Jumbo Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 As it stands now, we have an option to pick "High, Medium, Low, or Random" when setting up "Quality" as a QB parameter. I'm wondering (yes, BTW, I did a search) if having a "No Restriction" option would be unreasonable. To be able to have an elite tank lead a group of veteran (or lower) tanks would be nice. Having a force made up from only two of the levels seems a little artificial for ALL situations. Surely the Germans didn't attack in the Bulge with only crack units. German units that were made up of conscripts from eastern Europe were there as well. They were right there next to highly experienced troops fighting for their lives. The green and crack US troops mixed it up as well. Casualties must've made such realities exist at the squad level as well. (I'm not asking for that. Just at the platoon and higher levels.) A "No Restriction" option like we have when picking Nationality (or branch of service) would be very nice indeed. Does this idea sound unreasonable to you? IMHO, I don't believe it is. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 I think it is a good suggestion. I little more flexibility here would be appreciated. I think it makes sense to want to have more than just two experience levels in a quick battle. A "No restriction" option would be nice. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 As you are aware, this applies to Quick Battles only. If you want a historical scenario (such as your Ardennes example) where units of completely different quality are mixed, you can design one in the editor. However, Quick Battles are orientated towards competition and fairness, the idea being that you're playing to win, rather than recreating historical events. If you had complete freedom in Quick Battles, you could simply buy Elite armour with Conscript infantry to screen it, or use Conscript infantry to locate the enemy and waste their ammo before sending in your Elite troops, for example. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 I think it would be a great idea to have an open category where you can choose any level of morale and have the max pts to spend in each force category, IE.- inf, armor, mech. fortifications, support. The way it is now, the four preset force selections don't always offer the most flexibility. This way two gamers who trust each other can setup any type of battle they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: This way two gamers who trust each other can setup any type of battle they want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I have someone I trust (e.g. all of the long-term denizens in the Peng thread) I just ask somebody else (most likely another of the same crowd) to create a nice map, send him a list of units I want, and my opponent does the same. If I play a QB against somebody I don't know, I would not trust them enough to allow them totally free experience selection anyway. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 David wrote: If you had complete freedom in Quick Battles, you could simply buy Elite armour with Conscript infantry to screen it, or use Conscript infantry to locate the enemy and waste their ammo before sending in your Elite troops, for example. David, That would be gamey and nothing else. Besides, would the conscripts last very long? I don't think that they would. Next, your small Elite force would definitely be outnumbered by not a small number due to the high cost of elites. Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. Doing what you suggest is akin to charging with tank crews IMHO. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. That is pure speculation. The existence of Fionn's rule proves only that he himself thinks it is important. I am confident that a lot of people use it, but I am also confident that most people don't – and that accounts for the large proportion of CM owners who do not frequent this board. If you care about this kind of thing, you have the tools to do what you like. BTS, however, has to please everybody with the one product – and a Quick Battle, which is usually a competition, has to be certifiably fair and foolproof. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Well once the QB setup parameters are available for review by both players, the prospect of the person who sets up the battle having an advantage or even "cheating" will be removed. Nothing is certifiable fair or foolproof. Just ask Florida Voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Jumbo wrote: > Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. That is pure speculation. The existence of Fionn's rule proves only that he himself thinks it is important. I am confident that a lot of people use it, but I am also confident that most people don't – and that accounts for the large proportion of CM owners who do not frequent this board. If you care about this kind of thing, you have the tools to do what you like. BTS, however, has to please everybody with the one product – and a Quick Battle, which is usually a competition, has to be certifiably fair and foolproof. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David, It is no more speculation than what you wrote. To me, a QB is a fun time. I believe that if a historical experience is desired, a game host will remind the other player of any additional rules (ie. Fionn's rules, etc...) before the game is played. If the potential opponent won't agree, then don't play against him/her. Everyone that I've suggested these rules to, has agreed. Here is one place where you can get them: http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/Fionn3.htm The only reason why people may not use them is that they may not know about them. I believe that Fionn's rules make excellent sense. The alternative is the completely non-historical (and gamey IMO) alternative that you suggest. Yes games can be abused. No game is 100% certifiably fair and foolproof. Its up to us that know, to inform those that don't know. Do you continue to play against those that repeatedly charge with their bailed out tank crews? Do you also suggest that we throw out the ability to historically simulate WW II combat just to have some sort of platform to compete upon -no matter how bland or non-historical it may get? That is what happened to DBM. Still, your reasoning is absolutely no reason to LIMIT those that do want an exciting, historical (non-gamey) experience with CM. If BTS is wise enough to add this in, I'll be eternally grateful. (I'm always gonna be grateful anyways. I just love this game!) All that you have to do is ignore it when you host a game and it won't ever enter the picture. This may help opponents to communicate other things like the game parameters that some are complaining about the lack of, before a game. I you just say "Lets QB." you are opening up yourself to things that you may not want. Communication before the game is important. OK, thanks for reading this. Sorry, if its too long. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > Do you also suggest that we throw out the ability to historically simulate WW II combat just to have some sort of platform to compete upon -no matter how bland or non-historical it may get? It is not necessarily historically accurate to have a combination of troops of completely different skill. In any given offensive, there will probably have been inexperienced troops and veterans involved. But CM simulates small engagements, usually involving a single unit (ie. a single platoon or company with support from artillery or armour). It would be unusual for a veteran unit to be fighting alongside conscripts. In these circumstances the newbies would be spread amongst the veterans, creating a far more effective unit. Otherwise you have a limited number of veterans ready to be ground down, and a bunch of conscripts who are of no use whatsoever. If disseminated, the conscripts can add weight of fire to the veterans' assault, and the veterans can boost the conscripts' morale and motivation. This is detailed in the manual. A veteran unit may not be all veterans – it may be part more experienced troops and part newbies – the result is the same. CM allows you to have units of different quality in a Quick Battle – Elite and Crack, Veteran and Regular, Green and Conscript. Contrary to your assertion, however, I believe that to have a combination of forces at opposite ends of the spectrum would in reality be very unusual. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: CM allows you to have units of different quality in a Quick Battle – Elite and Crack, Veteran and Regular, Green and Conscript. Contrary to your assertion, however, I believe that to have a combination of forces at opposite ends of the spectrum would in reality be very unusual. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not so unusual. It was what happened regularly during the US Army's largest battle during WWII -the Battle of the Bulge. Cooks and clerks fought along side crack Airborne troops -and the Bulge is in the time period that CMBO covers. The clerks and cooks also faced crack German troops with great vallor. I feel that both of us are right here and neither of us are wrong -depending on the situation of what happened in WWII. We probably can throw out endless examples. My view is for not keeping it locked into just one way (how it is now), but rather open for both views. Both happened in history and they should both be able to happen in this magnificent game. BTS, what do you say? You ARE the Supreme Court -so to speak. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > Cooks and clerks fought along side crack Airborne troops The question is, what would you define as "alongside"? If this is to be relevant to your Quick Battle request, there would have to be, say, a platoon of paras fighting with a platoon of rear echelon troops. I would take it to mean the rear echelon troops reinforced the para units, which is the point I am making. Also, just because the troops you mention are second-line does not make them conscript, or even green. If a unit fights well, this would be translated into CM as having a higher experience (this issue has been discussed in relation to other subjects). This example would only be relevant if (1) the second-line troops fought independently of the veterans, rather than simply reinforcing them, and (2) they did not fight well, ie. they deserved being called conscript or green. I would not take either of these to be true. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Jumbo wrote: > Cooks and clerks fought along side crack Airborne troops The question is, what would you define as "alongside"? David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Along side? Shoulder to shoulder in the same foxhole for heaven's sake is what I mean. Court stenographers who never saw combat along side experienced troops. Cooks throwing down their ladels and picking up a rifle with minutes to spare don't have a whole lot of time to organize into set groups of troops. I know that I'd sure prefer a cook next to me shooting at the enemy than no one. Some German conscripts from eastern Europe used the attack in the Ardennes to look for a way to surrender (if it could be done safely). It was a big concern of Hitler's before the battle. They were along side of elite SS troops -in the same fields and forests. There is a multitude of historical evidence in the form of memiors to suggest that at times they were all mixed together. This was especially true on the American side of the battle during some of it's most heated moments. All that I want is the freedom to simulate the same happenings in a QB. Thats all. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > Along side? Shoulder to shoulder in the same foxhole for heaven's sake is what I mean. My point exactly. If you had free reign in a Quick Battle, you would be limited to picking at least a platoon of low quality troops to fight with at least a platoon of experienced troops. However, your example is not of an organised formation of low quality troops, but simply of available second-line personnel jumping in to reinforce the regulars. This would have the effect, as I have explained above, of maintaining a single unit, but of lowering the overall quality. So when in a Quick Battle you choose Regular troops, this is as likely to represent mostly Veterans with some Green reinforcements, as it is to represent entirely Regulars. In other words, what you seek is already modelled, and this is explained in the manual. > Some German conscripts from eastern Europe used the attack in the Ardennes to look for a way to surrender (if it could be done safely). It was a big concern of Hitler's before the battle. They were along side of elite SS troops -in the same fields and forests. CM does not model encounters where half of the men on one side are trying to surrender. It models battles where everyone has the conviction to fight. In such circumstances, the good and bad units would usually be integrated, as I have explained above, because segregation is weakness. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 Originally posted by David Aitken: In other words, what you seek is already modelled, and this is explained in the manual. David, I disagree. On pages 76-79 there is nothing that clearly supports your statement. It is under the headings "Green" & "Regular" on pages 77 & 78 that only briefly mentions any kind of mix. The other four experience ratings don't have a mix even mentioned. Is it somewhere else? Page 77 says under the heading "Green", -"Can also simulate troops used outside of their usual role, e.g. artillery crews used as foot soldiers." As it stands now, we cannot simulate an accurate action in the Battle of the Bulge (The largest battle that the US forces faced)in a QB because Green troops (that would be necessary to use) would fall outside the scope of the "Medium" Quality parameter. "Medium" only covers Regular & Veteran troops. Veterans (also necessary for a Bulge QB) would be excluded if you try to use the "Low" Quality parameter. It only covers Green & Conscript troops. Right now things are exclusive. My sincere hope is that things would become more inclusive. Originally posted by David Aitken: CM does not model encounters where half of the men on one side are trying to surrender. I wouldn't even want to try. You missed my point entirely. Maybe, what I'm hoping for is to have the power of the scenario editor merged with the power of the QB and let the scenario editor (or human players) pick the forces, map, etc... similar to QBs -with the freedom of the scenario editor as it is now. If they were merged, would less overall programming be required? You know, one comprehensive feature instead of two lesser features. Freedom is always good. Afterall, it is worth risking your life for to get. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kollos Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Jumbo, FYI, I brought this same topic up a few months ago. I got same replies you are now, no one from BTS responding, some players liking it, and some others not liking it. I hope BTS can add this as a OPTION to use in their upcoming games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > As it stands now, we cannot simulate an accurate action in the Battle of the Bulge Quick Battles were never intended to simulate any kind of historical action. They simply generate a unique map for a generic clash between Axis and Allied forces. If you want to simulate a given battle, you should be using the scenario editor. > what I'm hoping for is to have the power of the scenario editor merged with the power of the QB and let the scenario editor (or human players) pick the forces, map, etc... They are two distinct functions for two distinct purposes. If you want to recreate a battle under specific circumstances, use the scenario editor. If you just want to play a game, but not one you've done before, use the Quick Battle generator. I think most games of CM can be categorised as either historical, where you are playing to test the outcome of a given scenario, or competitive, where you are playing to test your skill against your opponent's. As I have said, competitive games need to be fair, for general consumption and not just for the benefit of fanatics. For those who care more about the details, the scenario editor is very easy to use – and can even generate terrain for you like the Quick Battle function. A Quick Battle is just that. Choose a few parameters and bingo, you have a unique scenario to play. The editor can also generate scenarios quickly, but the process is less foolproof and the opposing forces are not necessarily equal. If you want to test out particular historical circumstances, and you trust your opponent, the Quick Battle function is not for you. You can throw together a custom scenario nearly as quickly, but it will have all the idiosyncracies you desire. To make the Quick Battle function any more versatile would be to ruin its functionality. > Freedom is always good. Afterall, it is worth risking your life for to get. I think you've got your concept of "freedom" a bit out of perspective there. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 3, 2001 Author Share Posted January 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kollos: Jumbo, FYI, I brought this same topic up a few months ago. I got same replies you are now, no one from BTS responding, some players liking it, and some others not liking it. I hope BTS can add this as an OPTION to use in their upcoming games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> kollos, Thanks for responding. It is a weird discussion for sure. I don't see what people are afraid of. A so-called abuse of our ideas with Conscript infantry & Elite armor is not only gamey. It is a tactic that wouldn't work well if it was tried. As a programmer, I know that it wouldn't take too much work. "Freedom" can be a word that makes people quiver in their boots. It presupposes responsibility and being accountable. Unfortunately, it seems like those two ideals are shunned all too often these days. But hey, I'm an optimist. Maybe someone will get brave. This is a discussion board afterall. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 3, 2001 Author Share Posted January 3, 2001 Originally posted by David Aitken: Quick Battles were never intended to simulate any kind of historical action. Too bad. I thought CMBO was a historical simulation. Originally posted by David Aitken: As I have said, competitive games need to be fair, for general consumption and not just for the benefit of fanatics. How could the ideas that I and others have possibly be unfair? Unfair to whom? Besides, whom do you consider a fanatic? Originally posted by David Aitken: For those who care more about the details, the scenario editor is very easy to use – and can even generate terrain for you like the Quick Battle function. Can the scenario editor create a Meeting Engagement where neither player knows the map ahead of time OR the other player's OOB without a third party participating? I'll answer that. No, it cannot. So, it's use is somewhat limited. [bTS, I'm still glad that it is there. Don't get me wrong. } Originally posted by David Aitken: To make the Quick Battle function any more versatile would be to ruin its functionality. Now that is truly speculation if there ever was any. We're talking about a very minor option that doesn't have to even be used. The host sets up a QB. Even if the host enabled what we're asking for, it would be gamey, not tollerated, AND a fools errand because they would find out quickly that it wouldn't work. All conscript infantry coupled with a few elite AFVs? Are you kidding? Our ideas wouldn't hurt you (or anyone else) a bit and you write as if it would. Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > It presupposes responsibility and being accountable. Unfortunately, it seems like those two ideals are shunned all too often these days. If you're implying that BTS preventing you from combining Elite and Conscript forces in a Quick Battle is a restriction of your freedom, you're on the wrong track. Freedom is about choice. You can choose to buy CM or not. As you have chosen to buy it, you are accepting the vision of BTS. You are free to make suggestions to them, and they are free to agree or disagree. What I am doing is explaining what I understand to be the logic behind the way the game is. BTS spend a lot of time thinking about everything they program into the game, and gathering opinions from those in a position of authority – and as such, they tend to have a lot of support for the results. Think about it. Why have BTS imposed the restriction you are complaining about? What is the logic in that? What they have done, like so many other things, wouldn't even occur to most programmers. Imposing a restriction has been a deliberate choice, and they have done it for the reasons I have explained. As such, they are unlikely to change it back just because someone wants it different. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 3, 2001 Author Share Posted January 3, 2001 Originally posted by David Aitken: Freedom is about choice. The point is that if you don't have a choice (in a certain area of the game), then there isn't much freedom (in that particular area). Is there? Not much choice equals not much freedom. I don't want to combine weird forces to come up with some sort of gamey "solution" to beat someone with -that won't work anyways. What sort of win could that be? In gaming, the end doesn't justify the means. To me, it is the joy of gaming, learning from mistakes and doing better next time to be able to have a higher quality experience, the camaraderie and friendship. Thats why I game. Not to just win! I want a little more versatility to accurately simulate an historical action that could've taken place in WW II and not know the map or the OOB of my opponent ahead of time -without a third party being involved. To do that would mean a very minor option has to be added to the QB. An option that would have very little impact if any. Why? It would be gamey, not tollerated, AND a fools errand because they would find out quickly that it wouldn't work. I want to VERY clear here. Overall (and in many, many ways), I'm extremely happy with CMBO. TCP/IP multiplied my feelings of gratitude. No one & no product is perfect. I, along with others are simply commenting (with respect) that it could be improved in a tiny area. That is all. You might remember the subject that I used to start this thread. "Were they really all the same?" It was a question and the real answer is that they weren't -all the same. So, David I'll ask another question that you'll probably ignore. If they (meaning the experience/ morale of the individuals/ units who fought WW II) weren't all the same, why do they have to be the same (or just restricted to two choices) in CMBO? Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 3, 2001 Author Share Posted January 3, 2001 My last question should read : If they (meaning the experience/ morale of the individuals/ units who fought WW II) weren't all the same, why do they have to be the same (or just restricted to two choices) in a CMBO Quick Battle? Sorry for the typo Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Jumbo wrote: > Too bad. I thought CMBO was a historical simulation. I expected you to pick up on this. By "historical action" I mean something which actually happened. A quick battle generates random terrain, and the units you pick could be found anywhere in the theatre at that time, so there's nothing to distinguish it as, say, a battle in the Ardennes. > How could the ideas that I and others have possibly be unfair? Unfair to whom? I'll try and lay this out as clearly as I can. You are requesting the ability to choose in a Quick Battle, not a high quality force or a low quality force, but a mixture. Consequently, any right-thinking tactician will be inclined to pick experienced pivotal units (a Crack forward observer or sharpshooter, for example). It will also be logical to choose inexperienced units as cannon fodder. This does not imply sending them to die, it simply implies using them in the first wave, where they can quite possibly make their mark – but where they will also be the first to go, and will not be greatly missed, and will blunt the enemy's teeth in the process. Then more experienced units can be brought into play to mop up. What I am getting at is, allowing unrestricted force experience