Thoughts on solo Quick Battle additions or improvements

[Abbott]

Due to my very slow Internet connection and usually mean demeanor I often find myself playing solo Quick Battles. I prefer 500 to 800 point battles and I will let the computer pick both sides for some variety. However the constant stream of computer picked half-tracks sometimes becomes annoying. I then will load and quit several QB’s until a reasonable (to me) interesting or fun troop mix and map is obtained. Often I have to resort to “human” picks for the side I will be playing. I am not complaining and do realize what I think is fun or interesting is not what the next player finds interesting or fun.

I can easily live with the present system but I would sure enjoy seeing a few more options of some type or another when setting up Quick Battles.

Something else I would like to see would be the option of re-playing some of the more entertaining or tense QB’s from the opposite side.

I would cheerfully read anyone else’s thoughts or interests on the subject.

[J Ruddy]

I think a few other posts mentioned this: I would like to be able to save a battle as a new Scenario.

In your case, Abbott, you would save your game in the deployment phase as a new scenario. Then you could go back, open the scenario and play on the opposing side with the exact units that the AI (or your opponant) had.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I think a few other posts mentioned this: I would like to be able to save a battle as a new Scenario.

In your case, Abbott, you would save your game in the deployment phase as a new scenario. Then you could go back, open the scenario and play on the opposing side with the exact units that the AI (or your opponant) had.

Of course this would open up the opportunity to cheat in a PBEM game as you could save the game as a scenario and view your opponants layout. I imagine there would have to be some kind of red flag that would need to be sent to the other player(s) (still hoping for 4 player) to let them know you've created a scenario from the battle.

[SlowMotion]

I wrote my suggestion in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000156;p=1#000023

It could easily remove some of those uninteresting purchases. You don't like getting HTs? Exclude them from the list that is available in the purchasing phase. Or want to play a QB with certain tanks only? Exclude all others and there you have it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

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

I think a few other posts mentioned this: I would like to be able to save a battle as a new Scenario.

In your case, Abbott, you would save your game in the deployment phase as a new scenario. Then you could go back, open the scenario and play on the opposing side with the exact units that the AI (or your opponant) had.

Of course this would open up the opportunity to cheat in a PBEM game as you could save the game as a scenario and view your opponants layout. I imagine there would have to be some kind of red flag that would need to be sent to the other player(s) (still hoping for 4 player) to let them know you've created a scenario from the battle. </font>

[Josh Coady]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Due to my very slow Internet connection and usually mean demeanor I often find myself playing solo Quick Battles. I prefer 500 to 800 point battles and I will let the computer pick both sides for some variety. However the constant stream of computer picked half-tracks sometimes becomes annoying. I then will load and quit several QB’s until a reasonable (to me) interesting or fun troop mix and map is obtained. Often I have to resort to “human” picks for the side I will be playing. I am not complaining and do realize what I think is fun or interesting is not what the next player finds interesting or fun.

I can easily live with the present system but I would sure enjoy seeing a few more options of some type or another when setting up Quick Battles.

I agree with everything here. Because of the computer picked jeeps and halftracks I started picking my own side, but that still left the opposition wanting...

It would be nice to select a general force composition whose units were randomly selected by the computer.

-Josh

[roqf77]

hmmm. maybe set up like thus.

800 points total.

400 from infantry

100 from support

100 from vehicles

200 from tanks etc?

[dalem]

I like the idea of being able to pick general types of groups - i.e.

- "armored platoon"

- "armored platoon (dismounted)"

- "AT platoon"

- "towed AA section"

and rough setting:

- "defend crossroads"

- "defend village"

- "probe forward"

Stuff like that. I still think the current selections for QBs are pretty great, but I would like some more depth available.

-dale

[Dirtweasle]

I agree with Abbott and Dale.

Another thing i was thinking about is deeper maps, and something like layered set up zones to go with them. Sometimes when I build a custom scenario I'll build it where the front trace of the deployment zone is, just for instance, a statc set up of MGs, ATGs, maybe an arty FO and a few rifle squads here and there, the next layer featuring the first wave of the attack, organic support, etc., and the third layer maybe armor or mobile reinforcements.

[SlowMotion]

That layered setup zone could be used for another purpose as well.

In CMBB and CMAK it was possible to use the map and units of a battle as the starting point of the next quick battle. You could continue where the previous battle ended - it would work a bit like "quick operation". One difficulty here was that all QBs had to use same setup zones. On a larger map, many of the turns would be used just for moving slower units forward.

This could be improved if:

-the battle file would contain info about the battle sequence number, ie. is it battle #1, #2 and so on.

-one could mark for setup zones which battles they are for.

Then one could have setup areas for battle1, another ones for battle2 etc.

[Andrew H.]

I like Dale's suggestion, but I would also like to be able to choose a force and have the computer automatically generate an appropriate opposing force.

I.e., if I wanted to have a QB with a US infantry company, a platoon of paratroopers, two squads of engineers,a platoon of Hellcats, two 81 mm mortars, and two 105 mm FO's, it would be much more convenient to just pick the force and have the computer deal with the rest than to try and figure out what size battle I need to fight by looking up the point values of the individual units.

This would also come in handy if you wanted to play a company of sturmtigers...

[Cpl Steiner]

I often use the Map Generator to come up with maps for a proper scenario, as I'm too lazy to make one from scratch. However, I usually have to click "Generate" a lot of times to get a map like I want, e.g. crossroads, hills left to right, small town, etc.

It would be nice if you could tell the random map generator roughly what you want, and let it generate the rest.

For instance: -

Road from North to South.

Road from East to West.

Road from East to Middle (T-Junction).

Small Hill at point (x,y).

Medium Hill at point (x,y).

Large Hill at point (x,y).

Rural at point (x,y).

Urban level 1 at point (x,y).

Urban level 2 at point (x,y).

etc.

I suppose what I'm looking for is a map generator that takes parameters for specific zones rather than just the whole map.

I doubt it will happen, but does this interest anyone?

[Dogface]

I have to agree with Abbott and Steiner.

I enjoy the smaller 700 - 900 pt battles, or even me with 2 plt of grn - reg and limited support (1 gun or mg and bren/bar) and the AI with 700 - 1000+ pts. So the problem I face some times would be dealt with by 2 point totals. 350 for me and 1100 for AI for example. That way I could auto pick both sides.

I find that with the maps I do what steiner does constantly reloading in the editor untill I find the map I want. Or just giving up and rebuilding a pregenerated one untill it suits me. This would be so much easier if some constraints were able to be set with pregenerated maps. I do understand however that this could be another brain ache for Charles (not headache being that he doesnt have one.)