New QB maps fix many issues

[Andrew H.]

I mentioned this briefly in another thread, but I think it's important and worth expanding upon. A few days ago, I downloaded the 20 new QB maps posted on CMMODS by MarkEzra and used them to replace the QB maps that came with the game. This has, at least so far, vastly improved my QBs. The AI controlled enemy troops are now behaving much more realistically. They seem smarter and I'm losing against the AI in QBs now because they are playing smarter (and not due to troop selection issues, weird set up locations, etc.)

Alternatively, there may be something in the new maps that makes me dumber.

This makes me wonder to what extent some of the unrealistic behavior we sometimes see has to do with mapmakers and scenario designers still being at the beginning of the learning curve.

More importantly - and I think this is also worth emphasizing - the stratAI's behavior on the new maps is *much* better than it would have been in CMx1. Better StratAI was one of the promised benefits for CMx2 that I, at least, was looking forward to..and based on playing of QBs vs. the AI so far it seems to be present.

Here is a concrete example. I'm doing a meeting engagement; I have a small Syrian armor force with a platoon of T-72s and a handful of other infantry. I've forgotten exactly what map I chose, but it's fairly hilly, with a sort of saddle in the middle that's open, with higher hills on both sides of the saddle. My troops and the AI troops both start on slopes that lead up to the saddle.

On the right side of the map there is a fairly covered approach that leads to the other side of the map; it is only wide enough for two tanks to pass through at it's narrowest part, but it is screened from the rest of the map by higher hills (and by the map edge on the other side).

I'm not sure I would have done this against a live player, but I send two of my tanks hunting down the narrow covered route and hold the other tank and infantry in reserve in the center. But the AI was too smart for this plan; it left put an infantry squad with ATGMs in cover covering the route; they destroyed my two tanks before I even spotted them. Just a few turns later, the AI's main armor force crested the ridge and my remaining tank and most of my infantry were immediately destroyed by the bradleys and M-1s of the main force.

A couple of points: 1st, at the risk of being repetitive, this was a QB, not a scenario. IME, the CMx1 AI would never have covered that smallish lane with, say, an AT gun. In CMx1, I may have had a fight on my hands once I was in the AI's rear area (because I would be outnumbered and because AI tanks sometimes mill around in rear areas, and so might have been facing me coincidentally).

2d, the AI force that came through the middle was in an effective formation - the M-1s and bradleys led, with the infantry 100-200 meters behind them. (The armor was kind of in a gaggle rather than tight platoons, but they were close enough together to provide supporting fire for each other and to concentrate fire on enemy units without being right on top of each other.) I don't think that a CMx1 force would have had such an efficient formation - IME they tended be in a wide line formation, which did not provide good supporting fire to other units if there was a lot of cover.

3d, the AI force moved quickly - more quickly than the the relatively leisurely AI tended to move in x1. I suspect that they were Hunting, but I can't be sure. Regardless, they got to the center of the map sooner than I was expecting.

Anyway, while I don't want to claim that this is perfect, I do want to note that, with the new maps, the strat AI is both (1) not broken and (2) better than x1's. And I can't wait to see how maps develop after the makers have been doing this for a while.

But my advice would be to go to CMMODs and download the new maps.

(My advice to BFC would be to include these new maps in 1.04, if possible).

[MikeyD]

Oh yeh, BIG difference with a proper map.

My last attempt at a QB map I took the time to fill ALL the AI orders slots with as many movement variations as I could imagine. Now when I play a QB on that map and the AI might rush me, may swing left, may swing right, might occupy defensive positions and wait for me. It takes a LOT of up-front work but a QB can be made to rock like a proper scenario.

[Mishga]

Glad you liked the maps, Andrew.

Mark and Myself worked on them and tested, tested, tested and then ....tested some more to ensure a decent play experience, hopefully from both sides of the battle.

There is a new and improved map pack coming this weekend with another stonking 20 maps/scenarios all with good AI scripts. I really hope you like these ones too!

[pad152]

Thanks for the maps, but are only one aspect, the force selection is still a major issue. You can't control the battle type or size until the player has some control over force selection. I hope the TO&E starts getting some attention in the next patch.

[ September 12, 2007, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: pad152 ]

[MikeyD]

That frustrates me too. You always could take that 'final step' and drop the forces you want into the QB map in the editor and save as a 'regular' scenario with the QB AI orders in place.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Glad you liked the maps, Andrew.

Mark and Myself worked on them and tested, tested, tested and then ....tested some more to ensure a decent play experience, hopefully from both sides of the battle.

There is a new and improved map pack coming this weekend with another stonking 20 maps/scenarios all with good AI scripts. I really hope you like these ones too!

Yes, I'm really looking forward to those, too.

[MarkEzra]

Mishga continues to produce most of the maps. But we view it as a group effort. We have a couple more guys on board and they are hard at work on Vol 3...

I can announce that Vol 2 has meet it's 20 map metric and is in final testing prior to upload to CMMODS. Vol 2 concentrates on Meeting Engagement Maps of all terrain types. They all have multiple Advance routes for both sides and are generally well balanced maps for PBEM, TCP, and Hot seat play as well. Something I'm particularly happy about.

