stone75 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I'm hoping a dev reads this and can help or sort in some way. Basically i bought the game because in CMBO i really enjoyed QB. Automatically chosen forces could throw up just about anything. I much prefer small games and as such being using Tiny, small and medium setup ups with auto troop choice. Due to the way its chosing forces im getting either all infantry or all tanks on the 'Mix' troops setting. The AI is spending on a core force and then from the main choices and then possibly something with the small change. I have played about 12 QB now and only 1 was a nice mix. Somone suggested trying a bigger game so went for medium. I chose my own force of PzGren supported by MkIVs' and a bit of arty. The AI had a stack of shermans and a halftrack. The game chose a bocage map. I just spent another hour carefully attacking only to kill one last tank and game over, not one bit of infantry support. In effect the AI did not stand a chance with armour in bocage without Inf support. I lost 1 MkIV. This is not a rant in anyway, i just need to point it out. Its killer playing for an hour or so to find the AI has a very one sided troop mix. CMBO did this so much better. All i can think of is the AI choses a core formation and they are pretty big, which leaves little else to spend. Its as though you need a different TOE for smaller games to get a nice battlegroup mix. Or maybe not force having to chose and whittle down an entire battalion but by a company instead. Apart from this, the game is a joy to play. I'll stick to the pre made games for now. steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Yeah I noticed this also, you get one or the other, mix is pretty much "random" anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Small quickbattles was my favourite type of game in the old games to. A snacksized map with a FUN interesting troop mix. To much realism in the trooptype department makes small games less intersting IMO. Fix the mix or do sumfink Battlefront . //Salkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
togi Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I totally agree this one , CM1 qb selection algortihm is better than this new counterpart but in qb's the troop type has to be selected / at least not mix only , a determined type / at first even in automatic buys in order not to be facing suprise results. I have tried several qbs but most enjoyable and balanced ones are mech infanty vs mech infantry types. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Yeah, the TINY/SMALL toggle really limits auto selection. If you allow MIX or RANDOM it will open things up a bit. Also, have tried RARITY to OFF? That would allow the autopicker to dig a bit deeper into the OOB. Otherwise, what I'm reading is that you want a force which is NOT built around some sort of military unit? (Puzzlement, not sarcasm.) Meaning, the autopicker HAS to start with some sort of unit, be it a platoon, battery, company, or battalion. Would a SMALLER initial unit, say platoon or battery, beefed up be better? More specifics would help. Example: I would like to have the autopicker be able to select a rifle platoon AND a tank platoon, then fill out the points with odds and ends. Is the above what you mean? Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 The problem is that there is no equivalent to the "Balanced" force setting that was popular in the CMx1 QBs. "Mixed" is really the CMx2 version of Unrestricted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Even if it could pick a platoon and attach a tank or two it would be good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waaarg Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Even if it could pick a platoon and attach a tank or two it would be good. You can. I am searching for the thread someone posted how but am coming up short. It involves selecting a HQ in a formation, and selecting single vehicle from the pull down menu on the left (or specialist team), and then adding a choice from the available squads/vehicles that appear where formations had been. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 You can. I am searching for the thread someone posted how but am coming up short. It involves selecting a HQ in a formation, and selecting single vehicle from the pull down menu on the left (or specialist team), and then adding a choice from the available squads/vehicles that appear where formations had been. Yeah I know about that, I mean "it": the AI that selects the force when set to computer or whatever it's called. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stone75 Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 Otherwise, what I'm reading is that you want a force which is NOT built around some sort of military unit? (Puzzlement, not sarcasm.) Meaning, the autopicker HAS to start with some sort of unit, be it a platoon, battery, company, or battalion. Would a SMALLER initial unit, say platoon or battery, beefed up be better? More specifics would help. Example: I would like to have the autopicker be able to select a rifle platoon AND a tank platoon, then fill out the points with odds and ends. Is the above what you mean? Ken Yes thats what i mean. The way i look at it, a small action ie tiny, small QB, does not have to be a solitary action. You could look at it as your playing a smaller part of a bigger battle. As such my Infantry platoon as part of X div, is suppoted by X armoured division. The armour is working with the infantry along a broad front so in this small sector of the front, a couple of tanks are working with my infantry. Also if you look at how the Germans defended bocage so well, one tank working with a few PzGren could hold much larger allied forces as they figure how to winkle the tank out of their way. Anyway, im glad im not the only one missing the old CMBO force mix for smaller games. I hope it can be remedied. steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stone75 Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 Even if it could pick a platoon and attach a tank or two it would be good. This can be done, by chosing the larger force and removing many of the units from it to free up points. Then add single units or a larger group, then go through them deleting units untill you get your points. Just watch who your assigning individual units too, i believe a yellow arrow in the purchased list signifies which HQ unit they will be attached too. The only downside to this, i don't think you can get rid of the highest HQ ie battalion. steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I should really have highlighted the "it" part http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1268958&postcount=9 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stone75 Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 I should read more carefully 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waaarg Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 At least I was first to miss it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cull Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I've been whining a bit about the QB AI picker selecting too many AT guns (and QB set up in general) and here's something Steve said: Yup, some of the picking logic gets a bit confused when it has a limited budget. The AT Gun issue is a separate one and that should be fixed for v1.01 as well. I thought I had that tweaked out for the shipping version, but apparently there's still a condition that allows it to happen. Steve So I know BF is looking into QB force selection, especially regarding smaller budgets. As someone that likes to play QBs with Tiny (or smaller) battles most of the time I'm hopeful that there will be some significant tweaking, and I'm confident they'll at least root out the main issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemoN Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Just defended with an understrength battalion with two 6 pounders against "Mixed". Battle size was set to large. Despite the heroic efforts of the one ATG left (the other one got taken out by arty immediately) killing 12 Pz.4's and 1PSW it wasn't enough to stop the 20+ Pz IV's and the platoon of Marders rushing me. Without any infantry. So there's definitely something broken. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cull Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Just defended with an understrength battalion with two 6 pounders against "Mixed". Battle size was set to large. Despite the heroic efforts of the one ATG left (the other one got taken out by arty immediately) killing 12 Pz.4's and 1PSW it wasn't enough to stop the 20+ Pz IV's and the platoon of Marders rushing me. Without any infantry. So there's definitely something broken. OH, well....ok, that sucks. "Mixed" should pick mixed. Maybe the QB picker AI is more broken than we'd thought. There's no point in selecting what force type you'll see if it's just going to ignore the selection. Ok, now I'm going to do a bunch of QB tests. I really thought the shenanigans were more limited to smaller QB budgets, but maybe not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillLight Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 This can be done, by chosing the larger force and removing many of the units from it to free up points. Then add single units or a larger group, then go through them deleting units untill you get your points. Just watch who your assigning individual units too, i believe a yellow arrow in the purchased list signifies which HQ unit they will be attached too. The only downside to this, i don't think you can get rid of the highest HQ ie battalion. steve Just wanted to point out that you CAN get rid of the highest HQ as long as it doesn't have any units under it. For example, pick an inf battalion, then get rid of EVERYTHING except for one infantry platoon, say Pl 1 of Company A. As soon as there is nothing left besides that company, you can get rid of Btn HQ and as soon as there is nothing left but that platoon, you can get rid of Coy HQ. However, if for whatever reason you keep Btn HQ you can't get rid of Coy HQ even if you only have the one platoon there as Coy HQ is the link between Pl HQ and Btn HQ. Hope I've made sense... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillLight Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 As to the original question of the post, I suspect that it is doable even with the new realistic TOE constraints to achieve the same "balanced" force type as was available in CMx1. Basically as I understand it, what we have now are CONSTRAINTS, so mix basically doesn't constrain you in any way, while inf only or arm only constrains the picking. So the easiest way to hit the target (and good computer search algorithms usually find the easy way) is to whittle down a large formation until it is within the constraints (of points, rarity and force mix). In order to achieve "balanced" the QB AI picker needs a GOAL rather than a constraint so that it whittles down an infantry battalion (for example) until it has "room" under the constraints to then add, say, an armoured platoon to the infantry company left from the whittling. Of course, although I'm a computer programmer, I'm not THE computer programmer so I could be talking out of my arse, so take it all with a grain of salt, but I believe there is nothing here that is fundamentally unachievable with the new force structures, just maybe requiring some more programming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I think the fact there are no constraints on how many points you put into one type of unit as long as that type is available may be causing the problem. Perhaps having AI logic that says, if game is mixed, no more than (just picking a number) 60% of points from units on the Infantry Formations tab (and 60% from the Armor tab). This wouldn't constrain the player and wouldn't necessitate an interface change as currently the points allocated to they type of unit isn't displayed (like in CMx1) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 If it's any consolation, this was noticed towards the very end of the beta testing process; it is a little better now than it was (the AI used to pick a plethora of halftracks and mortars). I suspect it is on the list of things to be addressed in the next patch or two. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAFU Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 This is my biggest head scratcher for the game too. I selected a medium scenario and chose my own forces--with me doing a probing attack. I let the AI pick the map and set the opfor selection as Mix. It selected 7 tanks and two 60mm mortar teams. I've run a couple tests since and found this behavior to be the norm. (Well 4 out of 5 was good enough for me!) Anyhoo--not much of a "mix". Consider this a constructive criticism as I love the game. I just don't want to have to pick the oposing force for quick battles as it takes the mystery out of what I'm facing. I love a good mystery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 What I've done in the few QBs I've played is keep hitting 'suggestion' until I get something that looks reasonable and then do the same for the AI forces. Sure, it lets me see what the AI has, but I only do a quick glance. I consider it recon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stone75 Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 I think the fact there are no constraints on how many points you put into one type of unit as long as that type is available may be causing the problem. Perhaps having AI logic that says, if game is mixed, no more than (just picking a number) 60% of points from units on the Infantry Formations tab (and 60% from the Armor tab). This wouldn't constrain the player and wouldn't necessitate an interface change as currently the points allocated to they type of unit isn't displayed (like in CMx1) If i remember right, CMx1 had catagories for Inf, Guns and Heavy inf weapons Vehicles and Artillery. A mixed force had a percentage of each giving you your force balance. Im thinking though if the AI still buys without much intel, would it be so hard to have preset forces for the AI to choose from ? Just lots of variations for the points avaliable. Anyway, hope they can sort something as im finding my self, booting up the game and turning it off once i realise forces are not good. Guachi, thats not a bad idea by the way. steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryo Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 is the problem only with "mixed"? mechanized infantry is ok? and..AI with "mechanized infantry",can buy tanks? 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.