CMSF - Step back?

[Battlefront.com]

There is, of course, a big difference between suggesting and whining. There is always a little whining when the issue is central to people's enjoyment of the game as a whole. Some people honestly don't know how to communicate without whining. I blame their parents and society as a whole (now that I'm safely out of school, I think teachers should be rearmed with paddles, brushes, and other implements with rear end reddening purposes ).

We definitely erred too much on one side with the CM:SF QB system. We took the problems inherent with the CMx1 system and overcompensated. We realized that pretty quickly, however we decided that minor changes wouldn't suffice. That's why there have been no significant improvements to the QB system thus far. It's just not worth our time to mess around with something this big that we know, for sure, that we're just going to toss out in favor of a completely new system. Better to use our limited time on things that people want AND which will carry forward.

The new system will bring us into balance between what CMx1 was and what CM:SF tried to be. As things get more firmed up I'll bring the design concepts to you guys to kick around a bit.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thewood,

Just to make sure I understand; this new OOB system won't be in CMSF, ever. But it will be in CMSF2 or what it ends up being calle.

It will make its first appearance with the first WW2 release, which is Normandy, and will continue from there. As far as we are concerned CM:SF has been a "complete" game for some time now, though we've still improved it for no charge with v1.10 in particular. Remember that CMx2 is designed to be a continuum system, so to speak, with no real beginning or end to it. However, for obvious reasons at some point we have to say "this game system is done, now we're working on the next one". v1.10 is, basically, the last major patch for CM:SF. It's a whopper too After that we're talking about maintenance and minor tweaks only.

Steve

[Sivodsi]

So no changes at all planned to the current CMSF QB system?

That is disappointing. The current one is an exercise in frustration. There are times when all you really want is a tank vs tank slug fest, with a sprinkling of a few other units, but end up with a herd of bmps.

I can understand the need to spend resources where they are most needed, but surely something could be done to facilitate the QB system to allow greater flexibility...?:confused:

[Battlefront.com]

The problem is that there really isn't anything we can do for the existing QB system that would produce a satisfactory result for you guys without significant effort on our part. And that effort would be tossed out as soon as we started working on the new QB system.

Having said that, there may be very simple things that I personally can do that can make very modest improvements to the QB choices. If there is, then I can make some tweaks without taking Charles away from more important tasks. Like making a completely new QB system

The problem with feedback on the QB system thus far is that everything suggested is fundamental in nature. The biggest example of this being "cherry picking" units since there is no UI to support such a thing, nor an underlying system to make such choices fair and balanced.

So if I understand your request, Sivodsi, you're asking for the ability to be assured of getting a Red tank force and not have a chance of getting a Mech Infantry force instead? This may be something that I can do.

The best way to go about this is for me to start up a new thread about QBs, therefore I started up this thread here.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

What about using dollar values. An M1A1 is worth $1 million and an M1A2 is worth $1.1 Million. Training costs for each American soldier is $120,000 taking into account inflation and exchange rates (-20% for ages over 35, but always start fatigued), this seems like an easy thing to implement (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

Cherry-picking still has to be based upon some sort of intrinsic value to have a fair QB system. If I have a love of PzIIIs and you have a Love for JS-IIs, and there is no intrinsic value assigned, then I might have 5 x PZIIIs vs your 5 x JS-IIs. No fun to play. Or everyone ends up with just the latest and greatest units.

You have to take Command & Control into account. With much less C3I in yesterdays battlefield, it may not have as much of an impact but your troops still fight better when under the eyes of a senior unit. I just want the ability to create some of my favourite scenarios from CMBB/CMAK. As long as I have the ability to create a scenario the way I like it, (broken units, special one-off units, fragmented units) then I am happy.

If I can re-create "Meeting in the Wind" from CMAK and "Royal Opponent" from CMBB as well as other memorable scenarios, I will be a happy camper.

[Battlefront.com]

We've got a system in mind, but intrinsic value isn't a good indicator. Some vehicles are very expensive and not very useful, others are very cheap and not found in great numbers and yet are quite useful. Etc.

We do have a system in mind that values units similar to CMx1, but not in as rough or as an explicit way. More on that later

Steve

[Sivodsi]

So if I understand your request, Sivodsi, you're asking for the ability to be assured of getting a Red tank force and not have a chance of getting a Mech Infantry force instead? This may be something that I can do.

The best way to go about this is for me to start up a new thread about QBs, therefore I started up this thread here.

Steve

Thanks Steve, appreciate it!