[pcelt]

I would like to endorse the appreciation for the maps and AI in the new maps---but like many others have indicated, for me, QBs are often being totally ruined by

a)Bizarre combos of units but also by rediculously disproportionate troop allocations.I was initially getting such feeble opposition (red) numbers that I have recently been allocating extra percentages (30-70%) to Red .

But I have just fought a Defensive battle V Red attack where I received 3 Stryker Mobile Guns and the opposition (I discovered after my sad defeat) attacked with 1 T72, 12 BMP2s and 138 infantry including many anti-armour units.

Maybe my tactics with my 3 Mobile Guns could have been better and I should have decimated them all-- but until the unit allocation factor can really be repaired and made more balanced and realistic all these excellent new maps and AI are unfortunately sadly undermined.

Does anyone know if this "allocation" aspect features in BFs patching plans . Some major improvement here is essential if QBs are to again become a truly viable and valuable element within CMSF

Thanks again,however, to you guys doing such good work re the QB maps and AI components.

[Cameroon]

Grrr - reading this here at work makes me really wish I were home playing CM

We're all getting hit by the QB troop purchasing (Mishga and I were discussing it in the tech support forum) and it's really unfortunate since it does make a good QB that much harder to come by. Still, I'm looking forward to getting home sometime tonight and trying out the first volume. Thanks for all the effort everyone!

[jomni]

He might have fixed the AI but force selection is still questionable.

[reel-why]

So do the new QB maps overwrite the ones included in CMSF or are they additional maps? I was sort of hesitant to dl them because from the wording on the site it seems like they're a replacement. Of course now that I have some people telling me their a worthwhile replacement I might just dl them anyway, but the idea of overwriting and losing other maps makes me edgy.

[Paper Tiger]

reel-why: simple solution to your dilemma, copy the quick battle folder to another location on your hard drive or a CD before installing the new maps. Ta dah!

[reel-why]

good thinking! New QB maps it is!

[MarkEzra]

They do not overwrite the existing QB maps. All QBG maps have there own distinctive name.

[jomni]

That's good because the more maps the merrier.

QB's will be varied this time.

[Mishga]

Keep watching this space....more maps are...imminent...

[GonzoAttacker]

still watching this page

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

They do not overwrite the existing QB maps. All QBG maps have there own distinctive name.

he may have simply been over writing a entire folder/directory of the same name:

"Quick Battles"

perhaps

[SlapHappy]

Why do all the enemy forces get placed in a bunch and then sit there like slugs? I haven't played one yet where they don't sit there in their setup positions in a huge cluster...what gives?

Is meeting engagement the only type where they will move?

[MarkEzra]

I think you may be using the original maps. If that is correct you might want to down load the QBG maps on: CMMODS.com

If that is not the case please send me a screen shot of the map and explanation of the battle type/size you had trouble with...my email is above. One final thought. If you just added our QBG maps to your original then please consider removing those originals and just use QBG maps...In the CM:SF Quick Battle Maps file you can ALWAYS tel QBG maps because those are the only ones that have QBG in the name. Hope this helps...

[SlapHappy]

Thanks...I'll try that! Removing the old maps, that is......

[MarkEzra]

Hi Slap: Great...I'll let you in on a secret: The QB Group is hard a work on an Entirely different concept of QB Map Use, We are creating a Large Map Only Vol which will allow The QB Player to play ANY size game on a large map. This will be a Stand alone file to use rather than your current QB Map files. It will require the player to save the original Quick Battle Map (or just change the Name a bit).

How did we do it you ask? It was so simple I kicked myself for not "getting it" sooner. Here's the recipe for you cooks at home:

1. Take One large map (My Opinion: 1000 x 600

or Larger)

2. Change the size to "Medium"

3. Change the file name to whatever you like

and SAVE.

4. Repeat for "Small" NOTE: You Only need to have Copies of Small, Medium, and Large to access ALL the sizes (Huge/Tiny).

QB Group should have that to you in the next Week or so.

[mutait]

I just wanted to add my quick thanks to MarkEzra and Mishga and the rest. Your quick battle maps have saved the game for me. (I was about to shelve it at least until 1.04 came out.) I've always been a CM quick battle / random battle fan, but the lack of variety and poor design (sorry, BF) of the original CMSF maps really disappointed me. Even the lack of choice in force composition doesn't bother me as much now -- in fact it's kind of fun to put all settings on random and just go with it. I appreciate your hard work, people, and look forward to what comes next. JT

[Sixxkiller]

The biggest problem with the released QB maps was actually two fold. First off, every beta version seemed to add stuff which would break stuff put into the maps, especially the AI planning. Then they would have to be redone multiple times as Charles is much faster programming than we were at making maps.

Second, we were not only learning the game and dealing with many more bugs and features that werent implemented till later, but then the announcement of when the game was to be released was imminent. A lot of us were very new at this point. So in a way the QB maps weren't all BFC's fault. Oh ya and remember most of us if not all have jobs and families that take time out of our testing time too.

But Combat Mission is more than a game, its a community. So there wasnt much of a worry that it wouldnt get better.

[thewood]

It was actually BFC's fault for not giving you a realistic timetable. We all know the reasons, but its still BFC's responsibility.