A new years resolution: No more QBs!

[xerxes]

Having played a number of QBs and just started playing historical scenarios I've come to a resolution. No more QBs for me.

Why QBs are a travesty:

1. Gamey force selections

2. Rules to prevent gamey force selections

3. The less cost effective units are never used

4. QBs are sooo predictable

5. Maps are way too similar

I've played (am playing) Sword, Fear in the Fog, Vossenack, Walhaussen, Ham&Jam. They are all great fun, tense and very challenging. I've come to the conclusion that CM was meant to be played as scenarios and that's were the game really shines.

-marc

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes:

Having played a number of QBs and just started playing historical scenarios I've come to a resolution. No more QBs for me.

Why QBs are a travesty:

1. Gamey force selections

2. Rules to prevent gamey force selections

3. The less cost effective units are never used

4. QBs are sooo predictable

5. Maps are way too similar

I've played (am playing) Sword, Fear in the Fog, Vossenack, Walhaussen, Ham&Jam. They are all great fun, tense and very challenging. I've come to the conclusion that CM was meant to be played as scenarios and that's were the game really shines.

-marc<hr></blockquote>

I would agree that canned/historical scenarios have their advantage but to a lot of players, they also have their disadvantages. For one, I like to purchase my own units. I find that having a budget and getting as much as I can from that budget is half the fun of playing. It takes a wise commander to get all he needs when choosing units for a scenario without spending foolishly.

Secondly, if you're playing ladder, you can't trust the other person when he says he hasn't played a certain scenario or that he hasn't peeked at the scenario you're about to play him at. Now, if you're not into ladder play this isn't as much of a problem but if that's all you play, trust is a huge concern.

Now here's some questions I have for you:

1)Why do you think QB's are "so predictable?" Why would a canned scenario be less predictable? This doesn't make sense to me.

2)Out of curiosity, what are these units that are never used in QB's? Aside from maybe one or two from each side, I've seen pretty much everything used by my opponents and I've only played a handful of games. The only units I can think of that maybe aren't used are certain infantry units. Is this what you mean?

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

Although I thoroughly enjoy purchasing my own forces, I just don't like the computer generated maps for the most part. Scenarios are the way to go. If fairness and competition is your goal, play the scenarios mirrored, and simultaneously. There's nothing more even than that.

Treeburst155 out.

[WWB]

Damn good resolution Xerxes, scenarios do make the game shine in a way that is lost in QBs.

To reply to Deadmarsh:

1) Valid point about people liking to buy their own, as many do. Not that any field commander ever got a bundle of play-cash and an oob and 15 minutes to cook up a nasty force combination to crack the roadblock over the hill.

2) I don't play on ladders where I have to presume the other guy is cheating, or cannot take my opponent's statements at face value. Does wonders for my peace of mind and my enjoyment of the game. My self worth is not a function of my T-House ranking.

3) You are correct that playing the same scenario over and over can be a bit tedious and repetitive (This form of tedium I know very well----it is called playtesting). OTOH, randomly generated maps are ugly at best and illogical at worst, and the fantasy force combinations, flag rushes, and complete lack of reinforcements or non-standard units makes QBs a wash to me.

See the Sig. Long Live the Front!

WWB

[Pzman]

To tell you the truth I never liked QB. I played about 20 of them then quit doing so. Scenarios are at least different most of the time. I may be called anti-QB, because I enjoy making and testing battles, but QBs are more for, sorry to burst your bubble, new players. Yes they have there use, but for an experienced players, there well as said above to predictable. The maps may be different every time, but there is always something similar about them. I would rather play a bad fictional battle then a QB. Well that's my 10 cents.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[Herder]

Some things about Quick Battle I dislike:

-Inability to preview map before unit purchase.

-Inability to randomize almost all settings.

-AI doesn't appear to set up properly IMO.

I hope I can explain this correctly...I think quick battles would be a lot better if you could start it as a 2 player game, do the setup for player one, save the game, let it sit for 5/6 days, and then pull the saved game up again.

In that space of time, you will have forgotten how you set up the original time. Now you set up team 2's units and allow team 1 to be played by AI. If you can do this now could someone please advise how?

[Panzer Leader]

I pretty much agree to all that's been said in favor of scenarios, however there are a few areas where QBs shine.

I for one, think a QB Defense against assault is the ultimate challenge. Defense ina canned scenario is often less fun since the scenario designer will usually pick your starting positions. However, on a pre-generated map, I have literally spent hours pouring over every inch of ground for the best positioning.

