Can't buy troops????

[Roter Stern]

Originally posted by Moon:

You guys make it sound like it was totally random what players get in a QB. It's not. You can tailor the available forces for both sides almost down to specific units.

As the Red player of Unconventional Fighters on a Small Village map defending against Blue's Assault I was given this:

To defend against this... MGS'es and all...

Personally I would’ve preferred something along the lines of INFANTRY and perhaps some AT assets…

Originally posted by Moon:

To the CMx1 experience to be exact. The word is out still on the CMSF experience

Marge: "This house is awfully small!"

Lionel, continues: "...awfully cosy!"

[ July 29, 2007, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Thunderbird:

Sure, random troop battles are fun, but so is being able to purchase units.

It is fun? I don't remember. But i still remember one of my last 3000 pts. ladder battles at the Blitz. We had decided to buy units ofcourse.

I decided for a plt. PzIII and StuGIV (75mm short) and was quite enthusiastic about the upcoming battle, because so far it was the most carefully planned battle for me: after two days i knew everything about the map and my force mix was perfect for the map.

But the oponent looked for the given date in his tables and chose some nasty small tanks (BT-5 ?) with a front angle of 60 degree as spearhead only. Although I played one of my best tank battles ever, but Tungsten round after Tungsten round turned into a ricochet. After 30 minutes three of the five tanks were already low on AT ammo and only two of this awful Soviet tanks were immobilized and another one abonded.

Then he came with his T34 waves, knowing from the beginning, my PzIII were not capable to penetrate them from the front above 100m.

That is the reality of buying units. The one with the better unit infos and with access to a unit the oponent has nothing to put against, wins.

This battle was the key for me to recognize, that buying units is BS. From that moment on, i began to chose premade scenarios and have never looked back to buying units since.

Nothing is as good in creating a good scenario, as a good scenario designer. He chooses the weapons better, than any buyin system can do.

The "fun" buying units lies only in the first moments, as long you don't know, what the other has. But this uncertainty is also present in handmade battles - with the benefit, that a designer has intentionally chosen the forces.

But i admit, that maybe a player has to go through this phase first, to recognize, that the most fun lies in the intentionally constructed scenario and not in random factors.

[ July 29, 2007, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Darren J Pierson]

I don't really see the big complaint about people selecting non-typical forces using purchase. Some of us enjoy setting up unique (read: odd or silly) situtation to simply see what would happen. I can see how this could be very annoying in a two player game, but what is so wrong with someone playing solitaire (or with a like minded friend) using a all Stuart vs Puma force? If they have fun, how are they hurting anyone else?

edited because os leafing oot sum wordz and gramur.

[ July 29, 2007, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Darren J Pierson ]

[RedDevil]

Who cares what the Costs are? That's what the COMPANY got MONEY for, to come up with that, not have the consumers do your job for you..

Replay capability is looking fairly meek on this system due to the LIMITATIONS of asymmetrical warfare huff puff.. NO battle was ever fair or equal in any terms.. get off the simulation kick.. it's a game, or at least it was until it was mucked up by some genius' decision to do without the prime innards of CM gaming.

Allowing people to pick their own is a part of CM that will always separate it from the other games, by taking this away you've done nothing any different than any one else out there.. Pathetic.

I can't believe that previous CMX1ers like yourselves who are on the playtesting team allowed this unit purchase option to not even be considered..

What a flipping brain fart.. CMx1 will always have replay value and has been running STRONG for years based on it's design innovation.. you took away the prime meaty texture and gave us soybeans..

CMx1 has been on my PC since day 1 and I've logged over 600+ games on a ladder system plus played hundreds more that were never recorded because of the replay value of that game design.

PAH... like CMSF is even going to come close in it's current state...

If I wanted DOOM or HALO I'd would have bought them.. I wanted an CM game and this fails to deliver anything that was expected for the money.

I paid good money for 18 scenarios and about 2 dozen QB options and 1 Campaign.. talk about replay value.. whoo hoo.. 4 years of work gets me this? My God.. what were you thinking?

I think you should of stayed in your league,(wargames) where you ruled, rather than trying to compete with Sims and FPSs.. a true waste of an effort.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

If you've played Cmx1 from day one you surely must remember it had it's fair share of issues on release? Have faith.

[Roter Stern]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

That is the reality of buying units. The one with the better unit infos and with access to a unit the oponent has nothing to put against, wins.

It's all part of the strategy - if you don't know the units you're dealing with, then the best small-unit tactics in the world wont save your arse... moral is, never leave home with out one of these:

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I don't really see the big complaint about people selecting non-typical forces using purchase. Some of enjoy setting up unique (read: odd or silly) situtation to simply see what would happen. I can see how this could be very annoying in a two player game, but what is so wrong with someone playing solitaire (or with a like minded friend) using a all Stuart vs Puma force? If they have fun, how are they hurting anyone else?

Amen, brother. Testify!

Steve

[ChrisND]

Wow... you need to get out of the house...

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by The Louch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

That is the reality of buying units. The one with the better unit infos and with access to a unit the oponent has nothing to put against, wins.

It's all part of the strategy - if you don't know the units you're dealing with, then the best small-unit tactics in the world wont save your arse... moral is, never leave home with out one of these:

</font>

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by The Louch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

That is the reality of buying units. The one with the better unit infos and with access to a unit the oponent has nothing to put against, wins.

It's all part of the strategy - if you don't know the units you're dealing with, then the best small-unit tactics in the world wont save your arse... moral is, never leave home with out one of these:

</font>

[Douglas Rudd]

At the least, if anything, I would be happy to be able to pick premade formations with the option of swapping vehicles.

Like recon units with the choice of having BMP-1s instead of BMP-2s, or just BRDMs.

Or T-62s instead of T-72s which I am very tired of SEEING and USING.

[Zebulon Pleasure Beast]

I did a QB as Republican Guard (or whatever) Heavy mix and got 4 UAZs and 4 Forward Observers with no artillery or air support on call. Nothing else. The US player had 9 Strykers and a metric asston of infantry.

Do I need to specifically mention that I lost that game?

[Deathsai]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I don't really see the big complaint about people selecting non-typical forces using purchase. Some of enjoy setting up unique (read: odd or silly) situtation to simply see what would happen. I can see how this could be very annoying in a two player game, but what is so wrong with someone playing solitaire (or with a like minded friend) using a all Stuart vs Puma force? If they have fun, how are they hurting anyone else?

Amen, brother. Testify!

Steve </font>

[Xipe66]

It's because of the C2 limitations that the core of the game relies on and imposes. A more dynamic C2-format where you create your own line of command might be in line with the core game design though; although I don't know how costly that would be in development hours.

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

If you've played Cmx1 from day one you surely must remember it had it's fair share of issues on release? Have faith.

There is a difference, those were bugs/minor design issues for the most part. This is a radical new design decision, something that doesn't change.

[PeterLorre86]

Cant say i enjoyed the QB where i was given 9 technicals (to be fair, 3 of which had recoilless rifles) and tasked with attacking a platoon of Abrams and a platoon of bradleys.

[average]

Long time lurker.

So the theme of this thread is:-

"OMG OMG OMG I CAN'T BUY 4 Stykers, 2 Bradleys, 3 Javelines and 7 M1A2's to have some fun with 345 T54's, OMG OMG OMG ITS RUINED, I WANT TO BUY UNITS USING POINTS LIKE THEY DO IN RL ARMY, OMG"

I seriously think one of the best features of CMX2 is gets away from the gamey nonsense of buying your force mix and customising it excessively for the job at hand.

No longer can you engage in the stupid process of working out which T34 variant is most cost effective and proceed to stack your force mix out for a boring, ahistorical encounter against a similiarly stacked out force.

Now you get to pick roughly what type of force you want and get a proper coy, or coy+ to carry out your mission. It forces you to make decisions about how to do things, because you don't always have the ideal force mix.

I'd have to say the new mechanism also helps balance. It means the Blue force can't be cherry picked, just like the red force can't be cherry picked.Its good for both sides not to have an M1A2 behind every crest or an AT14 astride every road.

Nothing like going with what you've got and making do to help balance it out.

Finally, some of you guys seem to forget sometimes you get the bear, sometimes it gets you holds true for these things.

[rlg85]

Even if they don't put back in unit buying, they have a serious need to improve the way it picks.

I had a quick battle yesterday where I was given an entire force of nothing but Kornet crews to fight against enemy infantry.

The random picking of troops is still as absurd as it was in CMx1, just we don't have any option now.

[Xipe66]

I think Dorosh made a pretty solid argument concerning the "what if"-aspect of historical/simulation wargaming.

If BF can find a way I do belive selective purchases should be at least an option.

What I'd like to see is for several dynamic "rule sets" regarding TOE, so that you ideally could have anything taken from fantasy, to 1991(ish), to 2003(ish) and to current and future. Ideally these would be in text form, so that the community can update and revise them.

[RedDevil]

Nothing like taking 2 steps back with each step forward.. if you're going to give us a random QB pick where we can't pick and choose at least get the part right, where instead of this sloppy and TOTALLY unbalanced kit picks that are being posted here, we get something worth playing a game over.

I find it absurd that these guys on the Playtest team were prior CMX1 scenario designers and players and they let things like this go thru when they should have KNOWN better of all people.

It's not like they hired a few Quake programmers to start from afresh...

In regards to kit picking, if you couldn't play CMx1 by picking your own units, perhaps wargames aren't for you and you should stick to SimCity.

So where's the MODs going to be put in at? I suppose this version is MODless as well.. we won't be able to make out own paint schemes for decorating the Abrams with flowers and peace signs?

Ah.. the price we pay for success.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by average:

Long time lurker.

So the theme of this thread is:-

"OMG OMG OMG I CAN'T BUY 4 Stykers, 2 Bradleys, 3 Javelines and 7 M1A2's to have some fun with 345 T54's, OMG OMG OMG ITS RUINED, I WANT TO BUY UNITS USING POINTS LIKE THEY DO IN RL ARMY, OMG"

No, the theme of this thread is "why in God's name did BFC take out a feature that vastly increased replayability?"

Nobody here is making an argument that by taking out this feature, BFC has denied anyone the opportunity to do something that is done in the real life army. To the contrary, we are saying, the hell with what the real life army is doing, we know what we have enjoyed the heck out of for the past several years.

I seriously think one of the best features of CMX2 is gets away from the gamey nonsense of buying your force mix and customising it excessively for the job at hand.

Well, I don't know anyone who actually does that. Maybe the idiots who try to eke every last possible point out of some ladder or tournament does that, but nobody in the hundreds of PBEM games I have played has done it.

Perhaps you should find different opponents?

No longer can you engage in the stupid process of working out which T34 variant is most cost effective and proceed to stack your force mix out for a boring, ahistorical encounter against a similiarly stacked out force.

Again, what idiot would waste his time doing that? This is a game. It is for fun. And, in the opinion of many who have been loyal BFC supporters since the last century, taking out the opportunity to purchase individual units has resulted in a game that is much less fun and much less likely to be replayed than were its putative predecessors.

Now you get to pick roughly what type of force you want and get a proper coy, or coy+ to carry out your mission. It forces you to make decisions about how to do things, because you don't always have the ideal force mix.

Boring.

Boring, boring boring. Who the heck wants to play using basically the same vanilla force mix over and over and over again.

Hell, in CMBB, we could at least mix things up with Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, etc., etc., as well as picking individual weapons systems. That made for many highly memorable QBs -- something I predict CMSF will have darned few of in the long run if the current unit selection system (and inability to randomly design QB maps) remains.

I'd have to say the new mechanism also helps balance. It means the Blue force can't be cherry picked, just like the red force can't be cherry picked.

But it makes it boring. No, I am not one of those guys who always bought Hetzers in CMBO in order to take advantage of their overly good armor, nor did I EVER look at Excel spreadsheets to see which T34 was better than another. I preferred to take a core group of infantry, and experiment with different weapons systems. Back in teh CMBB days, we had fun simulating a British vs. Italians fight on the steppes using Russian Matildas against Italian Deathmobiles, err, M13-40s. My opponent and I had a gentleman's agreement to limit our purchases to a mix of forces that would meet that requirement.

Can you do that with CMSF? No. And more is the pity.

Its good for both sides not to have an M1A2 behind every crest or an AT14 astride every road.

That's your opinion, and nothing more. It holds no value to those who just want to play for fun, and see some of the circuses of vehicles CM used to offer.

I think the frustration comes down to this: BFC had a choice as to whether to cater to a small group of grogs who wanted the ultimate in realism, or to offer both realism and the variety and replayability that marked the old CM series. For reasons BFC has explained, it chose to cater to the few rather than the many.

That is, of course, BFC's choice. But it is, to both me and many other long-time fans of the series, terribly disappointing.

Is that so hard to understand? Or is it easier to simply mock those with whom you philosophically disagree and paint them as a bunch of mouthbreathing, gamey idgits whose sole purpose in life is to know the point value of a T-26 on the Central Front in October 1941?

Steve

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by average:

Long time lurker.

So the theme of this thread is:-

"OMG OMG OMG I CAN'T BUY 4 Stykers, 2 Bradleys, 3 Javelines and 7 M1A2's to have some fun with 345 T54's, OMG OMG OMG ITS RUINED, I WANT TO BUY UNITS USING POINTS LIKE THEY DO IN RL ARMY, OMG"

No, the point of this thread was to reveal lurking idiots - and it seems to have accomplished that in at least one case.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by average:

Long time lurker.

So the theme of this thread is:-

"OMG OMG OMG I CAN'T BUY 4 Stykers, 2 Bradleys, 3 Javelines and 7 M1A2's to have some fun with 345 T54's, OMG OMG OMG ITS RUINED, I WANT TO BUY UNITS USING POINTS LIKE THEY DO IN RL ARMY, OMG"

NICE!!!! You forgot the exclamation points and "1"s though.

[GSX]

Hmm. Ive just read all of this fine thread. Qb picks were always something I avoided in CM, never could get them right and never understood why every fight had to be an ME with Vet forces.

Then there was the fear of your opponent picking the Big cats, so you had to pick a counter. or he knew his period inside out when I didnt. SMG squads, Finnish Sisi's etc etc etc. I just switched to scenarios and for over 600 games have continued to enjoy myself.

I think the big mistake here has been to rely on the CM name for what isnt the same product. You should have called it Shock Force. Its just not CM and while enjoyable, I have the feeling that in about 3 weeks time most of the guys posting here will have it lying in their drawers unused and be happily playing CM again.

Its a fun little game, but its not CM. This is my opinion though but I just don't think it has any longevity. I mean, what would a Marine module bring that a Marine Mod couldn't, after all its just a different uniform.

I think I actually enjoyed TOW better.......

[JasonC]

In re Moon's comment - perhaps you are right and I just don't know how to use the existing system to do what I want to do. I am willing to be instructed. I will describe the fight I want to try, you tell me how to do it in the present system.

The Americans have a standard Stryker mounted medium infantry force, with some fire support, air or 155 arty will do. The terrain is town and they conceive their mission as being to clear and hold the town. It is an attack type mission.

The Syrians have a special forces group consisting as nearly as possible of the following -

a) A single platoon of good quality infantry, armed with late model RPGs and extra LMGs, well led. Plans to reposition repeatedly, back alley routes, originally centrally located, ground floor building interiors.

4 separate 2-man sniper teams with scoped rifles, high quality. Dispersed and hidden on upper floors around town.

c) 4-6 separate small teams each with late model RPGs and 1 SAW, again good quality Syrian special forces personnel. Also dispersed, ground floors and keyholed down alleys to main street crossings.

d) 1 or 2 14.5mm AA MGs with fanatic crews and abundant ammo, in fortified building location(s), plenty of overhead cover (bunker(s) effectively). Overlooking a main drag, square, or park area.

e) one car bomb sized IED, prepositioned and remote detonation - at same main drag square park etc. 3 other smaller ones, can be short range wire detonation, scale a few 155mm rounds daisy chained together. Those on back routes to the bunker's and coordinated with (overseen by) the separate RPG and SAW teams.

f) 2 separate ATGM teams sighted down long thoroughfares, crossing pattern.

Not a single vehicle (too easy to spot). No hordes of useless AK touting conscripts to be shot to rags by vehicle 50 cals. No masses in the same building to all be whacked by the same bomb. 60-70 guys total.

Mission - inflict maximum losses on the attacking Americans, completely uninterested in terrain control of any kind. Secondary mission, keep the expert units alive (snipers and ATGM teams in particular, squad and RPG-SAW teams much less important and bunker MGs totally expendable).

Those are the tactics I want to test standard US doctrine against, so I need to be able to tailor that sort of Syrian force and I need to command it.

Is there a QB setting that will do this?

If there isn't, then I submit there is a significant and overwhelmingly legitimate case for selectable forces. I am aware (from another thread) that how comms are modeled is one reason to stick to known force compositions. But if the above can't fit into CMSF, its value as a tactical simulator is limited to testing against a cookie cutter version of enemy doctrine (which I already known will not work against US strengths, making it rather moot to simulate).

One man's opinion...