I'm worried about the WWII release.

[LuckyStrike]

Just give us the ability to choose units. No need for points.

The only argument against this is that it wouldn't fit in with some (inflexibly designed) C2 system.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

Just give us the ability to choose units. No need for points.

The only argument against this is that it wouldn't fit in with some (inflexibly designed) C2 system.

Blame the real world armies whose C2 systems the game system is modelled on?

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

Just give us the ability to choose units. No need for points.

The only argument against this is that it wouldn't fit in with some (inflexibly designed) C2 system.

Why do BFC hate you so much?

[thewood]

I think that is a poor excuse. I understand the desire to force people to do it the right way, but POA2 has one of the most elaborate C2 systems ever developed for a wargame. The military actually helped build it to simulate communications during combat. They allow you to choose any unit you want. You do have to tinker with commnad structure through attachments. But it isn't difficult.

And let me tell you, with POA2's excellent freindly FOW system, if you set up your command structure wrong, you are completely dependent on the AI running units that drop off the net.

Let me clarify. POA2 does try to make you use TOEs just like SF, but the do make it easy to substitute in units and attach individual units.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

So many games have done it, paper and electronic, including the CM ones, that it's bizarre that you'd imply that it can't be done at all. You know this far better than I, I should think.

-dale

I never said it couldn't be done; I just know who does want to do it - and who doesn't.</font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Just give us the ability to choose units. No need for points.

The only argument against this is that it wouldn't fit in with some (inflexibly designed) C2 system.

Blame the real world armies whose C2 systems the game system is modelled on? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

dalem - I'm really not trying to be irritating. I certainly apologize if I've misquoted you. I'm not trying to be dismissive with my suggestion of "do it yourself", either. I'd genuinely love to see what the community can come up with in this regard.

I think the whole QB thing is becoming more trouble than its worth, even the limited "pick this, pick that" formation stuff. I'm rapidly beginning to lose sight of the attraction for these QBs. With a computer generated map and objectives (flags) I could see it for CMX1, but now with so much detail going in to victory conditions, I doubt the ability to create decent ones "on the fly". So even a "pick this, pick that" system seems to fail, point-based or not.

We have a very sophisticated scenario editor now and a much more flexible set of VCs to incorporate how this equipment is used. Imagine a scenario in the Ardennes where the Americans face a company of SS panzergrenadiers, and can claim victory not by occupying two bull**** flags on a hill that the computer generated, but by immobilizing a single King Tiger they have in support. And imagine that the Germans can shrug off their tank loss entirely to claim a win, and instead have been tasked to reconnoiter your rear areas, represented by a touch objective just back of the Baugnez crossroads.

Now imagine that in Syria.

Totally different game than planting a couple of flags and picking equal forces and blazing away in a meeting engagement. I'm not telling anyone how to play, but give it some time and we'll start to see some quality scenarios - I hope - that will be more interesting and more importantly, more capable of providing balanced, fun scenarios than any kind of computer pick or human shopping experience can provide.

[dalem]

MD-

#1, I understand your point and I don't think you're being irritating.

#2, imagine a guy who really really really likes doing what CM did so well - let me screw around in WWII without getting anyone killed. Do I know what the paper OBs were? Sure, I've got stacks of 'em, so do you. Do I also have reams of AARs and historical analyses that relate battles with tons of weird, strange, and ad hoc forces? Sure I do, so do you.

So if the scenario editor is supposed to take the place of QBs, then I can get used it I guess, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. And with no random maps I was already on the fence. All I can say at this point is that I have a Very Bad feeling about this. I was gonna buy SF for learning the map editor, but now I'll wait for the WWII version to see if I even want to buy that one. Bummer for me.

And the lack of any effort on the part of the BFC team to help us "old timers" along into their vision is unsurprising, but still aggravating.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Fair enough, dalem. I was surprised to see the demo has a scenario editor with some functionality in it - you can create terrain and look at AI plans, anyway. Kind of a nice touch. I don't know if that will answer your questions, but you can get your feet wet in there. I haven't looked at it too closely myself.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Can we make scenarios without knowing exactly what the oppo force is going to consist of? That's what I like about SP QB's - not knowing what's gonna come a-trundling around the next mosque.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

Can we make scenarios without knowing exactly what the oppo force is going to consist of? That's what I like about SP QB's - not knowing what's gonna come a-trundling around the next mosque.

Not by yourself. You'd have to find a willing partner to create double-blind scenarios in the editor.

[aka_tom_w]

link here for background review of POA2 if you are interested

Originally posted by thewood:

And let me tell you, with POA2's excellent freindly FOW system, if you set up your command structure wrong, you are completely dependent on the AI running units that drop off the net.

