Juno Beach Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hello group, In CMBO et al they had combined arms, which allocated a maximum amount of purchase points to each section, i.e. infantry, armour, artillery, etc. this created more balanced and interesting games. Currently a player could select two tiger tanks and the rest in artillery and blow their opponent off of the map!! With respect, would BFC please include combined arms in their next patch. Thank you, JB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 how are you going to call in artillery with a Tiger? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatmasta Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 With only two tigers and the rest artillery it will proably be quite an easy task to kill the tanks with at squads 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hello group, In CMBO et al they had combined arms, which allocated a maximum amount of purchase points to each section, i.e. infantry, armour, artillery, etc. this created more balanced and interesting games. Currently a player could select two tiger tanks and the rest in artillery and blow their opponent off of the map!! With respect, would BFC please include combined arms in their next patch. Thank you, JB I do find myself agreeing with you somewhat. If only because it would mean the AI-selection couldn't be "A platoon of Tanks or ATG plus whatever makes that up to the points total" quite so often. However, there is, I think a good incentive in the way the game works for you to pick a combined arms approach if you've got the option. Which is good, because that's what worked in Real Life. 2 Tigers and a bunch of Arty, plus an FO or two will be a total crapshoot. The Tigers are effectively blind, and 2 FOs won't see everything except on a wide open map where the Tigers would dominate anyway, so you'd be calling speculative fire most of the time. Even good FOs have to drop spotting rounds, and a canny opponent will displace out of the probable impact zone. On all but the smallest maps that have any significant cover, I reckon you'll run out of ammo before you get rid of all the assets that can kill your kitties before the kitties kill them. Unless you just get lucky and your speculative fire hits more than it misses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hello group, In CMBO et al they had combined arms, which allocated a maximum amount of purchase points to each section, i.e. infantry, armour, artillery, etc. this created more balanced and interesting games. Somehow I don't see this as a problem if you pick your own forces. Just choose Mixed and be reasonable in your picks. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 One man's reasonable is another man's "WTF?!" It would be nice not to worry your opponent might show up with 10 batteries of 240mm artillery. Ideally, the portion of points allotted to each category could be adjustable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 One man's reasonable is another man's "WTF?!" <snip> Ideally, the portion of points allotted to each category could be adjustable. While that is true sometimes you get WTF I much prefer this system. Too many times in the CM1x games I would almost get a force I was happy with but I could not get three tanks I could only afford 2 3/4 but I had points left over for infantry and could easily have covered the third tank but the system would not let me do it. My friends and I switched to playing without force restrictions after that because I could not stand it. No one ever did crazy stuff so we were happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juno Beach Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 One man's reasonable is another man's "WTF?!" It would be nice not to worry your opponent might show up with 10 batteries of 240mm artillery. Ideally, the portion of points allotted to each category could be adjustable. Yup, the combined arms selection should be in the game. If players want to play unrestricted, i.e. mixed, then they can still do so. JB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 What I'd really rather see is a "Player Defined" mix, where whoever creates the QB can allocate points into the various categories for each player. That could take care of a few other common requests, too. (The "free foxholes" thing, for example.) And all it'd require is even *more* work from BFC! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juno Beach Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 What I'd really rather see is a "Player Defined" mix, where whoever creates the QB can allocate points into the various categories for each player. That could take care of a few other common requests, too. (The "free foxholes" thing, for example.) And all it'd require is even *more* work from BFC! Perhaps, on a percentage allocation basis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 What I'd really rather see is a "Player Defined" mix, where whoever creates the QB can allocate points into the various categories for each player. That could take care of a few other common requests, too. (The "free foxholes" thing, for example.) That is a _really really good_ idea... (though I'm not sure how it takes care of free foxholes, it's still a good idea!) GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 +1 to that. The "Combined Arms" option was just one of the labor saving features of CM that sped things up. It's weird that players are now forced to do so much more work/thinking just to get a game going and then to play the game. This is supposed to be an entertaining leisure activity after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 +1 to player-defined points percentages for QBs. 5% increments for each category... must total 100%. Then we could have scores of threads on which combination is 'best'. ------ Additional related request --- Put ammo allotments in QB purchase screen as well as scenario design screen. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 So what's the difference between 'combined arms' and 'Mixed'? How much working/thinking is involved in hitting automap selection, 'mix', and automatic unit purchase? 1-2-3 and you're done. The only way to make it any easier is to... I don't know... build a standalone scenario that you just have to click & play! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 1. If you make the AI buy in a certain way, it may make for more fun games. Allowing it to spend all its points in any area and the AI selections can be pretty wonky. 2. Rather than resurrecting the ghost of Fionn's Rules, setting percentages in "Mixed" allows more balanced ladder and other H2H QB play. 3. It is like CM1 combined arms with a more interactive twist. EDIT - Just on the off-chance you were serious with your question ... or if future viewers are unaware.... the differences are... CM1 'Combined Arms' QB purchase restrictions only allow a certain percentage of the total allowed points to be spent on any single area(artillery, troops, vehicles.etc). CMBN 'Mixed' allows ALL points to be spent in ANY area. Once I grasped that I realised why the AI chokes so often. --- re-edit --- I saw the beta tester tag and erroneously assumed you would know the difference ... then i noticed the cmsf ... my bad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juno Beach Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 So what's the difference between 'combined arms' and 'Mixed'? How much working/thinking is involved in hitting automap selection, 'mix', and automatic unit purchase? 1-2-3 and you're done. The only way to make it any easier is to... I don't know... build a standalone scenario that you just have to click & play! Combined Arms would still be selected by the individual player, the same as Mixed. However, the player would be restricted to a percentage of purchase points under each category, infantry, armour, artillery, etc, which would ensure more balanced games instead of players piling on one particular group. I don't think it makes it any easier than Mixed, just more balanced and interesting to play. Take care, JB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 So what's the difference between 'combined arms' and 'Mixed'? If you want to make sure you have a combined-armed battle, just convenience. How much working/thinking is involved in hitting automap selection, 'mix', and automatic unit purchase? 1-2-3 and you're done. Clicking those things until you get a good combined arms force from the auto-selection? Not a lot of *work*, I guess, but it can take an annoying amount of time. Especially since you may have to play the QB awhile to see what the AI picked for the other side. The only way to make it any easier is to... I don't know... build a standalone scenario that you just have to click & play! That'd give perfect control, but no uncertainty. (Where AI-selection gives very little control but with complete uncertainty.) Combined arms would give enough control (hopefully) while maintaining uncertainty. 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.