Amidst_Void Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 I was playing a rather dull QB today when an idea hit me. I was thinking about reinforcments being implemented into CMBB. Specifically, the ability to be able to purchase reinforcments in a QB (or Multiplayer) before the action starts. What's the point and how will that work you ask. Well, here's my idea. Imagine a regular QB purchase screen for CMBB. At this point you will be able to purchase units as normal, but on top of that you will have the option of adding units to reinforcments, similar to the map editor, the big difference being that when you add a unit, the unit cost will be slashed a bit (a percentage slash) due to the fact that you wont actually have the unit to control at the beginning of the game, that's the price you pay for getting it cheaper. Now the problem with the map editor reinforcement feature in it's current state is that it allows reinforcments to arrive FAR TOO QUICKLY, 2 turns into the game and your reinforcements can arrive. People will easily abuse the early reinforcement/cost slash feature if it was added with the settings it currently has in the map editor. it takes time for an opponent to advance, there would be no reason NOT to add every unit to reinforcments (and get the cost slash) as the action doesn't even start on turn 2! (or 3 or 4...) When was the last time a QB heated up on turn 2? My solution is, guessingly, an 8 turn minimum reinforcment arrival for a smaller map and greater as the map grows. For instance a 2000 point QB might have a minimum reinforcment arrival time at turn 15 or 20. The QB reinforcments will have to be reworked a bit obviously. Here's how (theoretically) it will work. Let's say a Tiger in CMBB costs 400. I find that way too steep for the medium sized map I'm about to play so I decide to maybe add it to my reinforcments so I can enjoy a price decrease. Being a medium map the minimum arrival of the Tiger (or any other unit) will be turn 10. When I add the Tiger to "reinforcements 1 turn 10" the Tiger will be effected (guessing again) by a -5% price reduction. As I increase the arrival time of the Tiger the percentage cost reduction will be greater, say for turn 15 there will be a -15 percent reduction in price. So what's the point of all this? Well, it could add an all new element of surprise to CM. Imagine you are playing a large sized map against a friend, you're at turn 18. At this point you think you've seen everything your friend has to offer when, all of a sudden, BAM! A Jumbo 76, a halftrack, and a rifle platoon pop out of nowhere! The reinforcements have arrived! The 76 sends your untouchable (so you thought) kitty to the pound, end of story. And really, I think it would just bee cool. This will add an interesting, and realistic, (as reinforcments DO come don't they) element of surprise to QB and even multiplayer. I hope I made myself clear and haven't overlooked something, I'm known to complicate things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 It would probably be the exact opposite of your figuring though. Since reinforcements cannot be harmed and appear when other units are expending their primary ammunition loads, they would be more valuable. So a 200 point tank may be worth 300 points half way through the game. In all, it may be just an added level of complication for QBs that will unbalance what is in essence a chess game with tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Slappy, your reasoning is hum...say arguable According to your idea, take a 3000 pts QB, you get 15 tanks at 200 ea. Suppose I take 10 tanks in reinf on turn 20, 3000 pts too. But the game is 20 turns long, so I have NO units for play !! You've won, yessss !!! That's just plain silly. I really can't see how non present, future units can cost *more* than present ones... That's again all economics axioms :eek: ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 I don't want to get into the economic debate that seems to be forming (I slept through Macro-Economics in College) but adding reinforcements to QB's is on the "list" of future enhacements but it will probably have to wait till we re-write the entire code in the future and won't make it in CMBB, but then you just never know.... Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It would probably be the exact opposite of your figuring though. Since reinforcements cannot be harmed and appear when other units are expending their primary ammunition loads, they would be more valuable. So a 200 point tank may be worth 300 points half way through the game. In all, it may be just an added level of complication for QBs that will unbalance what is in essence a chess game with tanks.<hr></blockquote> I agree completely. Pascal, it would be possible to implement a rule in QBs where points spent on AT START forces must be greater than reinforcement points. That being the case, there would be no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: will probably have to wait till we re-write the entire code in the future and won't make it in CMBB, but then you just never know.... Madmatt<hr></blockquote> Look!....He's at it again. Basically, saying "NO CHANCE", but then saying "WELL, MAYBE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedOrDead Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Maybe the arrival time of the reinforcements should be made variable. E.g the player would buy reinforcments for turn 5 but they may arrive at any time between turn 4 and 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 The reason why reinforcement costs should go up rather than down is because units have a limited life expectancy in battle and a lot of things that can kill it -- and the beginning phases of battle are recon anyway. So sticking all of your forces but your recon stuff into a box for x rounds is a perfect way to keep them safe from harn while the recon forces take the brunt of the abuse, demonstrate against enemy positions, and so forrth. Then, when you have a clear picture of what the other guy has you pop up with the ace in the sleeve of a couple of tanks, some halftracks, or some artillery spotters which would have had to hid on map and would be able to be hit by counter attacks and artillery. Raising the price of reinforcements would be one way to represent this issue. Another way would be to have a game that gets 1500 regular points +500 points half way through, with all of those results variable, and applying it to both sides equally for the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Slappy, I'm not sure that your argument is all that airtight. A battle might go the way you describe. But it might instead work out to be defeat in detail, with a force getting ground up bit by bit as it arrives by an enemy that always has local superiority even if lower in strength overall. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Hey guys, how about this: just make it optional (that's the answer I always got when I posed new ideas). Just like the "gamey" issues, then it is only a matter of taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Slappy, I'm not sure that your argument is all that airtight. A battle might go the way you describe. But it might instead work out to be defeat in detail, with a force getting ground up bit by bit as it arrives by an enemy that always has local superiority even if lower in strength overall. Michael<hr></blockquote> That is the reason it would have to be play tested. But I am betting that a stable reserve is so important that one which cannot be gotten is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Manx: [QB}Look!....He's at it again. Basically, saying "NO CHANCE", but then saying "WELL, MAYBE". [/QB]<hr></blockquote> Tsk, yeah, I noticed that too. A word here, a tidbit there. I just bet he enjoys every minute of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerChow Posted October 24, 2001 Share Posted October 24, 2001 I can see valid arguments for reinforcements being both more expensive, and less expensive. More expensive. As Slapdragon mentioned, during an attack, it might be advantageous to hold some of your force back to keep them safe from harm and conserve their ammunition. In this case, when they arrive, they'll be fresh, full of ammo, ready to go, against hopefully a foe that has been beaten down somewhat and low on ammo. However, on the defensive, it might seem the other way around. When you have guys at the start, they can dig in - a big advantage, thus they should be worth more. Also, if you have fewer people on the board to start with, it will be easier for the attacker to take the objective flags. Once this happens, you will find yourself at a disadvantage, becoming the "attacker" without the benefit of additional numbers. A third scenario you say? What about meeting engagements. I think you could apply both these observations to such a situation. On the one hand, if you have a much superior force to start out with, you will have an easier time taking the objectives and/or advantageous ground. On the other hand, your forces will be attrited somewhat, which would make them easier to tackle by your opponents fresh troops. A real conundrum... TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen Posted October 24, 2001 Share Posted October 24, 2001 The easiest way to implement it would be as follows: Whatever turn you want the reinforcements to arrive on is also the percentage cost reduction you get. Turn 10: -10% Turn 20: -20% Turn 22: -22% The argument that late reserves are better is bogus. If you leave yourself with little firepower at the start, your opponent is going to be able to concentrate his fire easily and wipe out your forces quickly. Plus, reinforcements come onto the field all disoriented and bunched up as if they've stumbled into a firefight. It is a risky endevour. Thanks, citizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts