SenorBeef Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Now that BTS was willing to leave an unrestricted QB force type/composition as an option, is there any particular reason why they're not allowing unrestricted force quality as an option in addition to low, medium, high, random? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Just a thought but, imagine the amount of conscript force one could buy as opposed to the amont of veteran or elite. Though, it would be nice to be able to pick and choose force experience at will, it may lead to more gamey play, for instance, one could use a conscript "whatever unit" to use as recon, and not feel bad about wasting the unit becouse it is a conscript unit. This could lead to extreme gamey play in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 The entire purchase project is gamey. There were many formations composed of veteran and conscript troops. To allow the choosing of different quality of troops is no different than choosing troops of different nationalities (ie. American, British, Canadian, Polish and French) to suit their strenghts. Purchasing American Infantry, British Fireflies, Canadian RAM Kangaroo's, etc. is more gamey than troops of one nationality of different experience. To say that this would be gamey would not be a restriction, based on presidence. I would love to have an Elite King Tiger protected by Regular Infantry. Possibly I want a core of highly experienced troops for a spearhead accompanied by some Conscripts to guard the flanks from counterattack. Saying that this would result in gamey recon techniques is just like allowing a player to purchase jeeps en-masse to be used as recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Yup, once I played a guy that had US infantry supported by British Shermans. If it were Canadian Inf. and British Tanks MAYBE I could understand, but American? damn those gamey [insert foul word here] !! ------------------ Charlie don't Surf shadow@jagdtiger.de http://www.orbitonline.ca/~Shadow/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted February 20, 2001 Author Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Freak: Just a thought but, imagine the amount of conscript force one could buy as opposed to the amont of veteran or elite. Though, it would be nice to be able to pick and choose force experience at will, it may lead to more gamey play, for instance, one could use a conscript "whatever unit" to use as recon, and not feel bad about wasting the unit becouse it is a conscript unit. This could lead to extreme gamey play in my view. As always, it would be completely optional. There are many aspects of the current purchase system that can be utilized as gamey... so adding another way wouldn't hurt. Sure, tournament MEs would become more gamey, IF the option was chosen.. but players who prefer to play historical games will automatically limit their purchases to be somewhat realistic.. This merely opens up their options, it doesn't force them to be gamey, or especially allow them to, more so than they already can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 I have been an advocate of this for a long time. Gamey? Like most gamey labeled practices, it would be nothing more than a paper tiger to use a conscript force to recon with in the way that Freak has described. Meaning that it would be easy points for the opponent. Ask yourself: Would a conscript unit last very long against a veteran unit? The answer is no. Heck, even veteran troops out perform regulars enough to make an impact -and they should. Anyways, this is one more thing that would be included in what should be EVERY pregame discussion. The overall parameters should be discussed -ALWAYS. For instance: If you don't discuss the limiting of the mixing the nationalities (like US & UK troops), then you should suffer the consequences. The burden is on you. Make a check list so nothing is forgotten. It'll only enhance your playing experience of CM if you do. It has been admitted by BTS that this option would be necessary to make a QB that would simulate the Battle of the Bulge. The single most important battle of the entire war for the US forces and for some reason it is off limits for QBs! It doesn't make sense. HOPEFULLY, it'll be included in CM2 as they say that CMBO is final. SenorBeef, your question is a very astute and intelligent question. It deserves a decent answer from the CM gods. Maybe we should make an offering...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 I would like to see the categories broadened to 3 experience types, so that there is more flexibility. LOW = Conscript, Green, Regular MEDIUM = Green, Regular, Veteran HIGH = Regular, Veteran, Elite ------------------ "Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it." Pvt. David Webster 101st airborne 1942-45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cwhit21 Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Runyan99: I would like to see the categories broadened to 3 experience types, so that there is more flexibility. LOW = Conscript, Green, Regular MEDIUM = Green, Regular, Veteran HIGH = Regular, Veteran, Elite I think that is an excellent solution for i just posted the same question a minute ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Runyan99: I would like to see the categories broadened to 3 experience types, so that there is more flexibility. LOW = Conscript, Green, Regular MEDIUM = Green, Regular, Veteran HIGH = Regular, Veteran, Elite You left out Crack. The Boyz in the 'Hood won't like that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Yup, once I played a guy that had US infantry supported by British Shermans. If it were Canadian Inf. and British Tanks MAYBE I could understand, but American? damn those gamey [insert foul word here] !! So that is gamey is it? Would you consider US infantry supported by British funnies (Crocs and AVREs) gamey? Warning: this question is loaded. ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted February 20, 2001 Author Share Posted February 20, 2001 bump - I want to see if BTS responds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Michael emrys: You left out Crack. The Boyz in the 'Hood won't like that. Michael Yes I did. So, you have a couple of options for the high-quality units bracket. Either: HIGH = Regular, Veteran, Crack, Elite or HIGH = Veteran, Crack, Elite I guess the second choice would make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: So that is gamey is it? Would you consider US infantry supported by British funnies (Crocs and AVREs) gamey? Warning: this question is loaded. Of course, it didn't happen much, and only after a long period of refusing Commonwealth aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts