Quick Battles

[Becket]

So. I love the game. But - I don't love the QB generator, so I thought I'd start a thread to provoke productive discussion about ways to improve the QB generator.

1. Maps.

Current Implementation: maps are selected from a set of pre-made maps, based on the criteria entered by the player. No random map generation. No ability to select a specific map. No UI indication when there's no map that meets the selected criteria (the user is bumped back to the title screen).

Suggestions/proposals:

- Random map generation. This appears to be off the table and thus I am not going to address it. I am sure those that feel strongly about it will feel compelled to talk about it, but I am persuaded by the technical impediments that prevent its implementation in CMSF.

- Map selection. The ability for the user to pick a specific map for the game, much like in CMx1, would be greatly appreciated. As it is now, you may have a great map that you want to play with new units, but you have no easy way to ensure you'll play on that map.

- UI notification when there's no random map to meet the user's selected criteria.

2. Units.

Current implementation: user picks from a desired nation and type of force (i.e., Mechanized, light infantry, etc.). Actual units are selected by the computer based on the game size and the parameters chosen.

Suggestions:

- CMx1 style free point buy. This appears to be off the table and again, I don't intend to add to the arguments for and against it. I would prefer the old system but respect the arguments from the developers against it.

- Some New System that Allows Us Some Ability to See and Choose (SNSAUSASC for short ). I wonder if there might be a middle ground between the current system - no idea what you might get, no control over it - and the old system. I wonder if it might be possible to provide very high level "army lists" that the player might select, or, even better, a system that offered army "components" from a cafeteria style menu. You can get one from section A, two from Section B, and one from Section C, but if you choose any units from Section B you can't have anything from Section D - that kind of thing.

I recognize that I have no idea how hard it is to code any of this. I also recognize the inherent difficulties in coming up with balanced lists. We don't need point values; we don't need to compare whether an Abrams is "worth" as much as X number of T-72s. What I'd suggest is just something that says "in a game of this size, you can have an armor force consisting of the following options: choose."

3. Bug. Currently, units in QBs are not always put into their setup zones. They are placed in other areas on the map, with more or less bad results (enemies that "spawn" in your setup zone on turn one). Worse, if your forces are affected by this bug, you can't move them back to your setup zone. I assume this has been reported and is on the list, and just added it for completeness.

Caveat: maybe all of this is completely obvious, known to all, hashed to death, and will only lead to flames and tears. If that is the case, please accept my apology in advance, for I don't think that is the case.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I agree with you at 100% on everything and I subscribe your hints for possible corrections.

[pcelt]

I should like to add 1 comment re 2(Units) and the force selection by the computer.

The reason offered for this was to ensure "realistic combinations of units."

But in fact these combinations are often very bizarre and unrealistic.So I would urge the reinstatement of the players ability to select precise unit composition as in CM1.

The other factor which really often needs more input is the AI of the Comp.side. At the moment the force controlled by the computer quite often does nothing at all .

I appreciate that all these mrasures entail a great deal of work and expertise but the QBs were such a great feature of CM1 and gave those games so much variety and longevity.It would be extremely disappointing if QBs remain as unrewarding and frustrating as they currently are in CMSF

[kevinkins]

I remember on QB when a T72 poped up right in the rear of my forces and blew away two AFVs instantly. Now thats technology the Sryians better not have for real. Not sure if it was cloaking or a star gate.

Kevin

[CRourke]

Thought that was going to be Yet Another QB Belly Aching Post (or YAQBBAP for short). But I agree with all of your ideas. As much as I'd like to get back to the old, unrealistic, buying of forces with 'points', I'd be happy just to have some sort of vague selection (Gimme a mech company, with some sort of AT section, and medium artillery support)

[KNac]

Originally posted by pcelt:

The other factor which really often needs more input is the AI of the Comp.side. At the moment the force controlled by the computer quite often does nothing at all .

That's an other beast completly. The problem is that there is not any kind of programmed StratAI, so the AI is passive. Why? Cause "Operational AI" (as per manual words) is not working right, which is the one that should take care of most decissions.

Operational AI is broken/not working at all in the game, but in scenarios and campaing this is not as bad cause the AI has general planning done by the designer (strat AI). Anyway you can see it's not working right when it comes to some simple decissions (ie: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000218 )

As for the rest, agreed 100%, I specially like your idea for addressing the current problems with units selection.

[Becket]

So, to distill my rambling post into a short set of concrete thoughts:

1. Allow the user to pick the specific map in the QB interface.

2. Add UI feedback when no randomly selected map meets the selected criteria.

3. Implement SNSAUSASC. Is it fair to say that most seem to like the "army list" or "cafeteria system" idea? I think this is a complex programming request, especially since it impacts PBEM, but it would be greatly appreciated.

4. Fix the setup bug.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Becket:

So, to distill my rambling post into a short set of concrete thoughts:

1. Allow the user to pick the specific map in the QB interface.

2. Add UI feedback when no randomly selected map meets the selected criteria.

3. Implement SNSAUSASC. Is it fair to say that most seem to like the "army list" or "cafeteria system" idea? I think this is a complex programming request, especially since it impacts PBEM, but it would be greatly appreciated.

4. Fix the setup bug.

Steve already shot down #3. Something to do with the new C&C mechanics, I believe. #4 the setup bug will get fixed in time because it's a bug and they have a great history of eventually squashing all of those. #s 1 and 2 I have no idea about.

-dale

[Becket]

yeah, I've seen the discussion on #3 but I'm pushing it a bit.

Here's the most rudimentary possibility:

The game is selecting forces; this is obvious. It must be selecting them from something - potentially a list, though I suppose maybe there's an algorithm instead. But either way, the game is making decisions, like choosing between an uncon force of all foot soldiers and one that has trucks; like choosing between an armor force that's mostly BMPs and one that has T-72s.

At the most rudimentary level - assuming it's not just running a calculation - you could expose these potential, fully C&C compliant, choices to the player, and allow the players to pick.

Here's the concern. Multiplayer using pre-made scenarios can be great. There's no doubt about that. But if you want to have no knowledge of your opponent's forces and be sure that they have no knowledge of yours, using pre-made scenarios doesn't work unless you involve a third party to run the game ROW style. That leaves you with QBs. Now, take an armor v armor game, for example. Not being sure what you're getting is one thing; but the potential to get BMPs when your opponent gets T-72s, or worse, Abrahms, is quite another. Without some ability to say "I want main battle tanks," you can really have an unenjoyable scenario.

Just thoughts...maybe this stuff isn't anything to could even be done, were BF.C interested in doing it, until 1.05 or 1.27.

[Sirocco]

I think it's a case of where there's a will, there's a way with QB's; it's a question of resources and priorities. A deeper implementation of QB's would give the title greater legs, however I feel there's a greater liking for scenarios for those whose opinions really matter.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Becket:

yeah, I've seen the discussion on #3 but I'm pushing it a bit.

Here's the most rudimentary possibility:

The game is selecting forces; this is obvious. It must be selecting them from something - potentially a list, though I suppose maybe there's an algorithm instead. But either way, the game is making decisions, like choosing between an uncon force of all foot soldiers and one that has trucks; like choosing between an armor force that's mostly BMPs and one that has T-72s.

At the most rudimentary level - assuming it's not just running a calculation - you could expose these potential, fully C&C compliant, choices to the player, and allow the players to pick.

Here's the concern. Multiplayer using pre-made scenarios can be great. There's no doubt about that. But if you want to have no knowledge of your opponent's forces and be sure that they have no knowledge of yours, using pre-made scenarios doesn't work unless you involve a third party to run the game ROW style. That leaves you with QBs. Now, take an armor v armor game, for example. Not being sure what you're getting is one thing; but the potential to get BMPs when your opponent gets T-72s, or worse, Abrahms, is quite another. Without some ability to say "I want main battle tanks," you can really have an unenjoyable scenario.

Just thoughts...maybe this stuff isn't anything to could even be done, were BF.C interested in doing it, until 1.05 or 1.27.

I agree that your concerns and potential solution paths sound dead-on and reasonable, respectively. My woes RE QBs are already well-known so I won't repeat them here, but I definitely agree with you.

-dale

[Paper Tiger]

I am not convinced that the QB system is broken, bugged yes, but not broken. Unlike the old CMx1 games, you can't really just click and play. You need to have specially designed maps to do so. This means that there must be a functioning Strat AT plan set by the map designer or the AI units will just sit there and do nothing.

Also, the operational AI is not broken or missing. The manual states that the operational AI 'co-ordinates and assigns' these orders to the sub units within the group. So, without a working Strat AI plan for different groups, there's nothing for the operational AI to do.

The old system is gone. We can be sad and mourn it's loss but let's not be angry until we've given the new system some time to see what it is capable of. Until some of us in the community start designing maps specifically for QB, the QB option is pretty boring. I don't know yet but it could be that the new QB system will be infinitely better than the old CBx1 once we have some dedicated maps with varied AI plans.

I agree that it would be better to allow us to choose the map that we want to play on.

[Paper Tiger]

Oops. perhaps "angry" was too strong a word. This is a very reasoned thread so forgive me if that's too strong. I should have used "too disappointed"

cheers

[Becket]

Paper Tiger, no one in this thread is suggesting that QBs use randomly generated maps. The suggestion on maps is that we get to directly select them.

So - not really sure what your post relates to, as I never raised anything about the AI.

[Paper Tiger]

Quote "Paper Tiger, no one is this thread is suggesting that QBs use randomly generated maps"

neither am I. My understanding of your argument is that we're not going to get them so it's a moot point. The same goes for picking your own units.

Quote "The suggestion on maps is that we get to directly select them."

And I agreed with you, 100%

Quote "So, not really sure what your post relates to, as I never raised anything about the AI."

Ah, now there you have me. I'm still new to the conventions of forum posting. Those particular remarks were adressed to pcelt and KNac who have contributed to this thread that the operational AI is broken or missing. I should have addressed these remarks to these two gentlemen. So apologies to you.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

I am not convinced that the QB system is broken, bugged yes, but not broken. Unlike the old CMx1 games, you can't really just click and play. You need to have specially designed maps to do so. This means that there must be a functioning Strat AT plan set by the map designer or the AI units will just sit there and do nothing.

So it's not Quick, and therefore a misnomer.

Also, the operational AI is not broken or missing. The manual states that the operational AI 'co-ordinates and assigns' these orders to the sub units within the group. So, without a working Strat AI plan for different groups, there's nothing for the operational AI to do.

The old system is gone. We can be sad and mourn it's loss but let's not be angry until we've given the new system some time to see what it is capable of. Until some of us in the community start designing maps specifically for QB, the QB option is pretty boring. I don't know yet but it could be that the new QB system will be infinitely better than the old CBx1 once we have some dedicated maps with varied AI plans.

I agree that it would be better to allow us to choose the map that we want to play on.

[Paper Tiger]

dalem; Once you have a stock of prepared maps, it is just as quick as the old system. I played through two of the stock maps this morning and only clicked a handful of times to get there. Of course, it wasn't a particularly challenging experience

I think we'll all feel a bit better about the QB option in a couple of months after some quality maps with programmed AI are designed by the community. Until the patch from Paradox arrives, I'm spending much of my game time experimenting with QB maps.

[Cpl Steiner]

Paper Tiger,

I too would like to start making some QB maps. However, I don't yet fully understand how the maps are selected in the Quick Battles setup screen.

Do you know what you have to set in the map editor for a particular type of QB?

[Paper Tiger]

Presently, you can't select the map that you want to play on so, for the time being, when I'm creating a new map, I set it up in the Description option as a Rough terrain map regardless of what it is. That way, I get it most of the time.

However, the easiest method would certainly be to temporarily transfer all the maps you don't want to use from the QB folder to another folder leaving only your map in there.

[Cpl Steiner]

Paper Tiger,

You also have to set the "type" in the Description screen I think. Meeting Engagement maps are only selected for Meeting Engagement QBs and non-ME maps for non-ME QBs. I will have to play around with the editor and QBs to figure out for sure what criteria has to go where.

[Becket]

Steve,

What would you think about making the potential force choices (that the AI will select from based on the settings) visible to the user, so that the user might choose from them? There should be no C&C issue, nor any "points" issues. Some might gripe about the selections, but they will do that regardless of whether they see them or not (they will gripe based on what they get from the random selection).

[JasonC]

I second Becket's motions.

I am particularly galled by (1) picking "armor" as a force type and being given mech infantry instead of tanks - that is what "heavy infantry" as a force type is for, and when I say "armor" instead I want tanks, majority tanks, at least some tanks, at least one tank. Armor without any tanks is a round square and a misunderstanding; and (2) the set up bug that starts me and the enemy less than 40 meters apart.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Ah, now there you have me. I'm still new to the conventions of forum posting. Those particular remarks were adressed to pcelt and KNac who have contributed to this thread that the operational AI is broken or missing. I should have addressed these remarks to these two gentlemen. So apologies to you.

So, you are saying that a StratAI plan is allways requiered for it to work and not stay completly passive?

I though that "Operational AI" was some in between the TacAI (which works out each unit basic behaviour) and StratAI. In other words, that it can decide somewhat were to move units, attack or ambush for example, even if there isn't any StratAI programmed for the scenario.

...

Ok, so now, for a QB to work when playing against AI, there is a need for one (or various) plan per side. That's quite a lot of work for scenario designers to do hehe.

[Paper Tiger]

Cpl Steiner: yes, I was doing some more work with that last night and you're right. The Battle type and Environment settings of the map determine when it can be used. So if you want to play an Attack Village situation, you must have an Attack Village QB map in the folder. Also this should have been obvious to me, but you can only use very small maps with tiny battles. You just go back to the menu if your battle map is too small for the action so bigger is better.

KNac: It certainly seems to be that way, yes. Without Strat AI, the operational AI has nothing to work with. Yes, it's a lot of work but so far, I am finding it fun. Testing my own plans is giving me some REAL old time QB fun, and when the plan works, it's WAY better than playing a CMx1 QB. Design a map, draw up a couple of quick plans, save in the QB folder and I'm having a blast.

[jomni]

I'd plan to copy all single missions to the QB folder. Will that be sufficient? Or should I fiddle with them using the editor first?