QuickBattle tweaks

[Jak170]

ACtually, now that I think of it, I really would like to set my time limits. And specific maps but if I had to pick one, i would pick time limits.

[Cid250]

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.

In WWII many of the tactics were based in task-forces, or mission-oriented forces. Some units were composed entirely for the task... and CMx2 will lack of that flexibility, wich means a "fail" in undestanding WWII era tactics.

[Paper Tiger]

Some units were composed entirely for the task... and CMx2 will lack of that flexibility, wich means a "fail" in undestanding WWII era tactics.

Woah there. What are you basing that opinion on? I know you've got a big problem with CMSF and you're entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure that when CMx2 Normandy comes out, you'll be playing it and dancing in the streets.

[Cid250]

Woah there. What are you basing that opinion on? I know you've got a big problem with CMSF and you're entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure that when CMx2 Normandy comes out, you'll be playing it and dancing in the streets.

Wrong, i will not buy any of the CMx2 releases if the development path continues this way. Eyecandy is not enought for me to buy a WWII game.

[ChrisND]

Wrong, i will not buy any of the CMx2 releases if the development path continues this way. Eyecandy is not enought for me to buy a WWII game.

So long, nice knowing you!

[Other Means]

In WWII many of the tactics were based in task-forces, or mission-oriented forces. Some units were composed entirely for the task... and CMx2 will lack of that flexibility, wich means a "fail" in undestanding WWII era tactics.

Why do you think this?

[Battlefront.com]

Other Means,

Why do you think this?

Nothing I've said should make him think that way, that's for sure I've said the opposite. The new QB system will allow people to cherry pick, but it will also allow things to be done within proper military structures. That's to offer more realistic QBs, and since realism is supposedly important to our customers, it should be welcomed.

Keep in mind that it is completely, and utterly, ridiculous to say that commanders approached battles in WW2 with a shopping cart like you guys were able to do in CMx1. "Let's see... I'l take 2x M10s, 2x platoons of Infantry, uhhmmm... OH! And some more mortars and MGs, that would be good too. Let's see what is in Isle 5 that I might need" In other words, if someone wants to argue in favor of Cherry Picking that's fine... just don't confuse it with reality, because in reality commanders went into almost all combat with whatever they happen to have on hand at the time. And when they did customize their force they did so with major constraints.

What the new QB system will do is offer people the unrealistic, but arguably fun, Cherry Picking option. It will also offer realistic military organized, and reorganized, forces for those who want to trade off a bit of open-ended fun for a bit more realism. And to have those selections be better balanced and predictable than is currently the case in CM:SF.

Still, the new QB system will not be a blind copy of what was in CMx1. There are shortcomings in that system and a list of things people want that CMx1 didn't offer. Just reading this thread it should be clear to anybody reading that the CMx1 system wasn't some sort of Holy Grail that can't be improved on. Clearly that isn't the case. And if one goes back and reads the criticism of the CMBO and CMBB systems when they were new, one will find even more sources of complaint and suggestions for improvements.

In the end the thing people want the most in a QB system is more control over what shows up after all the settings have been tweaked. We're going to deliver that, so that's assured. The level of control will be similar to what was in CMx1, but it will not be done through the same exact mechanics.

Steve

[Meach]

Sounds good to me. Now, where's the Marine Module download?

[MeatEtr]

Keep in mind that it is completely, and utterly, ridiculous to say that commanders approached battles in WW2 with a shopping cart like you guys were able to do in CMx1. "Let's see... I'l take 2x M10s, 2x platoons of Infantry, uhhmmm... OH! And some more mortars and MGs, that would be good too. Let's see what is in Isle 5 that I might need"

Steve

LoL, I know but it's so damn fun shopping at Wars R Us!

[salwon]

Why not cherry picking of actual forces instead of "Let's see... I'l take 2x M10s, 2x platoons of Infantry, uhhmmm... OH! And some more mortars and MGs, that would be good too. Let's see what is in Isle 5 that I might need"? I think we can all agree that that makes no sense at all (at least, I hope we can agree on that!), but why can't I set the force size and decide from there? You shouldn't be able to pick anything in less than platoon strength, except MAYBE in the case of individual vehicles in the smallest size battle. But if I choose a medium size, then I can get a full Stryker company and one attached unit - do I choose an Abrams platoon or some heavy artillery and air support? Or go the other way - if I want to play with armor, I'll get an armored company but with a Bradley platoon for recce duty. There's no way to split the difference and get one extra mortar and one tank or something ridiculous like that, but this way you get control over what forces you have. Something like this would work in very nicely with the photoshop from the first page.

Summary - Cherry picking of platoon level and higher only.

Oh, and also, map size and force size need to be independent.

And time limits need to be changeable, including no limit.

I'm done here

[Battlefront.com]

The concept behind the new QB system is exactly this *and* the ability to go shopping at Wars R Us The choice should be up to the player. Currently there is no individual unit Cherry Picking, obviously, and as is pointed out the Formation picking is pretty rough around the edges. That's what we need to focus the new design on. The rest pretty much falls into place around those major features.

As we move ahead on the QB front, remember that the past months have been about sorting out the REAL issues with the CMx2 game system vs. the perceived ones. In the early days it was the "Fundamentally Broken" camp that caused the most amount of difficulty with discussions here. To them everything was broken, nothing could be fixed, and we were going to go out of business any day because we abandoned them. Fortunately we moved way beyond that for a variety of reasons. Not that everything they said was wrong, just that much of what they said was bunk and their attitude often was needlessly abusive. I'm quite happy to focus discussion on things that really do need improvement still.

One thing that stuck early post CM:SF release, and has never diminished, is the sense that the current QB system needs a major overhaul. We admitted that very, very early on and haven't waffled on it. We also said that the scope of changes requested were too large to do any time soon, which is also something we've stuck to.

The issue before us is to not be swayed by arguments that we should run blindly to what is comfortable simply because it is. This thread demonstrates why that would be a mistake because as soon as we handed out a literal redo of CMx1 (which isn't even possible anyway) we'd be beset with complaints, suggestions, and other things we've seen consistently since CMBO was released. Much better to take that feedback in NOW before we start coding.

Honestly, the way the new design is shaping up I think you will find it to be an improvement over the CMx1 system. I know some of you don't believe that is possible, so I don't mind having doubters until it is done. Just don't confuse healthy skepticism about this issue with general grumbling that is still seen from time to time. The hardcore grumblers here don't have a very good track record over the past 11 years. Just because they get it right sometimes, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. At some point a person saying "this is broken, that is broken, that too is broken, this sucks, that sucks, this other thing bites" is actually going to find some common ground with most people simply by sheer volume of complaints, not because of any truly informed and carefully weighted thinking based on honest and open discussion of the topic at hand. Thankfully for everybody (including the complainers), we are patient and do keep an open mind.

Steve

[Mord]

In WWII many of the tactics were based in task-forces, or mission-oriented forces. Some units were composed entirely for the task... and CMx2 will lack of that flexibility, wich means a "fail" in undestanding WWII era tactics.

How do you know until you see what they do? I think some of you guys on here bitch just to hear yourselves bitch. Why don't you wait until it comes out before you condemn it?

I guess it's one of those "what have you done for me lately" mentalities, except here, it's on a second by second basis. I think BFC has shown us they will work their asses off to correct mistakes or bugs or game play, yet still, there are Chicken Littles running around screaming about the sky falling. At least give them a chance to ruin the world as you know it.

Mord.

[dan/california]

"At least give them a chance to ruin the world as you know it."

But that would violate our (BFC customers) policy of preemption.

[CogNative]

The Cpl. S. expressed exactly my #1: Named maps to choose from ... supplemented with a "Random" option for when you don't care what the map looks like. The Louch had some of the same angles as well.

CM games,1-2-x, are entertainment for me providing amusement, enjoyment, a momentary escape from the state of things as they actually exist. Reality is often not as fun as shopping at Wars R Us! Cherry Picking can be recreational and ridiculous = a diversion. Go for it but Picking Terrain trumps Picking Fruit.

Thanks Steve & all BFC for keeping an open mind and your business open.

CogNative

[MeatEtr]

The concept behind the new QB system is exactly this *and* the ability to go shopping at Wars R Us

Steve

Let it be known for the future, it was me who first used and coined the "Wars R Us" term. Your all welcome. Now for this gigantic CM community contribution, I think a reward is in order. How about a free copy of the WWII module Steve, buddy ole pal?

[John Kettler]

BigDork,

I have a splitting headache, but your animated reply totally cracked me up. Thanks!

Steve,

If you're going to go shopping on Isle 5, you are definitely going to need to get those water tiles done, plus give us something with amphib capability. Know, you've already got that knocked on your end, but the rest of us are high and dry!

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzermartin]

I remember those complaining about taking away the fun factor of CMBO with the more complex (but superior) CMBB. The reply was that BFC didnt intend for CMBO to be "fun" and it was rather a side effect, so they didnt actually take anything away from the game. The "fun" cherry picking is gone now and I'm starting to suspect that there is a secret plan for leading customers to depression J/k but really I wish CMSF didnt take itself so seriously sometimes. IMHO QBs should be the fun part of the game, since for all the rest we have an excellent editor, scenarios and campaigns. I'm glad that at least CM Normandy will bring back some of the lost joy

[Battlefront.com]

Ali-Baba,

I wish CMSF didnt take itself so seriously sometimes.

Yup, message received loud and clear The irony is that some of the people arguing for a completely unrealistic QB system, which in turn leads to completely unrealistic combat, are some of the same ones that try to box our ears about features they find unrealistic. It's like arguing that the world is round and then telling people they don't go sailing because they might sail off the edge of the world

Steve

[Flanker15]

Only idea suggestion I can think of would be:

You know how you can select your armies composition in the scenario editor right? Well how about being able to save armies for use in later scenarios and also be able to choose them under a "custom army" (you choose it and the save directory folder opens for you to pick one) option for quick battles?

You could then create certain types of armies that you like and choose to use them in quick battles.

[panzermartin]

Ali-Baba,

Yup, message received loud and clear The irony is that some of the people arguing for a completely unrealistic QB system, which in turn leads to completely unrealistic combat, are some of the same ones that try to box our ears about features they find unrealistic. It's like arguing that the world is round and then telling people they don't go sailing because they might sail off the edge of the world

Steve

Heheh..I know, sometimes customers can be a bit schizoprenic. I am personally for more realism in the core simulation mechanics and visual aspects and more freedom and flexibility on UI and setting up a battle. I understand that modern warfare is heavily dependent on C&C, formations etc and you wanted to simulate this in the game. Perhaps if the current system didnt have the known problems and it was working as intended, few would miss the CMx1 manual style. The Normandy one you are working on sounds like a good mid solution and suitable for the time period too.

[H.W. Guderian]

Hi all,

.... snip .....

What I am asking for here are very specific, limited suggestions like "it would be nice if you could be assured of a tank on tank battle instead of Mech Infantry being chosen instead".

.... snip ....

Steve

Steve . . . yes, Yes, YES! (please)

There is nothing more frustrating than somehow getting some BMP's and RPG's to face off against M1's when you asked for "armor".

Once you give the rest of us the "90" we are gonna want to use it! =)

. . . and what about all those Syrian observers you get in QB's - and no ARTY?

Keep up the great work . . . CM X 2 is a huge success . . .

[akd]

About 50% of my attempts at QBs end up switching me to the opposite side after hitting the start button from deployment. Nearly 100% of my attempts to conduct a blue on blue or red on red battle end in CTD.

If that could be fixed, I'd be much happier.

[Asso]

I don't really know how much this has already been discussed, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway.

I was playing a meeting engagement as the defender, using Mech Infantry-Medium Infantry as the Syrian Army against different combinations of American troops (Stryker Infantry, Light Infantry...), with different combinations of fitness, experience... Engagement size was set to Tiny. Terrain type to Open. The difficulty I chose was veteran.

I almost always got this map (sorry but I don't recall the name, will check later if needed): a rectangular grassy field, with parallel slopes dividing it in... 6 parts, a tiny bunker on the red side and a building complex in the middle of the map, which is treated as an objective (I'm quite new at wargaming, so excuse me if I don't use the correct terms). I mean, the complex gives you points at the end of the game if you keep your troops in it. I sent some guys forward to spot enemy troops. Since there was no one in sight I sent forward the rest of my troops (using UAZs or BMPs). After seizing the building complex, I put all the infantry on the rooftops to look for incoming enemies. Nothing happened until 10-15 minutes into the game, when I started seeing Strykers hiding behind the slopes, infantry slowly advancing... Only a few shots were exchanged before the end of the available time (20 minutes + 4 extra). This always resulted in a victory for me, cause by seizing the complex I was getting more points.

I glanced at the AI plans in the mission editor, and while I'm sure they guarantee a safe advance for the troops, they are executed too slowly to even give a chance to the AI to win (given the time limit).

I'm no expert in wargaming, let alone in mission editing, but I thought that just a bit of fine-tuning on some of the maps could very well help out the whole gaming experience. For example, I don't know how much influence the mission editor can have on the selected troops, but a better balance between opposing forces, at least in terms of numbers, could be good (I wouldn't mind having numerical disadvantage, but 3 or 4 ATGM teams against a platoon sized force is... well ). Another thing to note is the balance between the time limit and the AI planning. In the example I made I could say that 10 or 20 more minutes could have resulted at least in a confrontation between me and the AI. Either that or a more "rushy" AI plan (i.e. less stops before arriving at the building complex). In another map I used the AI effectively advanced and proceeded to hand me my ass on a silver platter.

Oh, I'm using version 1.08, I don't know how things are doing in 1.10.

[Sivodsi]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, Asso, though you will need to discuss 1.10 to be relevant, since changes were made to the QB system in the latest patch.

My experience with the first QB I fired up was positive. Choose excellent Syrian Armor mix on a tiny map vs US Heavy and ended up with 4 Abrams vs 3 T90 + 3 FOW with no artillery. Had great fun, game ended in a draw.

I tried to make a QB choose Syrians with the BMP-3 and had to keep on ctrl+Q-ing about 5 times without luck. What do you have to do to make these appear?

[Meach]

Airborne are under special forces.