will simply lead to the use of specific quality troops for specific roles. If you tried hard, you could avoid being unrealistic in your choices – but in doing so, you would be disadvantaging yourself. Whenever you buy forces in a QB, you are looking to get the best value for money. In an unrestricted QB, this entails distinguishing important units from cannon fodder, and is immediately unrealistic. By restricting you to a limited experience range, the game ensures that you must treat all your troops equally. Fancy picking up a Crack spotter? Sorry, you can only have Conscript or Green. Feel the need for some expendable grunts? No use, you're stuck with Crack or Elite. And there are situations where expendability is the key. Think of artillery barrages – simply hoping you don't lose too many men. In a QB you can soak up enemy artillery with Conscripts, and because it's a QB, you know that you have the forces left to defeat the opposition. You could never risk that in reality. Taking away the boundaries would just blur the whole concept of force quality and flatten the variation in a QB. > Besides, whom do you consider a fanatic? I use the term in reference to people such as you and me, who care about military and historical context, rather than just playing a fun game with Second World War tanks. > Even if the host enabled what we're asking for, it would be gamey, not tollerated, AND a fools errand because they would find out quickly that it wouldn't work. All conscript infantry coupled with a few elite AFVs? Are you kidding? What else are you going to have? Conscript AFVs with Elite infantry? What do you class as gamey? How do you know if your opponent has a "gamey" force make-up until the game is over? And why exactly doesn't it work (I have explained why it does above)? To use this feature at all would not necessarily be gamey, but it would be impossible to tell whether your opponent was being gamey or not, and it would also be impossible for you to pick forces which would be obviously not gamey and would simultaneously offer you some chance of success. > Not much choice equals not much freedom. BTS restricts choice where they believe it would negatively impact the accuracy or realism of their creation, or distort its concept. This has come up many times before – people say "Oh, but this doesn't affect you – you don't have to use it!" – but it would affect everybody who plays the game, because it would dilute the concept. And believe me, Combat Mission is borne out of a very clear and well thought-out concept. > So, David I'll ask another question that you'll probably ignore. Bit of unnecessary reverse psychology... > If they (meaning the experience/ morale of the individuals/ units who fought WW II) weren't all the same, why do they have to be the same (or just restricted to two choices) in CMBO? Because that is the best way to ensure that Quick Battles are both fair and credible. The QB generator is designed for challenges and skill matches, not for re-enactments. If you want to recreate a given scenario, use the map editor. The fact that you know the units involved does not detract from the fun – the fact that you have carefully tweaked the scenario enhances the fun, because it's a real challenge to get the best out of the units you've picked in the specific terrain and circumstances (and there are many, many ways units can be tweaked in the editor but not in the QB generator). David PS. Apologies to Fionn, I am reminded that his "rules" are not intended for historical accuracy, but to ensure a balanced QB game. Jumbo wrote: > Right now, we have Fionn's short 75 & 76 Panther rules. Toss in rarity for AFVs and you see that players strive to make their CMBO experience historical and enjoyable. Your example actually reinforces not your argument but mine. Fionn's "rules" recognise that, while there is nothing ahistorical about Royal Tigers and such appearing in a QB, this can potentially create an unbalanced game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Hi all, OK, time to pipe in a comment or two here. It took a little bit, but I think David finally encapsulated the reason why there isn't an ability to select totally randomly experienced forces in the same battle. He wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I am getting at is, allowing unrestricted force experience will simply lead to the use of specific quality troops for specific roles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bingo. One Elite FO or deadly AFV can swing the game in a totally new direction if the bulk of the forces are Green-Regular. Now, if one side is basically Green, and the other is basically Elite... that is all well and fine (and allowed as is). The point differences mean that the Green side is going to have a HUGE advantage in terms of numbers, which will (in theory at least) balance out the other side's smaller, but superior quality, force. Unfortunately, remove the general restrictions and all bets are off in terms of ballance. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have an Unrestricted option for CM2, but this would be more for "gamey" play than for "historical" play. Now before anybody jumps at me for saying "gamey", I do not mean that as a slam. All I mean is that most people will likely do what David outlined (and we wished to prevent) vs. what Jumbo is after. Nothing is wrong with either so long as both players agree to play in that particular way. In support of Jumbo's request, an example of a realistic, historically sound situation would be a late '44 scenario with Green German infantry and Veteran German tankers in support. This was not all that uncommon for the Bulge, but is not allowed the way CM QBs are set up right now. So I can see his point about why he would like to have this option. I'll kick it over to Charles as a suggestion for The List. Dunno if it will go in or not, but it is not a bad suggestion. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I support Jumbo in this. I think the No Restriction option would become a normal setting in quick battles if we can get this feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts