Quick Battles - Not Good!!

[pad152]

Quick Battles - Not Good!!

I see one of three things when I try to play a Quick Battle.

1. No Enemy Forces on the Map (three times now)!

2. Enemy Forces spawn on top or behind my forces when deployment ends and the battle starts. Seems to happen alot on small maps.

3. Force Deployment, units stuck in walled in areas, some units deploy on the other side of the map seems to happen 50% of the time on town maps. You can't always move(redeploy) some of them because the deployment area is too small. I don't know if this is just poorly designed maps but force deployment is a mess. It seems the maps and force size/mix and Quick Battles don't mix very well.

Also:

Too few maps and types, hopfully this will be addressed by user created maps.

I don't like the fact that I can't pick or purchase my own force, or at lease pick the size of the force (small, med, large) with different map sizes.

Why aren't forces automaticaly loaded?

I understand why there is no random maps (AI is now part of the map) but I don't understand why quick battles are so poorly implemented in SF when they worked so well other CM games.

[RedDevil]

it's part of that asymmetrical simulation theory..

If you can't see the enemy, it's just simulating a faulty INTEL report that insurgents were in the area, but they moved on before your men got there, thus this saves you time and you get to move onto the next battle in hopes that someone will be there to fight..

[Elmar Bijlsma]

LOL, that was a funny one.

Yeah, QB has some serious issues, I agree.

[thewood]

And the problem is QB was always the longevity behind CM. Yeah it had a good scenario editor and I loved playing good user made historical scenarios (it is actully my preference). But those take time and effort to create. I used QB as the filler in between and to experiment. I really think that the majority of people playing CM did the same thing.

Now with SF's editor being more powerful, we will get even better user scenarios. But the new power will narrow the number of people who can make a really good user scenario down even more. But the problem is, there is no good QB filler. Yes you might get a good generated QB now and then, but with the issues already noted and no random maps, I am seeing less that 25% (guess) of the generated QBs being playable or even interesting to play.

[Sivodsi]

I can't get QB to work at all. From the main directory I choose QB, select the options, then press ok and find myself back at the main directory. Huh? Trying to RTFM but can't find what I'm looking for. Must be doing something wrong but can't figure it out.

[Commissar]

For some reason, every QB that I've tried, the opposing side has all it's vehicles and tanks deployed with their backs facing me. I always played the Syrians so I don't know if this happens when you're the US, but when fighting the US apparently their TacAI tells them to expose their most vulnerable side to my guns from the get go. Definitely need to patch that up.

[thewood]

Its a bias to help US conquer Syria

[pad152]

I've given up on Quick Battles there no point in playing them they are just broken or unfinished. It's hard to believe this came from Battlefront, did they farm this out to someone who never played any the CM games?

I'm very disapointed.

[-E]

Originally posted by thewood:

I used QB as the filler in between and to experiment. I really think that the majority of people playing CM did the same thing.

Oooh! Guilty as charged your honor!

[PeterLorre86]

I definatly agree, after 2 days of playing, i have already played on the same city map 4 times.

Two of those times, while i was defending, the enemy did not leave it's set up zone.

[Sivodsi]

Okay I understand why my QB did not load: very simply there was no such map corresponding to the parameters that I'd entered.

But I cannot do what I want to do: face off some T-72s vs M-1s. Every time I seem to get something different. What options should I choose in order to do this?

[Adaephon]

I'm having a similar problem to Commissar, though while playing as the US. The defenders deployment is appalling, there's no other word for it. Tanks flaunting their flimsy behinds my way from the word go and refusing to turn even when they realise where my forces are coming from (this was already known in CMx1, what gives?!) and Syrian infantry opting for lying prone in short grass as supposed to setting up on or in buildings or at least within some form of cover. Oh, and once my Strykers opened fire on the aforementioned infantry, do they realise the folly of their ways and make a genuine attempt to find better cover, say maybe the building 10 feet to their left? The answer, tragically and depressingly, is no.

In fact, the only response I've witnessed from the AI when playing against Syrians in QB is return fire. Thats it. Thats not enough.

[Commissar]

Originally posted by Adaephon:

I'm having a similar problem to Commissar, though while playing as the US. The defenders deployment is appalling, there's no other word for it. Tanks flaunting their flimsy behinds my way from the word go and refusing to turn even when they realise where my forces are coming from (this was already known in CMx1, what gives?!) and Syrian infantry opting for lying prone in short grass as supposed to setting up on or in buildings or at least within some form of cover. Oh, and once my Strykers opened fire on the aforementioned infantry, do they realise the folly of their ways and make a genuine attempt to find better cover, say maybe the building 10 feet to their left? The answer, tragically and depressingly, is no.

In fact, the only response I've witnessed from the AI when playing against Syrians in QB is return fire. Thats it. Thats not enough.

Yup, that sounds all too familiar. It's because of that tacAI that my force of BMP-2s and supporting elements wiped out an entire M1 platoon and their support force. I didn't lose a single BMP. As much as I would love to say it was because of my superior knowledge of Soviet combat tactics, it was most certainly the lack of AI from the other side.

Looking at the tester list, it's full of old timers who have been playing CM since Beyond Overlord like I have. There is no doubt something like this was caught and pointed out, but it's also clear that Battlefront didn't bother to listen to them. Testers find "bugs" all the time, but that does not mean they actually get fixed. That's the decision of higher ups who may decide that the bug is so rare or difficult to reproduce, it's not worth wasting valuable time to fix. In other cases, the higher ups just decide to ignore the testers for whatever reason.

I'm not going to give a long rehash of the problems with this game. It's already been said and then some. As an old CM vet, I am just appalled at some design decisions Battlefront has made in this game. QB has been absolutely gutted: no ability to choose equipment, no dynamic maps (although I can understand this decision), tacAI just abysmal, and no ability to even increase or decrease when a battle ends....all of which were in previous CMs. All this is just the QB part of the game.

I've been wanting a CM dealing with modern combat for a very long time. In CMSF, I thought that finally came true. If I knew the game was in this state, I most definitely would not have pre-ordered. I hope that at the very least, the TacAI will be fixed. I'm just appalled that Battlefront decided to let this ship when the game is in this state. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any of the testers post and explain....I guess there is no need to guess why.

Oh and before anyone says I should just play battles, the AI there isn't all that good either. Yesterday, I played the second battle in the list and the US force just stood there. Didn't move one inch from their deployment zone. What's the point of these scenarios if the AI wont do anything? If the game is going to offer a choice of playing sides, the developers should at least make sure it's actually playable by either side.

[Redwolf]

I found it to be unusable, too.

Let's leave aside that an attacker's plan never seems to work (I assume this one comes from the original scenario that the map was picked from).

Even not counting that there are serious problems with enemy units facing and placements, no doubt from the fact that the map has these zones built in, but with different intentions. The problem now is, of course, that we can't pick the map. That's bad because there's no way to use quickbattles on maps that have not been purposefully made for quickbattles.

[thewood]

While I am not as harsh to BFC, I have to agree that there is no point in playing QBs. The TACAI has some serious problems right now also. Second one still makes the game playable and I am sure it will be a high priority to striaghten ou. The first one seems to be a deliberate design decision and my concern is how much influence we can have in getting it changed. BFC has their own vision and financial reponsibilites to contend with. My main concern is that if QB is not changed, longevity of CMSF will not be any where near the other CM titles.

[clcaldwell]

"Yesterday, I played the second battle in the list and the US force just stood there. Didn't move one inch from their deployment zone. What's the point of these scenarios if the AI wont do anything?"

Yeah, me too -- I wonder if that one is only supposed to be played from Blue?

I've read that the tactical vignettes scenarios are good -- I'm going to give those a try. And I'm sure that Battlefront will fix the problems with QBs -- I trust them on that score.

But I am slightly disappointed with the game so far.

-- nick

[George MC]

Some of the scenarios are only playable from one side. I guess playing as blue is the default. I do know, having made the tactical vignette series that there are AI plans for both sides.

Not sure though how you spot whether a scenario is playable from one side or other. I'd have to go check that one out.

Cheers fur noo

George

[thewood]

Originally posted by George Mc:

Some of the scenarios are only playable from one side. I guess playing as blue is the default. I do know, having made the tactical vignette series that there are AI plans for both sides.

Not sure though how you spot whether a scenario is playable from one side or other. I'd have to go check that one out.

Cheers fur noo

George

I would think it was like in CM or any other game...the scenario designer has to put it in the briefing.

[Lazy Gun]

On the Battle selection page, the description of the scenario tells you whether you should play as blue only.

For the 2nd battle on the list, Al Amarah, it clearly says "play as Blue only".

[Salkin]

Short answer to topic:

Don't play quickbattles vs the AI....yet.

//Salkin

[mystro]

Originally posted by Salkin:

Short answer to topic:

Don't play quickbattles vs the AI....yet.

//Salkin

Exactly...

BF knows they'd get bombarded with

issues which eventually will get worked out and everyone knows or should know the first copy of anything new is basically an advanced beta test.

Let's hope the BF gang doesn't slip into catering/replying to the whiner/bitch-er but instead focuses on the comments from members who are explicit with helpful detailed problems and issues..you just expect more of the BF forums.

[Fetchez la Vache]

My suggestion would be to have some standard "tactics" (and victory conditions) for each side that is picked either randomly or else dictated from the choice of opposing forces. This is opposed to dropping the forces in and giving the metaphorical shove in the middle of the back without any orders...

Such tactics might be "defend buildings" or "hit and run" or "bulldozer to the other side of the map". For example:

M1A1 platoon and support => bulldozer to other side asap

Uncon Fighters => hit and run

Syrian Infantry => ambush from defended buildings

The TacAI seems (from BF comments and b-tester comments) to require some element of scripting in order to perform optimally, hence the need for such an approach? And hence the poor performance I've witnessed in QB's?