Let me clarify. POA2 does try to make you use TOEs just like SF, but the do make it easy to substitute in units and attach individual units.

[RabidRabbit]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

[QB] BF and Steve in particular are adamant that the bulk of their customers play vs the AI. /QB]

I think that would be a fair assessment, especially given the difficulty in trying to find an online match with no chat rooms.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

Can we make scenarios without knowing exactly what the oppo force is going to consist of? That's what I like about SP QB's - not knowing what's gonna come a-trundling around the next mosque.

Not by yourself. You'd have to find a willing partner to create double-blind scenarios in the editor. </font>

[M1A1TC]

I like doing double-blind scenarios with my fiance

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I like doing double-blind scenarios with my fiance

Don't flatter yourself, she probably prefers the blindfold just to get through the experience. *wink*<---

[rlg85]

I think they point we're all missing is, how are QB being balanced now?

I think they fact that BFC wants to avoid any kind of balancing (points, whatever system you want) explains the crazy results people are getting out of QB forces, and pretty much makes QBs useless.

So please, at least let us choose formations in Shock force (For C&C reasons) and then come up with a believable reason why there will never be a points system in CMx2 for WWII(You said it , not me.) Because C&C wont fly, and despite the arguements of a few on the forums over the value of a Bren or whatever, I think most people loved the previous CMx1 system in the context of WWII, regardless of whatever flaws it may have had.

Flaws and all, the old system of cherry picking gameyness certainly beat the unplayablity we have today (Or maybe the absurd forces I keep getting from the AI is a fluke on my computer?)

[Fetchez la Vache]

Agreed. We need to choose formations. It's not just your computer.

[Xipe66]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

Can we make scenarios without knowing exactly what the oppo force is going to consist of? That's what I like about SP QB's - not knowing what's gonna come a-trundling around the next mosque.

Not by yourself. You'd have to find a willing partner to create double-blind scenarios in the editor. </font>

[McIvan]

Surely there is some sort of valuing system already, or how do QB's get picked already? You can increase your force by 150%.....well....150% of WHAT?!?

That's been picked up on at least twice already in this thread, but it's not being acknowledged. How exactly does it work?

I'm unable to see why cross-attachments aren't possible from other units if you are interested in simulating realism. If it's an impossiblity from the programming point of view then fine, can live with that.

[Shrap]

Why not just forget about any system and jsut let us pick what we want?

For MP they can agree on a system or come up with a point system (someone wil eventually coem up w/ a decent one).

That way those of us who like to create QA against the AI can still choose what goes into battle.

You could make a check box that toggles on the way it is now to the pick what you want system for MP.

Better than not having it at all IMHO.

[Feltan]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board.

If anyone can present a logical and balanced system for point purchase that they prove can be workable, fun, and manageable, I'd love to see it presented here in Excel or whatever format you choose.

I'm deadly serious. If you think it can be done - prove it. Doesn't require any coding. It's not an unreasonable request. You'd be doing the community a favour, and going a long way to convincing BF.C that they "should" include it, by proving first that it "can" be done.

Michael,

You do remember that Steel Panthers had a point based QB system & a point based dynamic campaign (where units actually appeared in all the scenarios). That was what, ten years ago? It was probably the main reason I played that game. I don't find the requests for something similar here that far off the mark of expectations. And, frankly, I am a bit perplexed by the pushback on such a seemingly modest request.

Regards,

Feltan

[dalem]

Originally posted by Shrap:

Why not just forget about any system and jsut let us pick what we want?

For MP they can agree on a system or come up with a point system (someone wil eventually coem up w/ a decent one).

That way those of us who like to create QA against the AI can still choose what goes into battle.

You could make a check box that toggles on the way it is now to the pick what you want system for MP.

Better than not having it at all IMHO.

Steve sez it cannot and will not be done and it's Steve's game. That's why.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Feltan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board.

If anyone can present a logical and balanced system for point purchase that they prove can be workable, fun, and manageable, I'd love to see it presented here in Excel or whatever format you choose.

I'm deadly serious. If you think it can be done - prove it. Doesn't require any coding. It's not an unreasonable request. You'd be doing the community a favour, and going a long way to convincing BF.C that they "should" include it, by proving first that it "can" be done.

Michael,

You do remember that Steel Panthers had a point based QB system & a point based dynamic campaign (where units actually appeared in all the scenarios). That was what, ten years ago? It was probably the main reason I played that game. I don't find the requests for something similar here that far off the mark of expectations. And, frankly, I am a bit perplexed by the pushback on such a seemingly modest request.

Regards,

Feltan </font>

[thewood]

I actually don't see the problem, conceptually, of just allowing a pick and choose for units. Let us assign HQ and live with the consequences. All it does is make the customers job a little easier more enjoyable.