Quick Battle Limitations

[HarryB]

You need to delete the Batt HQ subordinate first (e.g. HQ support team, XO team, vehicles, and indirect assets that are directly under the Batt HQ; basically any units in white text).

Ok, I was able to delete the battalion commander after deleting every white unit below him, but this is still not as good a solution as having companies and platoons selectable to attach to existing formations. If I do it this way, I can end up with a bunch of battalions pared down to company level or below, but they are not part of a unified command structure, not to mention the fact that it is cumbersome to do it this way.

[Blackcat]

I struggled with the force choice for a bit but after a short while I got the hang of it and now can move around to get what I want pretty quickly. The reason why one just can't thow together a mixed formation as in days of yore is the need to have a proper chain of command, a formation must have an HQ. I am not sure how many people have really grasped the C2 side of the game as yet.

[Cull]

Lot of good comments in this thread, and it seems to me that it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing.

Or maybe "six of one, a half-dozen of the other"

I need to play with it some more. I also had the "too many chiefs" problem (where there was no "delete" option for commanders etc) but it sounds like that's solvable.

I don't know....I'm still falling on the side of preferring to build up rather than take away, but I recognize that it's mostly an issue for those of us that typically like Tiny (to sub-tiny) QBs.

I DO understand and appreciate the fundamental desire to preserve historical accuracy, and I like doing that for the most part.

Except when I don't

I can certainly live with it the way it is, and happily. The crazy number of options and depth of the QB system is fantastic.

Would I like to see a "pure cherry-picking historical fiasco" option? Yes.

[HarryB]

I struggled with the force choice for a bit but after a short while I got the hang of it and now can move around to get what I want pretty quickly. The reason why one just can't thow together a mixed formation as in days of yore is the need to have a proper chain of command, a formation must have an HQ. I am not sure how many people have really grasped the C2 side of the game as yet.

And that is one of the problems with selecting the forces the way they are set up now, they are not part of a unified command structure. If you could add platoons and companies to existing formations, they would be part of the structure. If they are just battalions pared down to company level or below, they are just individual units with the command structure stopping at the highest level remaining within their individual battalion instead of reporting to a higher level commander. A better way to do it would be to select one battalion level formation and then add companies to it, or add platoons to individual companies within the existing battalion, but that is not possible the way it is set up now.

[Cull]

The reason why one just can't thow together a mixed formation as in days of yore is the need to have a proper chain of command, a formation must have an HQ.

Why? Does the chain of command not exist below Company level, in terms of the AI?

I mean, once a battle is underway, HQs die. It's not like the AI seizes up at that point, you just take a hit to morale and/or C-and-C, and maybe lose off-board assets. Why not be able to start a game that way? There's still Plt leaders, and Sqd leaders.

I am not sure how many people have really grasped the C2 side of the game as yet.

I get it, but maybe messing with that is a deal-breaker for the AI or something. If so, fair enough....but it shouldn't have to be, should it?

Why should you not be able to start a game with a single platoon, if you like?

Hmmm....maybe I really don't have a clue about the C2 . And I'm not trying to be belligerent here, I'm genuinely curious. I didn't play CMSF so I am just learning the ins-and-outs of CMx2.

[akd]

Why should you not be able to start a game with a single platoon, if you like?

You absolutely can.

[sburke]

I believe there was actually a detailed response by Steve at one point about the QB unit selection and their perspective on it that included him discussing an alternate option to Cherry pick from the bottom up versus the top down at some point down the road.

Don't take my word for it though, you can search by his forum posts for the specific entry and if I find it I will add a link here.

Wasn't quite what I remembered, but still

This is one of those classic situations of where design follows function. You QB guys screamed at us for years about how you wanted tons of options. Well, you have them now The ton of options, however, requires a proportional amount of UI. It's about as clean as we can make it.

We did look into the possibility of purchasing "bottom up" instead of "top down". It was deemed too much work for too little need. There's a lot of book keeping code work that would be necessary to make bottom up work. I really do hope we can put the time into it, though, because I think it would be nice to have. Not strictly necessary, but nice all the same.

Steve

[Johnny Canuck]

I raised this topic in the following thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96861

Having played with it a bit, at this point if I had the sole choice of the CM2 method or the CM1, I'll take the CM2, as it'll help me to learn the structure of a real battalion.

Just took a bit of an explanation and some practice. I'm good now. . .

[Cull]

You absolutely can.

Understood. That was intended to refute the claim I was addressing.

Anyway, Steve's post that was just quoted is good enough for me

[Narses]

You can trim those options down to what ever level you want. Having just started messing with that myself, I'll let someone with more experience tell you how. The reason it is set up the way this is way is for historical reasons, displaying formations as they actually were set up. It's easier to trim down to a company that to "trim up" to a battalion...

I don't think "historical reasons" is a good argument. First the Germans were masters at throwing together ad hoc kampfgruppe and in QB the plyr should have no restrictions as 1) there is already a point (value) limitation) and 2) the units/vehicles available are already only those for the June thru Aug 1944 time period.

Finally QB is a great place to try out experiments and tactics or just to see how units perform. Having to dick around with "rarity" & "suggestion" is a pain in the rear. I kow what I want.

[akd]

I don't think "historical reasons" is a good argument. First the Germans were masters at throwing together ad hoc kampfgruppe and in QB the plyr should have no restrictions as 1) there is already a point (value) limitation) and 2) the units/vehicles available are already only those for the June thru Aug 1944 time period.

Finally QB is a great place to try out experiments and tactics or just to see how units perform. Having to dick around with "rarity" & "suggestion" is a pain in the rear. I kow what I want.

Then set rarity to "none" and purchase what you want.

[womble]

It occurred to me that forcing a heirarchy with an HQ at every level could be restrictive; perhaps my rememberings are for periods outside the WW2, but I'm sure there are times when El-Tees end up leading both companies and their own platoon (and surely other out-of-TO arrangements), sometimes for extended periods, when replacements/promotions haven't come down to replace losses. While I understand that the heirarchy needs to be preserved, can you take out (a limited number of) lower HQs, so that, say ACoy is running 1Plt and Bttn is running BCoy? Will turning combat losses on sometimes leave you with no LT in your platoon HQ slot?

[YankeeDog]

It occurred to me that forcing a heirarchy with an HQ at every level could be restrictive; perhaps my rememberings are for periods outside the WW2, but I'm sure there are times when El-Tees end up leading both companies and their own platoon (and surely other out-of-TO arrangements), sometimes for extended periods, when replacements/promotions haven't come down to replace losses. While I understand that the heirarchy needs to be preserved, can you take out (a limited number of) lower HQs, so that, say ACoy is running 1Plt and Bttn is running BCoy? Will turning combat losses on sometimes leave you with no LT in your platoon HQ slot?

It did happen where a one of the Platoon commanders would have to take over running the Company due to combat losses or whatever. Generally, the Company XO is second in line to command the Company (in fact, one of the major reasons why there are XOs is to provide redundancy in command). But there were times when he wasn't available either.

But in cases where a platoon commander has to take over the Company command role, and especially in the context of tactical combat (as opposed to for non-combat administrative purposes), the officer taking over command of the Company generally would not continue to command his own platoon as well. Another officer, even a Noncom, would temporarily take command of the platoon.

So in game terms, if you wanted to represent this, you could (a) decrease the size of the Company and Platoon CO units to reflect losses, and ( consider reducing the quality of these CO units, to reflect commanders in temporary battlefield promotions, unfamiliar with their new responsibilities.

As the company takes further losses what you might also see is the dissolving of one platoon entirely, with its remaining members folded into the other platoons.

Edit to add: So, to answer the last part of your questions, yes; sometimes a platoon could certainly end up temporarily under command of the Platoon Sargent, or other Noncom, if no Lieutenant was available to take over command. The game may not literally represent this (i.e., you may not see "Sgt. Rock" in the info box as commander of the platoon), but this is what might happen in situations where there are significant losses to command.

