QuickBattle tweaks

[Roter Stern]

My other suggestion for improving the current QB system is to expand on the force "Type" selection. Currently there are 7 settings - from Heavy Combined to Light Infantry. If it's possible to expand those with minimal hardcore recoding, it'd be nice to see two or three dozen different settings, which will hopefully allow for greater control over the forces picked.

No new UI elements would be required, just a matter of expanding the available drop-down options and adding a bit of new logic to pick the corresponding units.

Basically something along the lines of:

- Heavy Mech Infantry [bradly/BMP1&2] without Tank, ATGM, or Arty Support

- Heavy Mech Infantry [bradly/BMP1&2] without Tank or ATGM Support, with Arty

......and all permutations in between

- Heavy Mech Infantry [bradly/BMP1&2] with Tank, ATGM and Arty Support

- Light Mech Infantry [stryker/BTR] without Tank, ATGM, or Arty Support

.....and all permutations in between

- Light Mech Infantry [stryker/BTR] with Tank, ATGM and Arty Support

- Heavy Infantry [MOUT/SpecOps] without Tank, ATGM, or Arty Support

.... etc ...

.... etc ...

Could also be tied into the "Branch" setting - Branches could differentiate between Bradly and Stryker infantry, or between Regular and Reserve Syrian infantry; where as Type could define the specifics of Tank/ATGM/Arty/IED/etc support.

As a side note, since we're talking about tweaking the force generation logic - it'd be nice to have a mix of Branches... be nice to see an occasional tank or a SpecOps platoon when playing as the UNCONs ... or have a Bradley Recce element support a Stryker Company...etc Again, with any luck this can also be tied into an expanded Branches and Force Type settings.

I don't want to post another one of "if there was any forsight, this should be a piece of cake" post, since Steve got a rather bitter about my last one But as someone who spend the last half-decade writing query scripts for various databases, I would just like to point out what you should never hardcode things like user selection options and instead always have them drawn from a dynamic data set ... because you know, the one time you cut a corner and do it half-arsed, that computer illiterate accountant from the next office over will come running down to have you "just add a few extra options" to the drop-down. Piece of cake to him, complete script rewrite to you

[Sivodsi]

Being able to know exactly what unit you get for tanks, AFV, snipers, etc. before actually purchasing them.

Agreed.

Having an indication of the equipment that makes up the unit is important. If I want to pick up a platoon of T-72 turms-t then I should be able to find which unit they belong to and choose them. At present it is a lottery.

This would solve the problem you have when you try to test different equipment vs each other, but leaves open the problem of balance when you want to PBEM. Perhaps the only possible way is by gentleman's agreement?

Putting a value on modern equipment is difficult, but with experience some rules could be worked out for fairish matchups, as was done for CMX1.

[7thGalaxy]

It would be nice if the forces you were assigned were more relevent to the map - I keep getting a couple of MOUT platoons in a rural map, or a whole company of engineers where I really don't need them.

And there does need to be some balancing, sometimes I've had tonnes of troops on one side, and only one platoon on the other, without fiddling with the forces.

[c3k]

Yeah, feedback on forces PRIOR to start would be nice.

In the old days of CMx1, if I started a qb and the map was messed up, presto chango, I'd rip out a new one. Not much time lost.

I'm personally not very concerned about finely honed balance. Rough parity is close enough for me. Don't give me a platoon to attack a battalion.

Ken

[Paper Tiger]

I'm a bit late entering into this and I'd like to add my voice to the following suggestions...

1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randoly determined.

2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.

3 Finally,

[Paper Tiger]

I'm a bit late entering into this and I'd like to add my voice to the following suggestions...

1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randoly determined.

2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.

3

[Paper Tiger]

I'm a bit late entering into this and I'd like to add my voice to the following suggestions...

1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randomly determined.

2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.

3 Finally, better defined force types. I recently tried a medium sized Red v Red QB with both sides having Syrian mech infantry and I fired it up. I got a BTR Mech Infantry company (cool) and got it all set up and hit the start button. My opponent had a full company of T-72s with no infantry. Game Over. If I could set it up to avoid this, I'd definitely play QBs more frequently.

[Meach]

wow triple post!! good job!

[sdp]

Actually this might be somewhat off-topic;

I'd like to see the possibilty to import core-units for both sides in the scenario editor. Now, why is that? Because if that was possible it would open up a wealth of opportunities - one of them being the possibility for a GM to easily set up battles in a (future) metacampaign...

/sdp

[missinginreality]

Actually this might be somewhat off-topic;

I'd like to see the possibilty to import core-units for both sides in the scenario editor. Now, why is that? Because if that was possible it would open up a wealth of opportunities - one of them being the possibility for a GM to easily set up battles in a (future) metacampaign...

/sdp

Isn't that possible already as it stands? I thought the core units file could contain both red and blue?

[Chelco]

Unless the TacAI is given a bit more latitude in the decisions it can make by itself, the battle for a satisfying QB system will be always an uphill one.

[sdp]

missingreality;

Yeah, you're right, it is. I guess what i'm trying to say is that it would be neat to be able to import core-units for both sides - but from two separate files.

/sdp

[Cpl Steiner]

I would like to see:

1. Named maps to choose from when setting up a QB, each with a thumbnail image and a short description. This should also be supplemented with a "Random" option for when you don't care what the map looks like.

2. Some form of limited cherry picking of forces that still fits in with the new Command and Control functionality of the game.

3. Some forces arriving as reinforcements, with the option to make this random for the AI or both sides. It would be fun not knowing if the AI force you are facing is the whole force or if some will arrive later.

[TheVulture]

I would like to see:

3. Some forces arriving as reinforcements, with the option to make this random for the AI or both sides. It would be fun not knowing if the AI force you are facing is the whole force or if some will arrive later.

Ooh, that could be a nice feature. The swings of fortune as reinforcements arrive can add a fair amount of excitement to a game.

[Meach]

Steve?

You still scribbling, mate?

[missinginreality]

missingreality;

Yeah, you're right, it is. I guess what i'm trying to say is that it would be neat to be able to import core-units for both sides - but from two separate files.

/sdp

ah, good call

[Paper Tiger]

wow triple post!! good job!

Three points, three posts. What?

Actually, I have no idea how that happened. I was using the computer at work and it's riddled with viruses.

[Meach]

Ewwww viruses. Nasty. Workplaces never invest in proper Anti Virus protection then wonder why staff cannot use the PC's or if they do the work is lost or damaged.

[Mike Churchmoor]

1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randomly determined.

2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.

3 Finally, better defined force types. I recently tried a medium sized Red v Red QB with both sides having Syrian mech infantry and I fired it up. I got a BTR Mech Infantry company (cool) and got it all set up and hit the start button. My opponent had a full company of T-72s with no infantry. Game Over. If I could set it up to avoid this, I'd definitely play QBs more frequently.

Seconded!!

[bodkin]

Please let us choose a time limit for the QB's, at the moment on a small urban map we have 25mins to take a town, this just leads to unrealistic gamey rush type tactics with unnecessary casualties. An adjustable time limit is #1 on my list.

[Meach]

Not so trigger happy FO's. I set a small target arc for them to keep from firing and they blaze away and end up full of holes. There goes my arty mission.

[Lampshade111]

I would honestly just rather go back to the system in the original Combat Mission games. I don't know how this one was supposed to be better.

[Cid250]

I would honestly just rather go back to the system in the original Combat Mission games. I don't know how this one was supposed to be better.

Is not better... it's worse.

CMx1 will keep as far superior to the CMx2 WWII in QB flexibility.

I will stick with my CMx1, for sure. QBs have infinite posibilities in CMx1, i doesn't feel the need to buy a product that it's basically a "downgrade" in gameplay features with nice graphics.

Out there... the reality today is that the overwhelming majority of tournament's web pages, currently used CMx1 ... and this will continue in the future for their re-playability.

[Lethaface]

I thought this topic was about constructive ideas for the current QB's in CMSF. It has been stated over and over again that CMx1's QB system is better. It is however 100% sure that it wont come back so it doesn't have any value to mention this dead beaten horse over and over again.

[BigDork]

I don't have a lot new to add but want to throw my support behind selecting the map you will QB on and ensuring spotters have stuff to call in and vice versa.