Also, picking forces is another reason why defending is more fun (for me) in a QB, but that is secondary to the fun of "set-up".

Finally, sometimes I like using my "old favorite" force mix. Come on, we all have one --our most common and popular unit roster! We may not admit it, but I bet anyone who has played WW2 Wargames long enough has what they feel is the "right mix"

For me it is a company of Panzergrenadiers in HTs with PzIVs and maybe some recon elements (either Lynx, 250/series, or armoured cars) If I'm rich, add a pair of tigers or panthers (but never one of each!) and I'm off to the races!

I call this force "Kampfgruppe Panzer Leader"

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I pretty much agree to all that's been said in favor of scenarios, however there are a few areas where QBs shine.

I for one, think a QB Defense against assault is the ultimate challenge. Defense ina canned scenario is often less fun since the scenario designer will usually pick your starting positions. However, on a pre-generated map, I have literally spent hours pouring over every inch of ground for the best positioning.

Also, picking forces is another reason why defending is more fun (for me) in a QB, but that is secondary to the fun of "set-up".

Finally, sometimes I like using my "old favorite" force mix. Come on, we all have one --our most common and popular unit roster! We may not admit it, but I bet anyone who has played WW2 Wargames long enough has what they feel is the "right mix"

For me it is a company of Panzergrenadiers in HTs with PzIVs and maybe some recon elements (either Lynx, 250/series, or armoured cars) If I'm rich, add a pair of tigers or panthers (but never one of each!) and I'm off to the races!

I call this force "Kampfgruppe Panzer Leader" <hr></blockquote>

Funny you should mention canned Attack/Defense scenarios. I'm playing one now, decided to try a canned scenario for the first time and for the reasons you mentioned above, the battle has been kind of droll. I spent my usual 2 hours or so pouring over the map only to find out the designer had chosen the best locations for each unit. I switched a couple of units from their pre-positions but that was all I did...and I find that boring.

If I ever play another canned scenario, it will be an ME battle. Not being able to buy your own units can be a challenge in itself and a nice change of pace, but not being able to set up your own units takes most of the fun away from the game.

[Viceroy]

I agree with Col_Deadmarsh,

I have been playing for a while and still enjoy QB's. I"m looking forward to CMBB and the extra tweaks we'll be able to do with a QB. My favorite for PBEM is still a QB setup.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes:

Why QBs are a travesty:

1. Gamey force selections

2. Rules to prevent gamey force selections

3. The less cost effective units are never used

4. QBs are sooo predictable

5. Maps are way too similar<hr></blockquote>

Fortunately, 1-3 will all be taken care of in CMBB, and I strongly disagree with you about 4.

Despite the current limitations, I much prefer QBs to scenarios. For ladder players such as myself they are the meat and potatoes of CM. But to each their own.

[Pzman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Funny you should mention canned Attack/Defense scenarios. I'm playing one now, decided to try a canned scenario for the first time and for the reasons you mentioned above, the battle has been kind of droll. I spent my usual 2 hours or so pouring over the map only to find out the designer had chosen the best locations for each unit. I switched a couple of units from their pre-positions but that was all I did...and I find that boring.

If I ever play another canned scenario, it will be an ME battle. Not being able to buy your own units can be a challenge in itself and a nice change of pace, but not being able to set up your own units takes most of the fun away from the game.<hr></blockquote>

I must admit defence scenarios can be boring. Thats why its most authors make their scenarios more for an attacker. As for Scenarios being boring because you can't setup your own units, well many people may prefure it that way. So we don't have to spend hours doing all that, because not everyone has that much time. I find, just to be different picking forces to be a real pain. QB maps have no Rivers, bridges, and when was the last time you saw, say Bocage in a QB? Oh yes it has little single tile lakes...if you want to call them that. Sometimes these lakes are up in the air a level or two above the rest of the battle field, now isn't that fun to see.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A few more quick comments:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

1) Valid point about people liking to buy their own, as many do. Not that any field commander ever got a bundle of play-cash and an oob and 15 minutes to cook up a nasty force combination to crack the roadblock over the hill.<hr></blockquote>

Computer pick is available for people who don't like the idea of purchasing their own.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My self worth is not a function of my T-House ranking.<hr></blockquote>

