pad152 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 1. Will there be any changes to Quick Battles and/or OOB force selection with the release of the British Add-on? 2. Separation of map size from force size (like big map with small forces in Quick Battles)? 3. Ability to select forces in Quick Battles? 4. Easier selection of forces from the OOB (hate having to select something then delete stuff I don't want, just to get what I want)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 1. Will there be any changes to Quick Battles and/or OOB force selection with the release of the British Add-on? no idea 2. Separation of map size from force size (like big map with small forces in Quick Battles)? no idea 3. Ability to select forces in Quick Battles? Most likely no, the whole QB system is being revamped for Normandy. 4. Easier selection of forces from the OOB (hate having to select something then delete stuff I don't want, just to get what I want)? Probably not, I heard BFC was changing this. But, I think they were talking about how they add forces to the TO&E during development. Of course this is from my limited knowledge. So don't put too much stock in what I said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I don't think there is any changes planned for the QB system until CM:N. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Wargamer Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 For 3 & 4 thank god Looking forward to CM:N 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted July 4, 2009 Author Share Posted July 4, 2009 Too bad, the British expansion did look interesting. CM Normandy - I'll wait for the Tom Chick Review first! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Thanks for the reminder Pad, I forgot all about Tom Chick, and too think, he was the one to get me hooked onto the CM series. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The QB system is by far the biggest disapointment of CMSF. Not having the random maps is ok and understandable in regards to dev time, besides theres tons of user made maps. But the QBs are like our sandbox and the units are the toys to play within that sandbox. Don't restrict us like some super strict holy-roller parents. It maybe more realistic now, but realism is not the point of QBs, thats what scenarios are for. It's about playing with toys in a sandbox. I don't see why the unit purchase tables couldn't be reworked for CMSF+modules. Sure there would be cherry picking, thats why players agree to rules before hand, also part of the fun. I'm sure this has all been mentioned before and they already said the QB system won't change until CMN. So I'll stop ranting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Just be happy you can even play QBs at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul AU Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I've been wanting to say this for a while, because BFC keeps calling it "cherry picking", with the implication that players want to chose the "best" units in unrealistic combinations. First, what's wrong with that? Second, for myself in CMx1, when I do that, it's usually to pick the worst, or oddest units or combinations, to create interesting (not-usual) situations. Not the "cherrys". Third, the idea that only complete (yes you can delete units, but still), on-paper "correct" formations are available - is pretty unrealistic and dare I say, historically incorrect. Odd combos, remanent units, ad-hoc formations, seem to be common in historical accounts. If all I have to kill Private Ryan is a Tiger and a man-packed 20mm Flak, then, that's all I have, no matter what my TO&E says in BFC's file. And wouldn't that be interesting? (Actually, no it wouldn't, Paul, because your only Tiger will get bogged on the road on turn 1 for no apparent reason. Sometimes, more often than you'd think (BFC), "Realism" isn't very realistic, or interesting). (Yes, I feel better now). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 pad152, the answers to your questions will be the very same even for the 3rd and (if there is one) 4th module. Steve has often described the concept behind "modules" that we're following through with, so I won't repeat it (again) in full, but the gist of it is that modules are meant to include new forces and theaters and some (smaller) game engine enhancements, not major new features. A new QB system is one such major new feature which is why we're reserving work on it for the next major installation of the series (aka new base game, rather than a module). Steve has also explained multiple times why we're doing things this way and why we think that fiddeling around with the current QB system won't do anyone any good (not us nor the players), and why we have decided therefore to leave QBs conceptually "as is" for the fist family of titles (except of course any bug fixes that were found). So if you can't see past the QBs in their current flaw to enjoy the other features of the series as it is, chances are that none of the remaining modules will be for you. Of course, there is no harm in trying out the demo if you like, which we'll be preparing for around the time the Brits are ready to roll. Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Of course, there is no harm in trying out the demo if you like, which we'll be preparing for around the time the Brits are ready to roll. Martin I am just begging for the right to by the ^$&^$* thing. Any idea when that might be possible? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The QB system in CMx1 broke the mold with respect to the 6 month playability scheme that Steve once stated they are aiming their game development strategies by... gamers are still playing CMx1 (masses of them actually) due to its eminent replayability due to the QB system. Why they dropped it in CMx2 I can only guess, but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system. I don't really know or care. All I know is that I still play CMx1 and am still struggling (and I've tried real hard) to like CMx2, no matter how awesomefantasticwonderful some fellas around here try to defend its virtues like their lives depended on it. Hip hip hooray for CMN and a new QB system... all the best to BFC with that. Cheers! Leto 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Between the Brit module campaign and the standalones how many new hand-built scenario are there going to be, somehing like 40? 50? That sounds like a LOT of scenario playing before anyone needs to start worrying about the separation of force size from map size in QBs. You do know, if anyone really wants to 'cherry pick', all you have to do is bring any QB map into the editor, drop your dream forces onto the map then save as a regular scenario. What's the difference between selecting any force you want in the editor and selecting any force you want in a separate QB screen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 You do know, if anyone really wants to 'cherry pick', all you have to do is bring any QB map into the editor, drop your dream forces onto the map then save as a regular scenario. What's the difference between selecting any force you want in the editor and selecting any force you want in a separate QB screen? Come on Mikey, that there is a difference is as obvious as you knowing there is one. For starters, following your suggestion means that you have to also pick the opposition's forces, and that you know exactly which map will be used. Not to mention that, at least in CMx1, picking forces in QB was easier than going into the editor, and I don't see why that will be different in CMx2. I agree that anyone who doesn't play CMSF only because of the QBs is cutting off his own nose to spite his own face, but that doesn't warrant the dismissiveness directed at this feature request. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 BFC isn't dismissing the request, they are just waiting until the next game to rework the QB system. I'd love to have it now, but it isn't going to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I would like to add that Quick Battles are best for H2H (PBEM) matches, for several reasons. The problem with the missing so called 'cherry picking' is IMO oftenly missunderstood. Point is IMO not that you can't pick the best forces of your taste, it's more that the CMSF autoselection of forces creates frequently very pointless results, especially for Syrian forces. If you select for example 'infantry', you always end up with a 'conscript' force, even if quality is set to 'elite'. Indeed there seem to be only few settings (catchword 'mixed') that creates a combined force for the Syrians, but even than you have a chance of ~1:4 to end up with pure tank force or more annoying with a pure ATGM force, especially in tiny and small battles. This situation is aggravated by the size of PBEM turn files, which can quickly be up to 20MB in large battles, so smaller battles are prefered. So I think that we not necessarily need a 'cherry picking' system for CMSF. It would already help to change the current system to 'you get what you ask for' in regard of troop quality. Crack or elite Syrian infantry might be unrealistic, but my thought on that is simple: if you want a realistic battle, play a normal scenario. In CMx1 were IIRC at least all quality setting deactivated if unavailable for a special branch, like Volkssturm for example. A middle course could be to offer the player an 'override quality presettings' switch. Another welcome feature would be to split the quality setting into 'experience' and 'equipment'. Summarizing, I understand very well that a full CMx1 force selection for CMSF would take to much work, but I hope and believe that the current system can get more attractive with some (in theory ) simple changes! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Well put Scipo. You do know, if anyone really wants to 'cherry pick', all you have to do is bring any QB map into the editor, drop your dream forces onto the map then save as a regular scenario. "All they have to do is..." really? Even this is not quite true. Witness the trouble you go through in order to get plain old T-55s. In the scenario editor: set the force selection to poor, try to remember which branch of the Syrian army they are in (mech infantry), what unit has them available (reserve tank), select a tank company and then you have to check on the other side of the page to see what kind of tank you've been given. What's this? T62 (1975)? Damn, delete it and try again. Gah! This time its T62 (1972)! Delete and try again... Since it is chosen at random you have to just keep on trying until T55 comes up. I once had go through this process seven times before I got my 'dream' tank. What's the difference between selecting any force you want in the editor and selecting any force you want in a separate QB screen? Obviously, if you select the forces for both sides you know what the enemy has got, spoiling the FOW for H2H battles. Oh well, its not going to change until CMN and CMSF2 come out, so little point in engaging in these discussions (yeah yeah, what am I doing here?). Actually, I've become resigned to CMSF's shortcomings, and enjoy playing H2H almost as much as CMX1. The better quality graphics, the sometimes amazing Tac AI and the wonder of the modern weaponry make up for a lot. As well as the little things, like seeing Scipo's ute get stuck in a trench (yes Scipo, you're whipping my butt in that scenario!). The little faults do give CMSF character, I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Why they dropped it in CMx2 I can only guess, I seem to remember the reason BFC offered way back was that it had something to do with the new game engine's C2 model and certainly not the following preposterous statement... but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system. Hmm. Many intelligent and educated people believe really stupid things but sheer weight of numbers can never make them true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Why they dropped it in CMx2 I can only guess, I seem to remember the reason BFC offered way back was that it had something to do with the new game engine's C2 model and certainly not the following preposterous statement... What makes this statement 'preposterous'? Using the word 'preposterous' to sum up that statement is much more prepospterous I would think. : ) but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system. Hmm. Many intelligent and educated people believe really stupid things but sheer weight of numbers can never make them true. As an examplie, if said people wanted to believe that a watermelon could be crushed by sheer numbers of educated and intelligent people piled upon it, your above statement would be falsified... making you look a little silly... well, silly-er. ; ) Cheers! Leto 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Between the Brit module campaign and the standalones how many new hand-built scenario are there going to be, somehing like 40? 50? That sounds like a LOT of scenario playing before anyone needs to start worrying about the separation of force size from map size in QBs. You do know, if anyone really wants to 'cherry pick', all you have to do is bring any QB map into the editor, drop your dream forces onto the map then save as a regular scenario. What's the difference between selecting any force you want in the editor and selecting any force you want in a separate QB screen? Looks like MikeyD just doesn't get it... Cheers! Leto 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 It is technically possible to cherry pick, but it's a pain in the arse. It is fairly amusing that one of the more frequent complaints with CMX1 was the cherry picking of forces, specifically StuGs on the eastern front, or German artillery modules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system. Hmm. Many intelligent and educated people believe really stupid things but sheer weight of numbers can never make them true. You meant volume right? IE, the same agenda driven handful repeating the same things over and over again. CMx1s' QB system is hailed as some holy chalice now, yet I recall having to use a 3rd party many, many times because of its limitations. Funny to think that's what was done eh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 As an examplie, if said people wanted to believe that a watermelon could be crushed by sheer numbers of educated and intelligent people piled upon it, your above statement would be falsified... making you look a little silly... well, silly-er. I guess it would too if your "example" bore any relevance whatsoever to my post. Looks like you didn't get it... Cheers! PT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Hmmm... is the Search feature of this Forum broken? It must be since I've covered this topic in excruciating detail many times over the past two years. Oh well, might as well cover it again The CMx1 QB system was never intended for CMx2 for four reasons and two reasons only: 1. There were strong, consistent, and often heated anti-Cherry Picking discussions. 2. There were strong, consistent, and often heated arguments about point values. 3. "as is" the old QB system didn't work with the command and control system at the heart of CMx2. The primary reason for that was Cherry Picking. 4. With the greater fidelity of the CMx2 terrain system a random map generator was deemed impractical for us to develop. Meaning, we could spend a LONG time making it and still wind up with a very disappointing end result. Note that there is no mention of the typical rumor mongering conspiracy theories, for example that we purposefully reducing game replayability, that we were clueless about the importance of QBs to many customers, etc. That's because they aren't based in any sort of fact. As others have said, simply repeating the same rumors over and over again doesn't make them any more real than the first time. As with most rumors, the origins tend to be rooted in a misinterpretation of fact. Often that misinterpretation is "deliberate" in that people twist the facts to suit their own preconceived notions. An example of this is the "Battlefront purposefully dumbed down QBs to make more money." Completely not true. If anybody wishes to correct me on this they are welcome to, but I'd much rather hear your theories on how the world is controlled by the Illuminati first since you probably can make a better case for that What is true is that we have said many, many, many times that we over delivered for the CMx1 games for the amount of compensation we received and therefore we weren't going to put in the same amount of breadth (most often thought of as vehicles) in any one CMx2 game as we did in CMx1. Reducing the depth of game features is not part of our plan. It wasn't the plan for QBs, for sure, but it quickly became apparent that despite our best intentions that is exactly what happened for that one feature. We acknowledged that within a few months of the release of CM:SF and pledged to fix it for Normandy because there is no way we could slap something together and stick it into CM:SF. Several months of redesign, recoding, and testing are needed. Getting back to some deliberate changes we made... We did in fact remove Cherry Picking because it was both railed against by a fairly significant number of people AND because it posed problems for the C2 system. We figured we could kill two birds with one stone and also save ourselves some development time by not having Cherry Picking. Obviously we made a mistake by listening to what appears to have been a vocal minority. Which indicates why it is so dangerous to listen to people who complain about something... often times they don't represent the majority of players, despite their protestations that they do. Even a thousand people complaining on this Forum doesn't necessarily translate into a majority block. The solution we have combines the ability to Cherry Pick with the ability to still have structured forces. It should address most of the concerns anti-Cherry Pickers have while at the same time allowing for a similar degree of historically impossible forces as was possible in CMx1. At the same time it will work with the underlying C2 model and historical plausible forces. The second deliberate move was to eliminate a point value system for each purchasable item. Again, there was endless whining, complaining, and arguments stirred up about the values we chose. Since we already used a scientific (quantifying) system, and we knew that coming up with something significantly better wasn't likely, we got rid of it. We do not think this is a mistake and therefore CM: Normandy's QB system will also lack visible point system. However, we agree that the current system is too quirky and therefore have a better system in mind that we feel gets us a more consistent valuation of relative unit worth than the old or the current systems ever could. Since that is what people want/need, it doesn't matter what form it takes if the new system gets the job done better. There is no chance of us doing a random map generator. Zero. What we are instead doing is combining CMx2's existing ability to use premade maps with a new system which allows smaller premade "Mega Tiles" to be assembled on the fly into new maps. This is a system which borrows from board and miniature wargames. User made Mega Tiles will increase variety even more. Well, that's about it Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 If anybody wishes to correct me on this they are welcome to, but I'd much rather hear your theories on how the world is controlled by the Illuminati first since you probably can make a better case for that Obviously Battlefront is run by the Illuminati. 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.