Quick Battle maps questions

[Scipio]

The manual says that a quick battle map MUST have AI plans. I understand the sense of it when playing vs the computer, but does a QB map also need an AI plan when it's used vor H2H? I mean, when I create a QB map without AI plan, will the game use it anyway, or will the map be principally ignored and NOT used?

Second question, I can preset the battle size in the editor (Tiny...Huge). Does this mean, if I set the battle size to 'Huge' for example, will this QB map be used only for 'huge' quick battles, or does this setting have no influence on the automatic map selection?

[MarkEzra]

does a QB map also need an AI plan when it's used vor H2H?

It does not NEED a plan but as a QB Map, does. You will want to take the map, load the units you wish, re-name and save it as a H2H scen. When played by 2 Humans the AI pathing is not involved. Played as Human vs AI you will want to keep or make a new AI plan.

Second question, I can preset the battle size in the editor (Tiny...Huge). Does this mean, if I set the battle size to 'Huge' for example, will this QB map be used only for 'huge' quick battles, or does this setting have no influence on the automatic map selection?

The settings Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, and Huge function in QB in two ways:

1st is a maps ACTUAL size, not necessarily what the designer decided to call it. So if I make a 500 X 500 meter QB map and call it Huge, it's VERY unlikely to be ever picked for anthing other than Tiny or small. Secondly is number of units that a player selects in the QB Scen setup. So if I ask for Huge during setup I must get a large enough map to fit them.

However the reverse is not always the case when wanting a large map with few troops. I can call a Large map Small in the editor and it will be subject to the players choice of Small during QB Scen setup. What this means to me is that the number of Units is the QB setup selector is the trump card.

When making QB Maps I have tried to follow this pretty closely. A player can and will often get a pretty decent size map when selecting Tiny or Small.

One final thought: It is my observation that both Tiny and Huge relate more to force size selection than to actual map size.

Hope this helps.

[Scipio]

Thanks MarkEzra!

[Scipio]

Another issue!

When I convert a scenario map to a meeting battle, I remove all terrain objectives (the other objectives are removed in QBs anyway). I remembered the arguments of an PBEM opponent from long ago in CMBB, who said that terrain objectives often cause two things to the stratic of players:

a) rushing to the objective

ignoring relavant key positions on a map to get control over the objectives, an error often made by lesser experienced players.

There surely can be argued about, but the basic thought ain't wrong, IMO. However, that leaves me with a question! Since the game automatically set a casualties threshold for QBs, is this enough to get a sensefull result? My worry is that both players may reach the threshold, so the battle will end in a draw, even if Player One has killed all enemy troops at the end of the battle.

[hcrof]

You could put in a destroy unit objective covering the entire opposing force. That means you get a proportion of total points depending on the casualties he took. I think that Tanks>APCs>Infantry too so you get an approximation of a CMx1 QB point scores.

Basically if you set the destroy unit objective at 1000 points and you destroy 30% of his force you will get ~300 points depending on what exactly you destroyed. Is that what you wanted?

[Scipio]

This is, unfortunatly, only correct for normal scenarios. In QBs "the code automatically adds an enemy-casualty threshold victory goal for each side" (quotation from the manual).

[MarkEzra]

Hi Scipio: When using a QB Map for H2H I set my own casualties/objectives based on the units selected. It seems to me the best way to even the odds for each side. But in friendly matches (I usually play Red) I may not bother with making changes. Both of us know how well a match went no matter what the score so who cares. But like I say...just guys I've played for years.

[Scipio]

Good point MarkEzra, and indeed I don't mind so much about myself. I guess I'll know when I've won, even if the end game screen tells me something else But if I'll realease the QB maps, I won't get complains about senseless results.

[MarkEzra]

Good point MarkEzra, and indeed I don't mind so much about myself. I guess I'll know when I've won, even if the end game screen tells me something else But if I'll release the QB maps, I won't get complains about senseless results.

Absolutely...I think the trick to the H2H "balance" is found in good casualty % The reds need to win the PR battle, not the actual battle. The Blues can't afford to lose either...isn't that the key to asymmetric warfare? I'll look forwrd to your work...lord knows I'm sick of mine!

[Scipio]

Mh, just to make this point clear - the casualties % I've set in the editor is not used in a QB, but replaced by a generic value set by the game!? Or have I missunderstood this?

I won't disappoint you, and to be honest: creating maps is real pain the a.. for me, especially building roads! I convert scenarios and downloaded maps.