Request: Clearer QB Setup Menu

[DzrtFox]

One thing I've noticed when setting up Quick Battles is that it can be confusing sometimes as to which side you are actually taking. Under the force setup at the bottom, each side is simply listed as "Attacker" and "Defender". You can set the sides to either Red or Blue, but then when you go to actually select your side when the battle starts, your choices are Red or Blue.

This is confusing sometimes when setting up battles like Meeting Engagements, or when you are using Red or Blue on both sides.

Or maybe I'm just stupid....

[slug88]

I agree, it would be better if we had something like force 1 and force 2, rather than red and blue, which can confusingly change meanings.

[Mishga]

And more sliders to choose from. Supply, Leadership, Morale and Motivation etc etc. As it stands all that is lumped into Quality, as far as I can tell.

Good quality red infantry are usually very low on ammo and only ever reach green. More options equals more fun. I would also like to be able to tailor things a bit more for QB's.

[Pandur]

i find that it is pretty straight forward! if you play blue vs red, blue is always US and red always syria, no matter who attacks and defends. if you play blue on blue or red on red, blue is always the attacker and red the defender. nothing complicated about it.

[DzrtFox]

It's not that it's complicated, it's just confusing (especially to a newcomer to the game). If you pick a Red vs. Red battle, why should one side have to choose Blue?

[DzrtFox]

Sorry to bump my own post, but I was thinking about this and I think the ideal solution would be to make the Force Selection screen a little more dynamic... It's fine as is for Red vs. Blue battles but maybe for Red vs. Red and Blue vs. Blue battles the Force Selection screen could say "Red Attacker" vs. "Red Defender" or something similar. Even slug's idea of Force 1/Force 2 is better than how it currently is IMO. I know this isn't a huge deal but it's just one of those things that would make the game a little more user-friendly.

Plus ::glances around for flamingknives:: it seems like it wouldn't be TOO difficult to implement...

[Combatintman]

Sorry I agree with Pandur - its not rocket science.

[Pandur]

If you pick a Red vs. Red battle, why should one side have to choose Blue?

thats easy, becouse both cant be "red" THAT would be confusing

you must not stick a colour to a "nation" in your memory. you could do that when we would have flags instead of colours! if BLUE would be "stars and stripes" and RED the syrian flag instead, than your question is legitime. but RED and BLUE!? why cant syria play BLUE too when the other side is RED already, its not reserved for the US side only, like a flag would be!

[DzrtFox]

The confusion comes because if you pick Random Red it gives you basically a Syrian force and if you pick Random Blue you get a U.S. force correct?

I know once you make the distinction in your head it's not that hard but for a first-time player I know I was like "ummm, which side am I supposed to pick" on my first QB. One of the knocks on this game when it came out was the clumsy interface and this is just a suggestion that I think would be easy to implement that would make things much clearer.