OddjobXL Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 This isn't a call to action so much as an observation. Combat Mission is a realistic engine which also features hordes of variables in the Quick Battle Generator. These things I love very much (and I'd suspect Quick Battles are by far more played than regular scenarios or operations - but that's a topic for another day (probably yesterday, I'll search)). If all the variables for map and scenario creation are left random it seems there's a very good chance you'll end up with unfit green or conscript troops, in freezing weather or mud, facing an assault against a crack defender settled into craters on a mountain. And given no cover turn one becomes a fine display of the enemy's forward observer skills. Okay, that's not entirely a fair assessment and it actually makes for some interesting challenges when it happens but it seems that in probing, attacking, or assaulting QB scenarios that weather, ground conditions, buildings and elevations that favor the defender should somehow factor into the point totals the attacker has to spend. It sounds to be like it might be a difficult thing to factor but if there was some way to do it we might see somewhat more balanced battles. In the meantime, I've taken to adjusting some settings. For example I set fitness to 'fit'. Considering the insane weather, terrain, and unit experience conditions that might come up in a fight it seems the least I can do to balance things somewhat. Even if it means fewer troops at least it's fewer troops without asthma. [ October 29, 2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: OddjobXL ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I usually set ammo to full, fitness to fit, and casualties from 0-10%. Sometimes I choose combined arms for me and random for the other side, and othertimes it's mostly random. I find probes the hardest things to play against the AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Just because we have LOTS of available parameters doesn't mean we should leave them all random or pay no attention to their settings Some combinations are just not much fun to play. But that doesn't mean that I set my fitness to "Fit" every time. If I'm going to play unfit troops, then I might set the quality to High (or at least Regular ) or change other settings. What it comes down to is that we are given a TON of choices and it is up to use to use those choices to play a QB we want to play. Yup, you definitely can create horribly unbalanced games if you set things that way (or leave everything random, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't). So, glory in the options but make sure you don't pick things you hate Personally I don't have any "hard and fast" settings except one, trees. I almost always set that to at least moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I like them on all random. You have to learn to fight in any conditions with any equipment (or lack there of). It's good practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I'm with Stellar- it's always a great surprise, and when I say "Dang! I didn't get a single Jeep!", why, I kinda feel like I'm facing something a real commander does, ya know? Also, I *swear* I've never had a boring QB with all Random, (except I pick my force). Anyhow- for those in the other camp- OddJob, you may want to search for posts by "Bullethead". He just the other day posted a nifty long thing with a bitesize discussion on each setting. It was an "internal" post though- not sure you can search that way, but maybe someone here remembers where that was? Another post that should be linked to in the faq... Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I found the totally random battles ridiculously tough in some cases, and ridiculously easy in others. My worst defeat yet was when I received 2 battalions of unfit conscript partisans, both with about half their squads missing, to assault what turned out to be 2 crack SS companies with a Panzer III platoon in support. My units crawled about 150m towards the enemy lines before they broke and I gave up. All-random can throw up some real pigs of QBs, but I've turned off the random fitness and random casualties and I now pick my own units for the battle. Apart from that, it's all random, although I don't get as many snow maps as I expected to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walpurgis nacht Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 More options are better--period. That doesn't mean you always have to use them. In reality most WWII engagements were not balanced. This is something CMBB can simulate well, but just as it sucked to be the Krauts defending Berlin, it sucks to play a heavily imbalanced CMBB QB. My only balance complaint is that, as an attacker in a QB, you are at a serious DISADVANTAGE in open terrain, when the historical reality was that the attacker prayed for open terrain to aid the lightning/mobile strike. If the attacker were given a higher % of points relative to the defender, this might be alright, because you could buy halftracks for all of your squads (or at least a good portion of them), OR purchase so much armor that you really could clear out the front, but otherwise you are screwed. It is impossible to purchase enough smoke to get your boys all the way to engagement. blah blah . . . you get my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts