Is Gameplay Better Than CMBB, How?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Leto;1255014']Whoa. Hold on here. I hope you are not suggesting that dkchapuis must accept MikeyD's point of view to make his own point of view legitimate... especially when it is obvious that MikeyD obviously does not reciprocate?!?!

What kind of twisted logic is this?

Opinions are opinions, and whether they are respectful of others opinions is superfluous to their being exactly what they are.

I think the better route to take here is that everyone perhaps should cool down and realize that these are just that: opinions.

Sheesh!

Leto

Except this is a discussion forum. If we are all just vomiting opinions this is going to turn sour very fast.

So yeah, acknowledging the points another makes (and this works both ways) is essential to discussion. This is not Speakers Corner where shouting on a soap box without listening is very much apreciated. No-one was asked to agree with the others, just to acknowledge the other point of view is not totally stark raving mad. Under the circumstances (a not totally stark raving mad point of view) that'd be helpful. Otherwise everyone is wasting their time.

Anyway... so much talk about the features of CMBN, whereas I understood this thread to be about gameplay, which I deem to be a different beasty altogether. The gameplay, the whizz bang stuff that happens when you push start, is IMHO superior. So much more detail, less abstraction (especially in armour hits/penetrations etc) and visual candy. The latter does help.

[akd]

If memory serves, and it may not because age is a terrible thing, in CMx1 didn't we go through all the procedure of selecting forces before we even saw the map we were going to fighting over? I do remember having some horrendus maps and a lot of maps that, despite complying with the agreed parameters, were just totally wrong for the force mix I had chosen. However, as rejecting the map meant that my opponent and I would have to start all over again we very seldom, if ever, bothered (especially when his force mix was suitable for the terrain!).

You will have an option to preview the map before purchasing your forces.

[Blackcat]

You will have an option to preview the map before purchasing your forces.

Yes, I know. The point I was trying to make was that CMx! random maps were often accepted because it was too much of a pain in the bottom to reject them, not because they were of such good quality as others seem to have suggested.

[dkchapuis]

There's 300+ included with the game and I'm sure people will put up "packs" with even more. So your point isn't really valid. You could say that you don't think 300 will be enough, but you can't say it's a lot of work to use what is already included because that's not true. This seems to be a point you're not understanding, so I'll state this again...[/]

My main point there was that he didn't play Qb's because he hated auto-maps. So I guess he didn't know you could load a Pre-made map. In cmx1 that was a bit more work than an auto map (had to find one). And since I know by simple math that 300 or even 1000 isn't enough to give the same experience of both players playing a map for the first time it will be more work to find one. Which is valid point, but not a deal breaker as I've stated numerous times

The ON LY difference between starting up a QB game with CMx1 and CMx2 is with CM x2 the choice of maps is limited to what is installed. To start out with that's 300+ maps.

There's no difference other than that.

To some it is. We think it is as well, but we don't mind agreeing to disagree. But you should understand that just because this is a step backwards for you doesn't mean it isn't a step forwards for someone else.

Maps - I understand the difference. I played two cmsf qbs (I said the sample was small). One map was ok. The other was the worse map I ever played on. It had the one giant hill that was pretty much the map.

The cmx1 auto maps were good for Qbs. Elevation and terrain changes to not be stale. But bad user maps isn't just for cmx2. There were lots of bad cmx1 maps. I remember looking for hours trying to find a good qb map in cmx1, only to either make one myself or use an auto one. I expect that sooner than later I will have to spend time - 15, 20, 30 minutes - having to look for a map.

That maybe what he meant, but what he said - with emphasis - is that adding auto maps would make the game inferior than not having them. Which isn't true. And I don't think he was saying that within the scope of priorities.

[Sixxkiller]

Damn, you non testers havent even seen the new maps, how can you say if you prefer them to random ones anyway? I will say this one more time..... THERES SOME AWESOME QB MAPS. They dont suck and you dont have to preview them anyway.

Another thing is there will not be a random map generator. End of story. Until you guys get off this CMBO trip, you wont see CMBN for what it is anyway. Stop living in 1999.

[chris talpas]

Let me begin by saying that hand crafted maps will almost always be better than the auto-generated ones.

I see from the 2nd video AAR, that the quick battle maps are divided into the type of map with regards to terrain and size.

As a future patch, and possible compromise, would it be possible to have a pseudo random map?

What I mean by this is that the user selects map size, terrain etc from an interface and then the computer will randomly select from the pre-created maps one that meets those criteria.

This might be a possible solution to those folks like dkchapuis who desire random maps.

Chris

[Vanir Ausf B]

As someone who almost exclusively played QBs on random maps in CMx1 I felt they were of generally good quality. As good as most user-made maps? Not from an aesthetic perspective , but every map was unique, and the ability to create a map of whatever general type you wished in a few seconds, whereas a comparable user-made map would take days to create, was incredibly convenient.

I'm hopeful that the CMx2 way of things will be "good enough". Being able to pick my own forces is more important than having a random map generator.

I remember Steve saying not long ago that they were looking into randomizing some aspects of CMx2 QB maps -- setup zones, map orientation, stuff like that. Is that still planned?

[ChrisND]

As a future patch, and possible compromise, would it be possible to have a pseudo random map?

What I mean by this is that the user selects map size, terrain etc from an interface and then the computer will randomly select from the pre-created maps one that meets those criteria.

This might be a possible solution to those folks like dkchapuis who desire random maps.

Chris

This feature already exists.

[chris talpas]

This feature already exists.

Good to hear

[Vanir Ausf B]

If memory serves, and it may not because age is a terrible thing, in CMx1 didn't we go through all the procedure of selecting forces before we even saw the map we were going to fighting over? I do remember having some horrendus maps and a lot of maps that, despite complying with the agreed parameters, were just totally wrong for the force mix I had chosen. However, as rejecting the map meant that my opponent and I would have to start all over again we very seldom, if ever, bothered (especially when his force mix was suitable for the terrain!).

In another example of different strokes for different folks I actually liked not being sure if any force I picked would be ideal for the map. Real military commanders typically have limited ability to tailor their force for every piece of terrain they fight on. Sure, if you know the map is a billiard table it's a no-brainer to load up on thickly sloped frontal armor. I don't like no-brainer situations. Throwing a degree of uncertainty into the mix made it risky to invest in armor-heavy or infantry heavy forces. Mostly this resulted in balanced forces, which I prefer, but YMMV.

For me I plan on using the random weather option a lot

[Paper Tiger]

When I played CMBB, I played QBs almost exclusively. I played on randomly generated maps for a long time until I got to grips with the editor and started making my own maps. Once I had knocked a couple together, I never used RGMs any more as they just couldn't hold a candle to my own creations. I had three that I played and played and played to death - 100s of QBs fought over the same terrain month after month.

I am experiencing the same love for a select number of CMBN QB maps. Almost the first thing I did in the editor was to create a map of the small village I used to live in in Suffolk. Over time, it has grown and is now incredibly detailed and I LOVE fighting on that map. I fight on it during overcast nights or stormy afternoons or beautiful crisp, clear dawns and each time it feels fresh. But that's my opinion. For some of you, I'm sure that would bore the crap out of you

And you're going to see hundreds of new QB maps appear after the game appears so there's not much chance that you'll ever play even one QB one each map. And each one will be much better than a randomly generated map.

[Dadekster88]

I'm not sure what the difference between randomly generated maps that you select variables for versus hundreds (assuming down the road) of premade randomly picked maps that you just select variables for as well? So where's the problem? Not trying to come across as a jerk here, but it sounds like you guys are discussing whether to make 4 left turns or 4 right turns to circle the block.

[Gromit]

If I may, I think what dk is lamenting is losing CMx1's ability to very quickly sit down, generate a random map w/o any fanfare and whammo, you're up and playing. No fuss, no muss- no thought involved and it won't be like the last one you played or the next for that matter.

This appears to be possible in CM:BN by virtue of the QB interface (shown briefly in Chris' QB video) that lets you quickly decide what broad terrain terms you want and then selects a map to meet those parameters. Certainly, it is not truly random, but I think once a few thousand maps are out there, it really won't matter much anymore as the "sample size" of our statistical exercise will be large enough to ferret out and reduce the number of outlier experiences when picking a map on a given day.

Having said all that, it just occurred to me that there is a much more important topic that needs to be explored here - some sort of repository voting mechanism is likey to be required to help separate the map wheat from the chaff. I know, I know... some people here think poles and voting are on par with the Spanish Inquisition (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquistion!!) but I believe there will need to be SOME way of allowing the CM public (one vote per username only) to determine the quality of submitted maps and most importantly, some way of providing feedback to the creator. IMO, without this it will eventually turn into a big, unruly map database mess. Not to mention that mapmakers only get better when their creations are subject to the scrutiny of thousands of rabid WW2 OGH* wargamers!

Just a thought...

* Obsessivus Grognardius Historicus

[Battlefront.com]

Leto;1255014']Whoa. Hold on here. I hope you are not suggesting that dkchapuis must accept MikeyD's point of view to make his own point of view legitimate... especially when it is obvious that MikeyD obviously does not reciprocate?!?!

No, of course not. I'm saying that if he must accept that others may have a different point of view than his own. In this case that hand made maps are a step forward over random maps, not a step back as he feels they are.

If memory serves, and it may not because age is a terrible thing, in CMx1 didn't we go through all the procedure of selecting forces before we even saw the map we were going to fighting over?

Correct. CM:BN has an optional ability to preview a map ahead of playing on it. This was not possible back in CMx1. So if you got into a map that suuuuuuuuucked, you were faced with a decision... quit and start again or play through with whatever you got.

I liked them. Played them more often than user created scenerioes.

One of the reasons for that MIGHT have been that the AI was the same for all battles all the time. A really good scenario designer could setup a complicated battle only to have the AI completely do it's own thing. It's like the old Ford saying about you could have a car in any color you liked as long as it was black

With CMx2 we've given the scenario designers a LOT of tools to make each scenario very detailed and predictably interesting. AI Scripts are a big part of that, but so to are the Victory Conditions. QBs in CMx2 can't compare because they are still, to a large extent, generic despite the hand made maps.

It is classic horses for courses though. I'm in the "it'd be really nice to have in CM2 because that's how I used to play CM1" camp but as it's been explained (quite patiently) on more than one occasion and the reasons seem perfectly valid. Fair enough it's not an option in CM2, things are different, it's a new version and we'll have lots of maps to choose from in the end anyway. It's not something that effected my pre-ordering CMBN.

I think people will be quite happy with the new QB system. CMx1 QBs were fun for a lot of reasons, and the ability to create a random map was not a major reason. Quick check... if we had a Random Map Generator, with nothing else, how fun would that be? Not very, I'm sure

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure what the difference between randomly generated maps that you select variables for versus hundreds (assuming down the road) of premade randomly picked maps that you just select variables for as well? So where's the problem? Not trying to come across as a jerk here, but it sounds like you guys are discussing whether to make 4 left turns or 4 right turns to circle the block.

You've obviously never driven in the Boston area, have you? 4 right turns in Boston won't put you back to where you started. In fact, you might wind up on the other side of the Charles River or in Dorchester. Why do you think Boston drivers are so aggressive?

Steve

[Dadekster88]

True enough

but I'll top ya....go drive in Italy

I don't know why they bother painting lines on the roads out there I swear.

[ClarkWGriswold]

In another example of different strokes for different folks I actually liked not being sure if any force I picked would be ideal for the map. Real military commanders typically have limited ability to tailor their force for every piece of terrain they fight on. Sure, if you know the map is a billiard table it's a no-brainer to load up on thickly sloped frontal armor. I don't like no-brainer situations. Throwing a degree of uncertainty into the mix made it risky to invest in armor-heavy or infantry heavy forces. Mostly this resulted in balanced forces, which I prefer, but YMMV.

For me I plan on using the random weather option a lot

Not only can you have random map selection and random weather, but there's also a "No preview" option for viewing the map prior to unit purchase. So, you can get randomly chosen forces (or hand picked) on a randomly chosen map (or hand picked) with randomly chosen weather (or specified). Lots and lots of options.

The details about these options are on Pg. 51-53 of the CMBN manual.

[Battlefront.com]

True enough

but I'll top ya....go drive in Italy

They don't drive... they joust. I'm actually trying to forget a certain cab ride I took along the coastal roads of Croatia. Somewhere there is a 1970s vintage Mercedes with two Size 9.5 shoe indentations on the passenger side. If you should see that cab, with those imprints, what you won't see is the vicious smile the cabbie had

I don't know why they bother painting lines on the roads out there I swear.

They paint lines on the road because it's a traditional contracting job for the brother/son/cousin/etc. of whomever is Mayor of that particular town/city.

Steve

[Dadekster88]

True enough, I mean you only need to look at who is running the country to see who is setting the standard

ps- no offense intended towards any of our Italian brothers on the forum. Between Hollywood and Congress over here we're not exactly running a church.

[gunnergoz]

True enough

but I'll top ya....go drive in Italy

I don't know why they bother painting lines on the roads out there I swear.

I remember being a passenger in the car of a young Italian lady who was spending the Summer in California. She was driving (a Fiat convertible, no less) on the freeway and was straddling the Botts Dots that demarcate the lanes. After driving this way for a while, I asked her if she was going to get in one lane or the other. She replied, no, those nice dots help me drive in a straight line.

[user38]

Damn, you non testers havent even seen the new maps, how can you say if you prefer them to random ones anyway?

Excuse me for pointing this out Sixxkiller, but it appears you do not understand how internet forums work. The purest form of criticism occurs when the critic understands nothing about the subject matter.

[LJFHutch]

Haha gunnergoz, classic!

[user38]

Almost the first thing I did in the editor was to create a map of the small village I used to live in in Suffolk. Over time, it has grown and is now incredibly detailed and I LOVE fighting on that map. I fight on it during overcast nights or stormy afternoons or beautiful crisp, clear dawns and each time it feels fresh. But that's my opinion. For some of you, I'm sure that would bore the crap out of you

It wouldn't bore the crap out of me.

I am a bit of a DL content whore. One of the first things I do with any new game is download all the user created content I can find and then mod the crap out of my game until I break it. Then I generally reinstall the game to return it to its virgin state.

After decades of this practice I have come to realise that there is a direct relationship between the time spent on a project and the quality of the outcome. Paper Tiger, I am very much interested in any map in which the creator has invested a lot of time. Please tell me your Suffolk map is one of the maps included in the release. If yes, please advise the name of the map.

[womble]

That maybe what he meant, but what he said - with emphasis - is that adding auto maps would make the game inferior than not having them. Which isn't true. And I don't think he was saying that within the scope of priorities.

From what we hear, it is true. It's a bit "meta", but given the added complexity of the terrain and the fact that there's zero AI activity above the TacAI without a Plan, putting in a random map generator would be useless for Solo play and would produce a horrible mishmash of unplayable/boring terrain much of the time without far more work than there is resource available for.

MikeyD has lived with this for a long time, so perhaps he doesn't state all the conditions every time he states his case, but it's a valid opinion for him to hold.

[stikkypixie]

That maybe what he meant, but what he said - with emphasis - is that adding auto maps would make the game inferior than not having them. Which isn't true.

Maybe automaps were good enough for CMx1 but they will not be good enough for CMx2, it's hard to extrapolate especially if you've never seen what a automap in CMx2 looks like.

Anyway my two cents. Glad that the option of having a quick game is back. The maps won't be random (although randomly picked), but that's ok for me because I've played close combat on the same map over and over again and in the end you learn to live with it because I liked them. Mind you CC3 only had like 30 maps.

If only that demo would be released.