That's good to know. I'd be willing to bet the same could be said of the large majority of those who actually have a T-House ranking as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>OTOH, randomly generated maps are ugly at best and illogical at worst, and the fantasy force combinations, flag rushes, and complete lack of reinforcements or non-standard units makes QBs a wash to me.<hr></blockquote>

To say there is a complete lack of standard units in QB is not true by a long shot. Flag rushes are a function of the opponent you play, not the type of game. You can rush a flag in a scenario just as easily as in a QB.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Panzerman:

I may be called anti-QB, because I enjoy making and testing battles, but QBs are more for, sorry to burst your bubble, new players.<hr></blockquote>

That is your opinion, and nothing more. I know a lot of people who are still playing QBs who have been playing CM for a long time who would have a very different opinion.

[Treeburst155]

It's simply different strokes for different folks. I'm glad we are not all the same. The world would be a boring place that way.

Treeburst155 out.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman:

I must admit defence scenarios can be boring. Thats why its most authors make their scenarios more for an attacker. As for Scenarios being boring because you can't setup your own units, well many people may prefure it that way. So we don't have to spend hours doing all that, because not everyone has that much time. I find, just to be different picking forces to be a real pain. QB maps have no Rivers, bridges, and when was the last time you saw, say Bocage in a QB? Oh yes it has little single tile lakes...if you want to call them that. Sometimes these lakes are up in the air a level or two above the rest of the battle field, now isn't that fun to see.<hr></blockquote>

I do miss the fact that you give up bridges and bocage and such when you play a QB. And when there is water in a QB, it is illogically placed some of the time.

In fact, I've just started a QB, probably the worst looking map I've ever seen the computer make, and it has a church who's front door is surrounded by a big lake. (I guess they lower the draw bridge when you want to enter.) By the way, it's the first time I've seen more than those single tile squares of water myself but they do occur--unforunately, illogically.

Just like Vanir said though, QB's are the meat and potatoes of ladder players. You don't have to trust the other player when setting one up. Sure, you could play a mirror game of a canned scenario but I don't really have much interest in playing the same map twice in a row--and to be honest, I find the QB maps the computer makes to be pretty challenging and interesting most of the time. Some of them I've even wanted to keep and play again in the future. Hopefully in CMBB that will be possible.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I find the QB maps the computer makes to be pretty challenging and interesting most of the time. Some of them I've even wanted to keep and play again in the future. Hopefully in CMBB that will be possible.<hr></blockquote>

I agree. Computer maps occasionally do have illogical features, and they do have a somewhat generic appearance to them. But the one thing they have going for them is that no two are the same. Each presents it's own unique set of tactical challenges. For me, that is what CM is about: the tactics. This is why some people never grow tired of QBs, despite their limitations. With the new QB features coming up in CMBB, we may never stop

[Redwolf]

Different weather and time can bring some life back into Quickbattles.

Mind you, some of the ladder wannabe top= players (not the real top players) will not play in anything than good weather and standard ME, because their formula doesn;t work anymore.

Which leads to the real problem of boring gameplay: people who are afraid of playing new things.

With open-minded opponents, Quickbattles can be fun. However, the computer force selector is not useful, IMHO. But there are always people whoo will select a historical and competive force and make a scenario for a pair of players.

[Goanna]

I had some of the same problems with QB's that were identified here (mainly the maps blow and you can't view them before purchase) so I found myself (along with some input from others) finding what I think is the ideal solution and has become the de facto method of setting up a good cesspool match when the denizens there disagree on some issue occasionally. I'll call it the Enhanced Quick Battle, and it really is pretty quick even if it looks complicated. Here's how it works:

(1) Pick your opponent and a third party. Not just any third party as this person will function as a deity so the must be as "into" the match as the actual participants. I like to use scenario designers who are creative, a little bit evil and have a few minutes to spare.

(2) Pick your map and decide if it is to be a attack/defend or ME. Both players can have a look at it in the editor since there are no forces on it. There are tons of good maps around, so no need to create one yourself. Look at all the ones for the CMMC, or even scenarios that have been played before. You are just a couple snips away from exactly what you are after. (Remember to save it as a new name, however, so you don't lose the original)

(3) One player buys his forces in the editor and sends that file to the diety. The other sends his selections to the diety in an e-mail. Either or both of you don't want to buy - that's OK, have the diety pick something reasonable.

(4) The diety then adds the forces of the other side to the scenario, saves it and sends it out as a tournament save to the player who starts and you are off.