[Blackcat]

It occurred to me that forcing a heirarchy with an HQ at every level could be restrictive; perhaps my rememberings are for periods outside the WW2, but I'm sure there are times when El-Tees end up leading both companies and their own platoon (and surely other out-of-TO arrangements), sometimes for extended periods, when replacements/promotions haven't come down to replace losses. While I understand that the heirarchy needs to be preserved, can you take out (a limited number of) lower HQs, so that, say ACoy is running 1Plt and Bttn is running BCoy? Will turning combat losses on sometimes leave you with no LT in your platoon HQ slot?

A Platoon Commander taking over the command of a company was indeed a relativley common event in all armies goig back centuries. However, two points. Firstly, this mostly happened outside the scope of a CM fight which are limited to a couple of hours - once the fight was over a reorganisation, would take place. Secondly the new company commander would not carry on running his platoon, doing both jobs would be impossible even on a very short term basis. The platoon would be turned over to a senior NCO.

Yankee Dog, has indicated how such circumstances could be set-up before a CM battle, but to consider a command reorganisation during a scrap would be ahistorical.

[LJFHutch]

At first it's hard (only because it looks intimidating), but I can grab a company of infantry out of a battalion within 5 seconds. It's much better than trying to build a battalion anyhow.

[Narses]

Then set rarity to "none" and purchase what you want.

Two things I may be still too new to CMBN to have figured QB out totally, in fact I just realized I wasn't using "suggestions" as well as I might. I'll keep working at it.

Still my point is why is there "rarity" at all ? The essence of QB should be to let the plyr do what he wants within the point restrictions for the battle size.

I very much like this game and can get fairly close to want I want in rarity none. But you can not get whatever you want it seems. However, even using automatic is an excellent choice often if you don't want to cherry pick a unit and have to fight with what you get.

[YankeeDog]

T

Still my point is why is there "rarity" at all ? The essence of QB should be to let the plyr do what he wants within the point restrictions for the battle size.

Because there is a group of that like to have (and have requested) a system that gives players an incentive to make more historical choices. Ergo, the rarity system. If it's not your cup of tea, you don't need to use it.

There are a range of tastes to how people like to play CM. It's nice that BFC gives us options.

[akd]

Two things I may be still too new to CMBN to have figured QB out totally, in fact I just realized I wasn't using "suggestions" as well as I might. I'll keep working at it.

Still my point is why is there "rarity" at all ? The essence of QB should be to let the plyr do what he wants within the point restrictions for the battle size.

I very much like this game and can get fairly close to want I want in rarity none. But you can not get whatever you want it seems. However, even using automatic is an excellent choice often if you don't want to cherry pick a unit and have to fight with what you get.

Okay, you don't mean rarity, you mean cost. You don't think there should be any points at all, but points are fundamental to balance and AI choice of units.

[Sardaukar]

Why not just have unit level "switch button" in QB generator (Bn,Coy, Plt) with list of applicable organizations? Maybe in some future version.

But it would be bit easier and more intuitive to Add than having to Delete. That way you could click Bn-level and get list of Bn structures to choose, e.g. PzGren Battalion, then click Plt and see list of Plts available, e.g Stug IIIG platoon.

That way you could easily create for example German Kampfgruppe, e.g selecting aforementioned Bn, and adding a tank platoon...or infantry company, or whatever. LOT less clicks.

One can always trim down Bn organization...but then if you want to add sub-unit from another similar organization, clicks start again.

I just say that while system works, it is bit sub-optimal.

[Narses]

Okay, you don't mean rarity, you mean cost. You don't think there should be any points at all, but points are fundamental to balance and AI choice of units.

No, I said let the plyr select from within the points. I get that the AI must select also.

But your point is valid - if rarity is none what is my problem. I question the value of rarity in QB at all. In a historical game rarity might have some purpose to prevent the accumulation of nonhistorical assets (I guess). QB should be whatever the plyr wants from the assets available.

I liked the CMx1 approach. Want a self-developed quickie. Just go to list of units/weapons and pick. Stay within your points, click on a squad, here, a towed piece, a tank or 2 and off to the war. Yes, I still play CMBB and AK. Love AK as it goes to Sicily and Italy.

In CMBN I'm constantly going from Formation to individual vehicles to suggestions to delete, etc., etc. Seems overly complicated. I'm deleting to get where I want but still it gives me something slightly different.

Actually I'm damned pleased with CMBN. Can't wait to get to the Canadian/British beaches.

[Stitch]

I am mostly happy with the QB set ups and how it is accomplished. The two small suggestions I have is:

1) Having the keyboard delete button mapped to the delete action button on the UI

2) Having some sort of selection save so I can take a favorite force selection for a certain map size and type ready to go in a click.

Other than that, I can commend everything else in that process.

[YankeeDog]

In CMBN I'm constantly going from Formation to individual vehicles to suggestions to delete, etc., etc. Seems overly complicated. I'm deleting to get where I want but still it gives me something slightly different.

.

Part of the issue here is that, with the much more detailed C2 modeling in CMBN, it doesn't work for the player just randomly pick individual units from a list anymore, the game has to "know" how they should be tied together for C2 purposes. Hence the way you have to start with a Battalion, and strip down to the units you actually want, and then add an attach any special teams.

[Battlefront.com]

Coming in a bit late...

Since we introduced Rarity in CMBB, at the request of players (including QB players), there has been this very odd reaction to it by some. And here we go again Some people say "I don't like it therefore I think it should be removed from the game. Even though it's already optional". I'm just scratching my head here (still) why there is fuss about an optional feature. If someone doesn't like it, don't use it. Why is it more complicated than that?

Remember, there is no one type of player. Sure, I would agree that most QB players are more "gamey" than "historical" and therefore, understandably, don't like Rarity getting in the way of their choices. But there are players who do want to go with more-or-less realistic choices because they like being "forced" to make due with common stuff instead of always finding themselves commanding Panthers or Sherman M4A3 (76). If we removed Rarity completely, how would this happen? And how would it be enforced?

It's really a non-issue. We're not going to remove optional methods of play because the people that don't like them want them removed. That's silly

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Back to the various issues regarding Formation picking...

There are two primary reasons why we require players to work with Formations as the basis of their force instead of the CMx1 method of chaotic, detached assembly. Those two reasons are:

1. One of the central pieces of the CMx2 engine is the the C2 (Command & Control) modeling. In theory you can play with a disconnected force, like CMx1, but no player would want this. Relative Spotting and Support calls would be completely hosed, and no player would enjoy going into battles without these capabilities intact. Well, no player that has sanity intact

2. Most players want to have some sense of what a good force balance is. Real life organizations inherently provide that. Obviously some do it better than others, but that's a separate issue. I remember lots of CMx1 players that were quite upset that there was no guidance from us about what was a good force mix. For some reason I remember some guy who bought two Weapons Companies and didn't understand why that wasn't a good idea until after he lost the battle quite badly.

The desire to assemble forces from scratch is understandable but isn't something we're planning on spending time catering to. We will eventually allow people to move component pieces around, such as moving an Engineer Platoon over to be cross attached to a Rifle Company. The reason it's not in the game right now is that it's a lot of coding and testing work to get this to function correctly without being confusing or creating internal data problems. We can't do everything for everybody even with 10 years of development, so expecting it all in one release is an unrealistic expectation.

The issue about not being able to build from the bottom up, instead of current top down, is similar. Right now the "rules" are very easily enforced from a code standpoint because you can't do something that violates the C2 structural requirement. If you build from the bottom up there would have to be UI and internal coded checks to ensure a player doesn't go off into a battle with things in a "broken" state. Totally doable from a development standpoint, but not where we think our time is best spent at this point.

As many have said already, the system right now is quick and easy to work with once you understand how to work with it. It really isn't difficult or time consuming to use even if it takes a little bit to wrap ones' head around the concepts.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm just curious why German dismounted infantry can be purchased by the company but American must be purchased by the battalion. Of course you can pair the American battalion down to a company, but it requires extra mouse clicks.