Qb Map question.

[weapon2010]

It seem like the qb generator likes to give the same maps over and over.Im not saying there is a bug, just wondering if anyonelse is experencing this?Secondly, are people in general satisfied with the amount and quality of the maps that come with the base game.?There are some really good ones, and some awful ones.Some maps were obviosly remakes of an original and tweaked.

[GreenAsJade]

The QB system is awful. Really quite unusable. There are maps that bear no resemblance to their description.

This is exacerbated by the "the setup areas get reversed" problem.

There are some really good ones

We could do with a list of those, for sure!

GaJ

(Apologies in advance to those who put the effort into getting the QB maps in place. I'm sure you tried hard, under severe time pressure etc! At least your names aren't written anywhere )

[Boo Radley]

It was kind of funny; I played a BB ME last week utilizing a village and then last night, I set up another QB ME, again using a village. It was exactly the same map. Every house was in the same position and I thought, "Wow... this is a popular place!"

[altipueri]

Maybe they've forgotten how to do it since CMx1 days.

[Tarquelne]

My only problem with the maps is the difficulty of finding what I want for a QB.

Short of an allowing the maps to be sorted multiple ways in-game (type, size, features, etc.) I think adding a name to each, in addition to the current label and number, would be an improvement. It'd make them easier to remember and encourage the use of at least one feature name on the map. (So rather than just "ME Med. open/bocage 0666" we could have "ME Med - Huguenot Cabbage Plantation - open/bocage", for example.)

Hey, make the map files MP3s and put the meta-data, as well as all the map data, in the ID3 tags? That way you could also attach a music track to each map, too. What's not to like?

[Boo Radley]

I thought the QB maps the AI created in CMx1 were pretty good. Too bad that ability seems to have not been carried over to CMx2.

[pcelt]

I cannot support this generalised heavy criticism of QBs. Sure there are ways in which they might be improved --but if you you take responsibility for choosing and previewing the map you want for the battle -type you are selecting then most of the current antagonism and criticism ceases to be relevant.

We would certainly appreciate a wider and more extensive map availabily but this is slowly happening ( I especially would commend the set of 25 extra QB maps added by LJF.) and would hopefully request further additions to the QB listings.

I focus very much on QBs and especially on smaller encounters and using my own map choice and preview, I have enjoyed many excellent and varied battles and experienced a good variety of different tactical plans from the enemy force.

NB I have also never experienced the "side -reversal " issue referred to by GAJ.

[GreenAsJade]

These are words spoken by someone who never used the old QB system.

Almost "the whole point of it" was that you didn't have to review the map.

If I'm going to spend time reviewing maps etc I'll go find a scenario.

The "Q" in "QB" is for "Quick". As a "map library", the QB map library is no doubt fine. As a QB system it has proved unusable for me. As just one example, I selected a map called "Open Rough" and got completely clear open terrain, not a spot of Rough in sight.

GaJ

[Boo Radley]

I cannot support this generalised heavy criticism of QBs. Sure there are ways in which they might be improved --but if you you take responsibility for choosing and previewing the map you want for the battle -type you are selecting then most of the current antagonism and criticism ceases to be relevant.

So you think that getting the exact same map for two different QBs is perfectly normal. You don't think it makes the map generator look a bit... limited.

Whatever.

[Tarquelne]

I wrote carelessly up above: I *do* think there are problems with the current QB system that go beyond map selection. However, the solution to them careful map selection. And since you should "review" the maps anyway my only ongoing problem is finding the right map.

I still think there's a lot worthwhile in the system compared to scenarios. But then, for me almost the whole point of QBs is picking my own units. I don't really mind needing to find a map. Or discussing the set-up with my opponent (if it's H2H) and working out the other parameters. I do think that's a lot more work/effort required than CMx1 games... but I still like CMBN QBs.

My biggest dissatisfaction has been with balance. My current rule-of-thumb is: Think hard about the map if it's an Assault, a small map, an Armor or Mixed QB.

For Assaults I think it's pretty easy to get a map that won't really work with your chosen forces type.

Small maps you can have problems with arty or domination by Armor units.

Mixed QBs, if the map happens to be well-suited to Big Cats, may see the Big Cats too dominant. (Hmm.... if it's Mixed or Armor maybe use a Random map with no map preview?)

[A Canadian Cat]

These are words spoken by someone who never used the old QB system.

Almost "the whole point of it" was that you didn't have to review the map.

<snip>

I pretty much agree with pcelt and am pretty happy with the QB system. It is true that you sometimes see the same map repeated more that I would like. I am about to try adding maps from here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1429

to improve that. Note I have not done this yet - I have too many PBEM games on the go right now so no need to start a new one.

I am not a fan of no preview but if you are then great. I think the problem is just a lack of variety of maps and packs like above should help a lot.

I did use the CM1 QB system quite a bit. My big problem with it was that sometimes the generated map was good but more often than not it was not. And by not good I mean it was odd and wired and unsatisfying to play on. I am *much* happier with the new system overall.

Just MHO

[sburke]

The QB system itself is not bad considering what is trying to be done with it as opposed to what was in CMx1. The issue of the maps, their naming structure and organization is something that could use some help. My impression was the QB number was the actual map and the name noted what AI plans were built for them. However then I saw this combo.

Meet Med Town QB-156

Meet Small Hills (bocage) QB-156 (this one incidentally is the map used for the first battle of courage and fortitude minus the trees that were on the American right.

There are several others where the same QB has different descriptions, sometimes distinctly different. As to the quantity or quality I have not gone through map by map yet but it doesn't really matter. The player community can contribute additional material and hopefully we will soon have more really good maps than we could possibly need.

[Michael Emrys]

I thought the QB maps the AI created in CMx1 were pretty good. Too bad that ability seems to have not been carried over to CMx2.

Much as it pains me to admit it, I am completely in concurrence with Rue Badly here. Although the CM1 QB map generation system had its quirks (roads going up near-vertical cliffs anyone?), I nearly always got a map that was fun to play on with the first try, and I don't recall ever having to go through more than three to get a good one.

Although almost all of the bizarre quirks have been successfully squelched this time around, and those who have put their time and efforts into producing maps are to be thanked, most of the time I come away feeling a bit let down by the final product. I have held off saying anything before, because I freely confess I felt it hypocritical of me to criticize the efforts of others when I am frankly far too lazy to make any myself. But that was the beauty of the CM1 system: a few clicks and Bob's your uncle. Under CM2 I anticipate that it would take me hours and hours of toil before I could come up with something I wouldn't be dreadfully ashamed of, and no blaming it on "quirks" this time.

What is to be done? I don't know. BFC says that the machine-generated map is gone forever and is not coming back, and we have to take them at their word. So we are at the mercy of those human map makers who generously labor in our behalf. I find that I now have to go through three or four maps or more before I can find one that I am willing to play on, and even those can leave quite a bit to be desired. I spent most of my adult life studying natural landscapes and how they are formed, and I have to say that the maps provided for us don't strike me as the real McCoy. And I say that knowing that some of them are earnest efforts to reproduce existing maps of real areas. It's just that landscape creation is confoundingly complex and subtle. And that's the beauty of it.

Michael

[sburke]

Much as it pains me to admit it, I am completely in concurrence with Rue Badly here.

So who's signature line does that go into?

[Tarquelne]

What is to be done? I don't know. BFC says that the machine-generated map is gone forever and is not coming back,

I wonder if we could get some machine generated help. Say, a procedure to add minor elevation variations to an existing map. A few aids like that might not do anything for the reproduction maps, but could make the creation of "good" QB maps much easier. I've seen a slew of map-generation algorithms created for other games by players.

It'd require some new elements to the scenario editor... so maybe with the UI refit.

[pcelt]

Green As Jade-- I fear your snap judgments about people are as flawed and limited as your approach to QBs.

I have played CM games since 1999 and have experienced all of the approaches to QBs over this period .

Sure there were "speed of setting up" advantages in the early computer- generated "maps" but these battles was no match with CMBN in terms of terrain realism, the current computer opponent AI plans or overall battle quality and variety of tactics.

If when setting up a 30-45 minute QB you find yourself unable to spend 2 or 3 minutes selecting AND previewing an appriopriate map on which to to fight I feel sorry for you--If speed is all that matters to you in your life take up motor racing...

With apologies --- but your snap judgment and dismissal of someone elses view really irritated me....

[Tread Head]

"This is exacerbated by the "the setup areas get reversed" problem."

I get this issue a lot....

[sburke]

These are words spoken by someone who never used the old QB system.

Almost "the whole point of it" was that you didn't have to review the map.

If I'm going to spend time reviewing maps etc I'll go find a scenario.

The "Q" in "QB" is for "Quick". As a "map library", the QB map library is no doubt fine. As a QB system it has proved unusable for me. As just one example, I selected a map called "Open Rough" and got completely clear open terrain, not a spot of Rough in sight.

GaJ

Green As Jade-- I fear your snap judgments about people are as flawed and limited as your approach to QBs.

If when setting up a 30-45 minute QB you find yourself unable to spend 2 or 3 minutes selecting AND previewing an appriopriate map on which to to fight I feel sorry for you--If speed is all that matters to you in your life take up motor racing...

With apologies --- but your snap judgment and dismissal of someone elses view really irritated me....

C'mon guys no need to get personal on this. It is a good discussion on the various things we have to adapt to and some shortcomings in the process. Trying to make it work better for all of us as well as having the user community contribute to more and better maps can only make us all happier.

As a previous user of the old CMx1 QB system I disagree with GAJs assessment. Maybe you didn't have to worry about preview, but the maps were from my point of view pretty lame. Even the maps I have had issue with in CMBN (QB 80 comes to mind) are still better and they come with AI plans. However I have gotten spoiled by what is capable with the map editor and with some of the maps in the scenarios. We are already seeing QB map contributions and that process will only continue and accelerate as folks get more used to their creation. To say they are completely unusable is overly dramatic.

I am in the midst of a QB PBEM right now and the only complaint my opponent and I have is the map we chose is not as good as we think the editor is capable of. We did not preview, our mistake. I am in the process now of reviewing maps that I think would meet the level of expectation that other scenarios have given us and compile a list that we can choose from going forward. Simple answer to our problem. Considering the time I put into this game already compiling a list of preferred maps seems to be a rather small inconvenience to be assured I know the maps I choose from add rather than detract from the experience. The titles while perhaps helpful can't possibly convey enough information for my own subjective desires.

[MarkEzra]

"This is exacerbated by the "the setup areas get reversed" problem."

I get this issue a lot....

Mac Users HAVE had issues like this due to problems with the V1.1 patch. And I did find a map that had a map setup error that will be fixed with the next patch. But if you are a PC user having consistent map setup reversal then you should make sure you have the latest patch applied. If so please provide the name of the QB map. I will be happy to check them out

Re: QB Maps being terrible. I'm responsible for every QB Map in the game. Sorry they don't make the grade for you.

Re: CMx1 QB auto generated maps:

1. I've played hundreds of CMx1 QB Auto Generated Maps. Some good, some OK, MANY just dorky. And truthfully... just how many times does one have to reject a map before he finds an acceptable map to play on? Simple? OK... but Good? Nope...not in my experience. Perhaps that's why so many fan-designed QB maps were made.

2. The 3D Map world of CMx2 bares NO relationship to any previous CM Game. Attempts to compare them is a futile exercise.

I'd be Glad to see an auto generated map system for CMx2.... a design/implementation effort that will take lord knows how many coding hours to produce and double that to test. It's an old chestnut, but cruelly true: would you rather spend your time playing the Game now with it's "terrible" QB Map sys or spend the same time wishing for BFC to get it "right" for you personally?

