Quick Battle Randomness... Or Not

[Nijmegen]

Hi all, long (long) time lurker, came to CMx1 after it was established and have enjoyed the fruits of everyone's labors there for years.

I'm loving CMBN, but one thing I've noticed - and perhaps I've not tested enough, or have others noticed? - is that the randomness of quick battle's seems very low.

I've let the computer select parameters, and it keeps throwing me the same maps without fail - even when there are several it could choose from in my defined criteria.

The force mix can also be a bit strange, I know they're working on the AI's love of AT guns... It's less of an issue than the map selection though.

Perhaps the computer could take account of when it last threw up a particular map?

Or am I just getting lucky? I sense that QB's need some tweaking to throw up truly original scenarios.

[Childress]

Three quarters of the random QBs I've fired up have featured rain. And I just experienced a 'Tiny' one where the U.S. side was given four batteries of rocket artillery. The Germans surrendered on Turn 3, their force virtually wiped out.

I'm sure BFC will attend to these anomalies.

[gunnergoz]

Some things are more random than others, so you may well have a point. If so, I hope it is put on the fixit list, though there may be other issues that have higher priority.

[Battlefront.com]

We are definitely working on the force picking logic. Especially for Tiny battles. We thought we had the AT Gun obsession put to rest, but apparently there is still some condition where it comes roaring back into action. Trust me, it was much worse before

So what are the other issues that seem to be coming up too much? We will take a look into them and see what we see. So far I've noted here:

1. Rain

2. Not random enough with map choices

Others?

Steve

[WillLight]

We are definitely working on the force picking logic. Especially for Tiny battles. We thought we had the AT Gun obsession put to rest, but apparently there is still some condition where it comes roaring back into action. Trust me, it was much worse before

So what are the other issues that seem to be coming up too much? We will take a look into them and see what we see. So far I've noted here:

1. Rain

2. Not random enough with map choices

Others?

Steve

Hi Steve,

see a couple of threads down a discussion about Mixed versus the old "Balanced" resulting in getting even large-ish forces with only armour or only infantry.

[Tank Hunter]

We are definitely working on the force picking logic. Especially for Tiny battles. We thought we had the AT Gun obsession put to rest, but apparently there is still some condition where it comes roaring back into action. Trust me, it was much worse before

So what are the other issues that seem to be coming up too much? We will take a look into them and see what we see. So far I've noted here:

1. Rain

2. Not random enough with map choices

Others?

Steve

I'm seeing a lot of rain and night when selecting random

[pcelt]

Id reinforce the point about the repetitiveness of the map provision--probably need a larger number of maps and better levels of randomness in selection.

On a slightly different point I must say that on several occasions i have been very disappointed with the quality of the AI on defense in armour battles. Very often the whole force seem to be waiting close to ther target in a fairly disorganised way and are all to easily dispatched. I would hope for some more variety and purpose in the AI defense tactics where different elements defended different strongpoints en route to the target area as well as the actual target. Too many tank attack QBs now involve no more than a drive to the target and one brief frenetic battle and this will seriously reduce motivation.

I appreciate the amount of time and skill which must be needed to provide a good AI defense in the QBs but more than a clear drive across the whole map followed by one armoured melee at the target is not very gripping or realistic especially when repeated in various QB attacks.

I have found the AI tank attacks more varied and purposeful and challenging----but the AI tank defense tactics are often seem crude ,elementary and basic and lack any cunning or finesse.

I love many things about this game -- many more aspects than I feel unhapppy about---but I am very unhappy and disappointed re the issue I have raised above and hope that the quality of QB AI armoured defense can gradually be improved.

Cheers....

[Waycool]

I to play a lot of sp qb and am getting one random map set to I think open for nearly every pick in about 10 or so qb. This does seem to be an issue.

[GonzoAttacker]

Rain for sure. Night happens a lot. Rain is currently in four out of 6 QBs I am playing.

When i pick day i get dawn too. But have not picked day enough to do stats and for that matter until we get more info, we can do the stats.

[Waycool]

The quick battle map that comes up as random or open quite a bit for me is qb-061

[Dadekster88]

I have definitely not played enough QB's to say anything definitive, but the first 2 were rain...I didn't leave weather on random for my 3rd QB.

Great QB's I have to say although #3 was a bit of a turkeyshoot...2 full strength platoons of Panthers is just too much for the AI and it didn't help that the AI tried to cross a stream all in the same place coming in fat dumb and happy.

[HardRock]

We are definitely working on the force picking logic. Especially for Tiny battles. We thought we had the AT Gun obsession put to rest, but apparently there is still some condition where it comes roaring back into action. Trust me, it was much worse before

So what are the other issues that seem to be coming up too much? We will take a look into them and see what we see. So far I've noted here:

1. Rain

2. Not random enough with map choices

Others?

Steve

1. I'd like to be able to save during the force selection menu. Like take the saved force pool on another map.

2. I'd like a campaign, even if a mini one (a few battles) with the orignal force pool selection.

The quick battle is really my favorite since you choose your troops.

I usually go with tiny or small battles.

[Bertram]

I am currently playing a quick battle against Simmox. Not quite sure, as he did the selecting, but it seems I am supposed to be the (German) attacker (at least that is what the "briefing" tells me). The system gave me a 1981 point force (I went with the suggestion).

Then I was able to set up on half of the map, including the central village (the victory location), while Simmox had to set up at the map edge. He has several foxholes there - but I have no need to attack them. Somehow the attacker and defender map positions got reversed??

The map is Asslt Med Village 006

[JonS]

[MarkEzra]

I am currently playing a quick battle against Simmox. Not quite sure, as he did the selecting, but it seems I am supposed to be the (German) attacker (at least that is what the "briefing" tells me). The system gave me a 1981 point force (I went with the suggestion).

Then I was able to set up on half of the map, including the central village (the victory location), while Simmox had to set up at the map edge. He has several foxholes there - but I have no need to attack them. Somehow the attacker and defender map positions got reversed??

The map is Asslt Med Village 006

Interesting... And it's a PBEM?

First. I checked the map for any setup/data errors. There are none. So Force selection for the attacker (no matter German or US should default to the correct side and color. I suspect a possible Bug involving the PBEM/QB selection. If you guys could send me both your setup turns (and passwords) I'll check it out. send to Mark.Ezra3591 At Gmail Dot Com. With the correct no spaces, @, .