jim crowley Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 With the PBEM issue having been talked to death, I was wondering if Steve could throw out any clues as to the development of QBs in the new engine. Somewhat harshly critcised, unfairly IMO, they represented the opportunity to generate endless battles as defined by the player. Admittedely they were somewhat restrictive but with some extra features, I feel that they could be an important part of the next generation of CM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Quick Battles are one of the most important cornerstones of Combat Mission. I play them almost exclusively. The idea that you can purchase your own units that end up making a fair and balanced battle is a terrificly wonderful idea. ---Especially for Meeting Engagement types. This cannot be underestimated. In my opinion, it rates up there with We-go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I think there could be another way of buying things, instead of using points, it would allow you to buy a number of formations. example 1 infantry company, 4 support teams one FO and a platoon of tanks instead of 2000pts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I like Denwad's idea. Not that I ever play QBs, but this sounds much better than the current system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: I like Denwad's idea. Not that I ever play QBs, but this sounds much better than the current system. Kinda the way some of us do it anyway. The current system allows those of us that are slightly groggy to generally follow reality while also allowing the ladder guys to weird out their force mix. That said, I believe point systems in games can cause more problems than they solve. I understand how in QB terms a Panther is "more expensive" than an M4A1 Sherman that is "more expensive" in turn than a T-34M41, but quantifying such things in detail strikes me as overly subjective. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by Le Tondu: Quick Battles are one of the most important cornerstones of Combat Mission. I play them almost exclusively. I thought PBEM was the the most important cornerstone of CM. Afterall, I do play them exclusively. (runs for cover ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Of course my system would have several factors example, you could be restricted to buying high, low or medium quality tanks ( tiger = high, panther = high, mkIV = med, pzII = low ) etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Denwads solution is something that was exponded upon in some detail for CMBO by JasonC and Yours Truely. There are several generic force purchase suggestions by force element in this old thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Of course, that would make my favorite vehicle, the STuH-42, that much rarer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 Just thought I'd pop this one back up to the surface in case any answers might be forthcoming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.