[Cymru]

I wonder if we could get some machine generated help. Say, a procedure to add minor elevation variations to an existing map. A few aids like that might not do anything for the reproduction maps, but could make the creation of "good" QB maps much easier. I've seen a slew of map-generation algorithms created for other games by players.

It'd require some new elements to the scenario editor... so maybe with the UI refit.

I had the same thought a while back: I have no idea how difficult it would be to add ‘random’ modifications to an existing QB map. Leave the basic scenario intact but change elevations, trees, rivers etc. Not all would work but, as Emrys pointed out, in the old system that was one of the enjoyable aspects. Since QB is 90% of my playing, I really miss the old system and would love to see anything that would get closer to it.

[Cpl Steiner]

Just skimmed this thread so forgive me if this has already been raised.

At one time BFC were considering a new version of the QB generator which would construct a map from a number of "mega-tiles". These mega-tiles would effectively be very small maps which could be aligned with each other, rather like "Squad Leader" so-called "geomorphic" maps. If you've ever played "UFO - Enemy Unknown", you will know what I'm talking about. One mega-tile might have a small town on it, whilst another might have fields and bocage, but each map would be different because of the way they were randomly pieced together.

This was a great idea and I hope BFC one day resurrects it - maybe for CMx3? (hopefully sooner).

[sburke]

Mac Users HAVE had issues like this due to problems with the V1.1 patch. And I did find a map that had a map setup error that will be fixed with the next patch. But if you are a PC user having consistent map setup reversal then you should make sure you have the latest patch applied. If so please provide the name of the QB map. I will be happy to check them out

Re: QB Maps being terrible. I'm responsible for every QB Map in the game. Sorry they don't make the grade for you.

Re: CMx1 QB auto generated maps:

1. I've played hundreds of CMx1 QB Auto Generated Maps. Some good, some OK, MANY just dorky. And truthfully... just how many times does one have to reject a map before he finds an acceptable map to play on? Simple? OK... but Good? Nope...not in my experience. Perhaps that's why so many fan-designed QB maps were made.

2. The 3D Map world of CMx2 bares NO relationship to any previous CM Game. Attempts to compare them is a futile exercise.

I'd be Glad to see an auto generated map system for CMx2.... a design/implementation effort that will take lord knows how many coding hours to produce and double that to test. It's an old chestnut, but cruelly true: would you rather spend your time playing the Game now with it's "terrible" QB Map sys or spend the same time wishing for BFC to get it "right" for you personally?

oh, so it's YOUR fault.

For what it is worth, I have not had the setup areas issue and my main gripe on the maps is simply that I got spoiled by some. I don't consider that a bad thing. I don't mean to smear your efforts at all. I suspect you guys spent much more of your time trying to get functional AI plans and for those who play against the AI, that is critical. I believe Steve had stated previously that most folks who purchase CM play that way. As someone newly drawn to the dark side of PBEM however I am one of those who is more drawn to hth play and as such the AI plans are less important now.

As you noted the map world of CMx2 is so much better and that feeds on itself. Play on a few really good maps and you now expect every map to have that level of detail and care. Heck I can still recall looking inside the structure in the Villa in Bois de Baugin and seeing farm supplies INSIDE the barn. Trying to spend that kind of detail on 150+ maps in the short time frame available wasn't a realistic expectation. I view this as simar to the scenarios. The game comes with some, the community will add. It is what gives the game so much longevity.

So anyway, thanks for the maps you have provided and don't feel slighted if the bar keeps getting set a little higher. It's the nature of the beast.

[Michael Emrys]

I suspect you guys spent much more of your time trying to get functional AI plans and for those who play against the AI, that is critical. I believe Steve had stated previously that most folks who purchase CM play that way.

Yes. As one who plays exclusively against the AI, let me say that the addition of AI plans has been a major step forward. I hope that as experience is gained, further developments of and within the system can be expected.

Michael