Expandeux Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Are we going to see a QB system like in CM BO,BB,AK so we could buy what we want..not only random? So we can choose what infantry, support , vehicles armor and other stuff are we going to deploy in that battle! Sorry if this was discussed earlier but I'm new to the forum ,I've search after a few term but didn't find a clue on this one! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I think a buying system is not planned for CM:SF (Syrian setting) due to implementation time constraints. For the Normandy game, changes to the QB acquisition system are planned that make it more similar to the CMx1 buying system. I do not know details, though. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why not allow selection from TOE in QB like in the scenario editor? It cant be that hard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Why not allow selection from TOE in QB like in the scenario editor? It cant be that hard. It is if you're trying to make a balanced battles for human vs human battles. How do you make equal two sides so different structurally and technically as the US army and Syrian forces? It's a nightmare to work out, esp when one side has javelins. Under CMX1 you had a number of points which you could spend at will (or within categories). This imposed limits for each force, and added the pleasure of using your knowledge to spend the points as wisely as possible. The current system takes away this aspect of choice and replaces it with a randomness that is frustrating because of the players' lack of involvement. Still, no matter how arbitrary it is, any kind of choice would be welcome. The problem remains how to impose limits on the size of each force. Playing these battles 'double blind' is only a partial solution: it takes away the 'surprise' because then you will know exactly what your opponent has. For a fun and exciting human to human battle you want to have balanced forces and interesting tactical options, such that it is YOU as commander who makes a difference and brings about victory for your forces, despite whatever the opposing commander throws at you. Oh gee, I'm rambling. The short answer is that the current QB system will stay for CMSF family games. BFT know that customers don't like it, and will introduce some kind of hybrid TOE/points system for CM: Normandy,,, and who knows for CM:Modern? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I actually like the QBs as they are... But I confess to play only random-solitaire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I actually like the QBs as they are... But I confess to play only random-solitaire. It makes a difference. If you're playing solitaire you can soon find out if your forces are a good match or not, and just start again. But if you're PBEMing you might be playing for a week or more before you discover match-up weirdness (and I mean the kind of weirdness that prevents a fun battle). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 the auto forces picker usually gives me rediculous forces if i try to play syria US will get a company of SEP abrams and the syrians will get a platoon of t-72s plus a recon platoon for good measure. hardly fair, or fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 ...hardly fair, or fun. It can be fun in solitaire, 'trying to make the best out of nothing', but it's clear that this is not fun for pbem. I said it before: CMx2 should be optimized as a Wargame simulation, which also means, there must be an option to bring exactly that toys on the table, one wants to play with... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.