Quick Battles:Unit Selection - Not Historical?

[Wally's World]

Just some quick and dirty questions! Is it historically correct to be able to select your units for a quick battle? In the real deal, wasn't that you had to take a particular hill or town or defend an area with what you were given or had on hand to do the task? Is it "correct" to be able to select a particular tank or infantry unit? I don't know, but to me it seems like "window shopping". In other words, let the computer select the units for you and let the "chips fall where they may". Maybe I'm full of it. Any opinions? :confused:

[Vergeltungswaffe]

You have a very valid point. Many people are historical buffs (myself included) and will select accurate, realistic orders of battle, perhaps based on Fionn's rule of 75. Others prefer to select based on "the system" to get the absolute best units. This will result in very ahistorical lineups, but is what some folks enjoy. Then there is the fairest method, which is, as you said, computer pick and let the chips fall... . Whether playing a human opponent or the AI, this method usually results in reasonably historical forces. After all, real life commanders often requested support of one kind or another, but they had no control over whether they got it, or, if they did, what form it would take.

[Dave H]

Don't know about anybody else, but I am 100% in agreement with Wally's World. Selecting what units you will have and what kind of quality seems to me to lead directly to the so-called "ideal" unit mix, like the IG, LMG, flamethrower mix somebody was supporting recently. This takes away such a huge element of unpredictability!

To me the QB is the feature of this game that gives unlimited replayability. When the computer selects your units there's always an inevitable shock at what you had hoped for and didn't get. Then you have to compensate for what's missing. I suspect this issue of using what's available would seem very familiar to any leader.

[Enoch]

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but I do like to purchase my own units for a couple of reasons.

1) I just like to try out different units.

2) By purchasing my own unuts I find that I can learn quite a bit about what works and what doesn't in certain situations. Then when I am playing a defense in a town (for example) I know better what I need to get.

This doesn't mean I don't like to have a game where the computer chooses for me and I have to adapt. Just that I like the ability to do different things.

You can always limit your games to computer purchases.

[Pak40]

Wally,

You are correct. It's not exactly historically accurate to pick your own forces. But, after all, this is a game. All historical games must strive to reach a balance of historical accuracy and playability.

CM allows you to let the computer pick forces for you, which should satisfy the grog's thirst for historical accuracy.

This has been debated many times before. Do a search.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wally's World:

Is it historically correct to be able to select your units for a quick battle? In the real deal, wasn't that you had to take a particular hill or town or defend an area with what you were given or had on hand to do the task? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why I play scenarios.

[Flipper]

random force's is the only way to go IMHO you never know what yer gonna get just like forest chump.

[PlankWithANailIn]

I'd like to see the puter pick half my force and then me pick the rest. Sort of a suprise with direction or somefink.

[ColonelSquirrel]

Sometimes its just fun to take ten hellcats and flank on both sides and sit back and wait for the fun to start or watching Panther shells bounce off a Jumbo, about time those damn things had the tables turned. Sometimes I want accuracy so I play scenarios and sometimes I want to see what a King Tiger vs. Super Pershing would look like

[Cull]

I like the choices we have in the game. Sometimes I select, whether for historical accuracy or because I want to line up 10 "Konigs" and be a sadist. Sometimes letting the puter select is great (for the unpredictability). For vs. AI games, you have to go this way, I think, especially after you begin to learn the "patterns" the AI selects. It would be cool to allow "partial selection", or perhaps just add a couple parameters to the QB setup that would sort of do the same thing, i.e., select "armoured" then from a submenu "Sherman105 platoon", "Cromwell company", etc. depending on your force size selection. Anyway, just blabbing.....

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Jack Arilliac ]

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wally's World:

Just some quick and dirty questions! Is it historically correct to be able to select your units for a quick battle? In the real deal, wasn't that you had to take a particular hill or town or defend an area with what you were given or had on hand to do the task? Is it "correct" to be able to select a particular tank or infantry unit? I don't know, but to me it seems like "window shopping". In other words, let the computer select the units for you and let the "chips fall where they may". Maybe I'm full of it. Any opinions? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While window shopping is not historically accurate, what the AI purchases is almost never accurate either.