(5) That's the simplest way. Optionally, I prefer the diety to muck around with the scenario a bit to add that element of surprise. Change set up zones a bit to allow an unexpected ambush. Move the flags. Provide some of the forces as reinforcements instead. Take away that second and third fighter bomber and replace them with something more reasonable. Do whatever you want to enhance the immersion without totally upsetting the balance.

From the above method I have had some of the best games of CM I have ever played. It addresses what I felt most of the weaknesses of QBs were and still leaves them with plenty of surprise and excitement. I don't want to get a mad rush going or anything, but I would be willing to show someone how it works if they have steps (1) and (2) completed.

Oh, and remeber...

(6) Thank your diety as its the only scenario review he's going to get.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Goanna ]</p>

[Kallimakhos]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Goanna:

I had some of the same problems with QB's that were identified here (mainly the maps blow and you can't view them before purchase) so I found myself (along with some input from others) finding what I think is the ideal solution and has become the de facto method of setting up a good cesspool match when the denizens there disagree on some issue occasionally. I'll call it the Enhanced Quick Battle, and it really is pretty quick even if it looks complicated. Here's how it works:

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Goanna ]<hr></blockquote>

This is indeed a fun way to play, but if you trust your opponent (99% you can trust!) you don't even need a third party. Just polish the map untill both agree and then pick your forces - just remember that allied picks first!

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Different weather and time can bring some life back into Quickbattles.<hr></blockquote>

Very true. Random weather is what makes MEs worth playing, IMO. Unlike attack/defend, adverse weather effects both players equally. It also makes you pay close attention to vehicle ground pressure ratings.

[Moriarty]

Yeah, what Goanna said.

I enjoy using unpopulated battle maps. Yes, if you trust your opponent, you don't even need the third party. Whoever's taking the Allies picks first , the other guy promises not to peek and takes his allotment of Axis dudes and you're on your way.

You just need to agree on the particulars (type of engagement, weather, points, etc.,) ... unless you're really daring and set absolutely no restrictions and just deal with whatever comes up.

I must admit, though, that I have no problem playing a computer-pick or U-pick QB ... even if the maps aren't as snappy.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]</p>

[Goanna]

Thanks for the support. Now where's my turn in our current Enhanced QB, ya pillock?

[xerxes]

I can certainly understand why people like QBs, in truth I've had some great QB games. But, my most exciting and challenging games have been scenarios.

The biggest difference in scenarios (double-blind of course) is that the uncertainty makes every move much more of a gamble. In a ME QB, you can calculate for the opening move exactly where your opponent can be. In a historical scenario, the enemy may very well appear out of the blue.

Contrary to some opinions, you can play historical scenarios on the ladders, I certainly do. I trust my opponents not to peek at the map. I'm 100% certain none of them ever have.

As for setup, I've spent as much time "walking the field" in a defensive scenario as in any QB. Initial placement is key to a good defense. From what I've seen scenario designers do a reasonable placement of troops, but I'll always rearrange them.

- marc

[Moriarty]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Goanna:

Thanks for the support. Now where's my turn in our current Enhanced QB, ya pillock?<hr></blockquote>

I sent that to you (bigpond, as instructed) before I left work at 2340 hours 24 Dec 01 ... the night you were staying up celebrating in the land of sand, ya git.

Just sent it again to your bigpond addy.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Goanna:

[QB]

(3) One player buys his forces in the editor and sends that file to the diety. The other sends his selections to the diety in an e-mail. Either or both of you don't want to buy - that's OK, have the diety pick something reasonable.

(4) The diety then adds the forces of the other side to the scenario, saves it and sends it out as a tournament save to the player who starts and you are off.

(5) That's the simplest way. Optionally, I prefer the diety to muck around with the scenario a bit to add that element of surprise.

(6) Thank your diety as its the only scenario review he's going to get.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm following and agreeing with what you're saying right up to the point where it seems necessary for the third party person to be on a diet. I mean, what the.....?

Personally, I think the type of person you need in this position is a god like type who controls the purchasing of forces etc.

Regards

Jim R.

[Chad Harrison]

Just my two bits,

I prefer QB's for a simple reason: I like balance. No, a QB will not always give you a perfectly balanced battle, that depends on what others buy. BUT, it gives me a chance to go toe to toe with another player with approximatly the same amount of stuff.

I have played both and enjoy both. QB's can get annoying when a bunch of flak trucks show up

but, I find them the most entertaining and thats why I play the game.

Chad