature take longer to code than it would take someone to use the scenario editor, yes or no? If there's a bug up my ass, it's because there are a constant stream of "I WANT THIS NOW" posts on this board, and it's a bit ridiculous. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadayne Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Chup, nobody's arguing the point you make. It's just the, um, forcefulness with which you made it. You went from defcon 2 to defcon 5 in two posts. ------------------ This space for rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 17, 2000 Author Share Posted October 17, 2000 Chupacabra, I realize you're very angry for whatever reason but here goes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mmm, okay, then answer me two questions - 1) Is this feature currently available in the scenario editor, yes or no? 2) Will this feature take longer to code than it would take someone to use the scenario editor, yes or no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ok, 1) it's not available for quick battles and not everyone wants to design a scenario everytime they want this possible feature in troop quality selection. and 2) I'm guessing it would not be very difficult at all to code as your only changing a couple of variables that are already on the initial QB start screen; I think it would be great to hear from Steve or Charles or Matt or Dan. It's not a big deal and no one is "demanding" it. It was only a suggestion. I hope you will take your in-fighting with Col. Deadmarsh elsewhere. Please start a new topic if you want to fight. Btw, it was my suggestion not Col Deadmarsh's. peace, -john [This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Mmm, okay, then answer me two questions - 1) Is this feature currently available in the scenario editor, yes or no? 2) Will this feature take longer to code than it would take someone to use the scenario editor, yes or no? If there's a bug up my ass, it's because there are a constant stream of "I WANT THIS NOW" posts on this board, and it's a bit ridiculous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only Steve and Charles can answer question 2 for sure, but having done some basic programming, I know that the difference between whether or not a certain option is greyed out at any point in time can be as little as one line of code. So it's possible that it might be a big job and not worth the effort, or it's possible that it might indeed take less time than it would to make a scenario. Why not get it from the horse's mouth before commencing jumping down throats? If you look at the first post in this thread, it begins with the words "I'd like...". There's a big difference between that and demanding immediate action, or is it frowned upon to even express a preference now? Maybe Henri wasn't so off the wall with his "inquisition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 It gets worse, Steve has already commented on this idea, the short ans; No. For a longer one and his reasons do a search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 17, 2000 Author Share Posted October 17, 2000 I did a search and got my post -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: I did a search and got my post -john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hehe what did you search for BTS----troop quality pick change? try harder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 I'm real sorry, but I absolutely despise it when people say " DO A SEARCH " to everything! First off, who knows when this topic was last discussed? Maybe things changed from then to now? Second, I'd like to know the reason for this "No". Since you, Bastables, seem like a person who either has a very good memory or someone who searches for every topic on the board just to make usre if it was discussed before, please do enlighten us to your results. It isn't right that a person should spend half an hour with the terrible search function... No offense or anything, but really, if you're going to tell people to do a search, tell them the name of the post at least! ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Bastables, what were your search key-words? I tried "troop quality in QB" - nothin' from BTS - and just "troop quality" - LOTS of hits and nothing relevant that I found in 10-15 minutes of reading. I'm with Tiger that this would be a nice feature, not only to allow more mixing of troop types, but to allow spending closer to the limit in small QB's. I'm also a little surprised at the heat this comment has generated. Don't get me wrong, I'm as eager as everyone else for CM2, but Tiger's "I'd like to see..." comment is not at all different from a great many threads on the board, and I'm a little surprised that it met with such hostility, especially considering all the hard work that Tiger does for the whole CM community with his mods (It's not like he only wants to EAT the Little Red Hen's bread, he's been helpin' BAKE it too ) Maybe it's just a real *Monday* type day for a lot of folks... - Old Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Chupacabra, just so you don't think I'm an ingrate, I'm gonna praise CM once a week...just to make you happy. I'd really like to know from Steve or Charles why this can't be done if it's true that they already said it's not gonna happen. I mean, it seems like a simple change to make. Chupe...can I call you Chupe...let's say Steve and Charles were all done with your CM2 and they posted that it's gonna come out next week. Now they're bored and have a crapload of time on their hands and is there anything else about CM1 that needs tweaking? If this were the situation, would you still not want this change? Why would it be worse for the game to have more options in the Quick Battles? Here's the problem I have with the current situation: Me and others want to be able to use a broader mixture of experience in troops. You tell us that if that's what we want, then go into the scenario editor and do it that way. Now, here's what's wrong with that option: 1) No random weather 2) No random number of flags 3) Troop selection is done by map maker I don't wanna have to give up these options just to get a broader level of experience in troops. Can someone from BTS comment on this thread and explain why this option wasn't put into Quick Battles and if it's going to be possibly in a future patch? ------------------ Yeah, but in Close Combat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Let me explain where I'm coming from a bit - I really had no opinion about this proposal until I saw the words "Let's see this in the next patch." And yes, that got my goat (pun intended.) Proposing changes to the game is not bad in and of itself. Demanding changes is. For me, it's really all a matter of tone. If I antagonized someone unfairly, I apologize, but I do find that lately there has been an increase in the demand to request ratio. I didn't find Tiger's original post to be demanding, but rather the post which I've already mentioned. Cheers. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadayne Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Actually, leaving all troop qualities available is the easiest option programming-wise, so you've got to assume that if Steve and Charles have taken the trouble to grey-out some qualities, they must have a reason for it, be it gamey play, historical accuracy, or whatever. ------------------ This space for rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Mmm, okay, then answer me two questions - 1) Is this feature currently available in the scenario editor, yes or no? 2) Will this feature take longer to code than it would take someone to use the scenario editor, yes or no? If there's a bug up my ass, it's because there are a constant stream of "I WANT THIS NOW" posts on this board, and it's a bit ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Enough with the negative vibes man".. one guess who & from which movie. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest barrold713 Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 I am going to agree with Chup for the most part in the area of his reaction to these types of posts. Time and time again, when good arguments have been made, BTS has been prompt and comprehensive at explaining their rationale for the original programming or stated whether or not the suggested change could be added in a future patch or to CM2. I for one will give them a large benefit of the doubt in regards to why certain features currently exist because I have a concrete faith that with the catalogue of posts and threads that nearly everything has been discussed before. In this spirit, (and I am hoping that everyone read Slapdragon's excellent post earlier) that the Veruca Salt type of requests (i.e "I want an Oommpa Loompa, and I want it now!") are extremely muted to a Charlie Bucket level of gratitude and appreciation for the gifts and luxuries that are currently enjoyed while retaining the anticipation of new experiences and awe when it is deserved. It will make these threads more constructive and informative and less likely to generate the polarizing flamefests that are unproductive. P.S. I am glad to have the chance to agree with Chup about something and would enjoy the opportunity to tip a couple pints, although the UK is a bit of a trip to take for a beer. ------------------ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Ben Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts