New QB DAR started at BF

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
The information so far has been good for those of you who enjoy a QB more than a scenario.

I notice some good things so far; rarity points separated from purchase points, map previews by both players and the ability to attach units to platoons.

This one should be quite interesting as it develops. No link as I'm on my Ipad, but it's at the top of the page.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
The information so far has been good for those of you who enjoy a QB more than a scenario.

I notice some good things so far; rarity points separated from purchase points, map previews by both players and the ability to attach units to platoons.

This one should be quite interesting as it develops. No link as I'm on my Ipad, but it's at the top of the page.
cool! thanks for the info!
haven't read all the info but it looks like the guy with the PanzerIVs (inferior equipment) will have an edge in troop quality.

here is the link:
http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=95456

A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission
INTRODUCTION:

The AAR which is about to follow was inspired by a spirited debate in the BETA forum about the capabilities of the Panzer IV, especially compared to the Sherman. I think as this AAR unfolds you might be surprised by some of the events as they happen. I will try to explain the reasoning and how the game data works in certain circumstances as these events arise.

I will say that this little game, fought against Warren The_Capt Miron really opened my eyes about how to conduct a tank battle while equipped with what is obviously inferior equipment. There will be highs and lows for both sides, the battle will ebb and flow across the map, and yes Virginia, many tanks will die.

So, if you enjoy hearing death screams coming from within an armored coffin, then stay tuned. This AAR might be just what you are looking for.
 
Last edited:

junk2drive

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
7
Location
Arizona West Coast
Bil H was on the Panzer Command team and was firmly in favour of keeping the platoon orders system with less player control. At least that was my impression and if he stops by here he can correct me. I will be interested in seeing what he thinks of BNs command and control system in action. Maybe he will enlighten us on the differences between BN and CMx1 and PC.
 

Bil H

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
Easton Maryland
Bil H was on the Panzer Command team and was firmly in favour of keeping the platoon orders system with less player control. At least that was my impression and if he stops by here he can correct me. I will be interested in seeing what he thinks of BNs command and control system in action. Maybe he will enlighten us on the differences between BN and CMx1 and PC.
J2D, I hope all is well in the PCO camp and we can expect to see that game released soon!

I don't want to get into too much detail in comparing C2 between CMBN, CMx1, and PCO. First of all I think CMx1 is irrlevant and obselete, at least to me. I know some of you still play it, but I don;t and haven't for years, so I would not be able to give a valid point of view.

CMBN has a more nebulous C2 system than PCO I believe.. what I mean is that in CMBN if you have a unit that is out of C2 then it becomes very fragile and pressing home an attack, or sticking to a defense becomes very difficult. A unit out on a limb is very fragile in CMBN. I think this has a very realistic feel to me, at least when commanding at the Company command level, which IMO is the ideal battle size for a CMBN scenario. I've played battalion sized games in CMBN and though it works, it's not as clean and fun to me as the Company level.

PCO on the other hand is more strict in it's aplication of C2, especially with its Platoon orders. It is harder to break off a section, an individual vehilcle, team, or squad in PCO than in CMBN. This is a good approach if you want to simulate combat a higher echelon and I think that PCO is best palyed at the battlaion level.

CMBN requires you to get down in the weeds with your units and be careful with unit placement, carefully moving into hull down positions and being aware of all threats to every vehicle, squad, gun, and team in your command. PCO on the other hand is best played a at higher level and does not require that amount of micro management. That is one of the things I liked about PC when I first saw it.

I like both approaches actually.. in CMBN it is fun to get down to the weeds and place every vehicle. It is also fun IMO, in PCO, to pull back and give orders at the Platoon level and the game handle the minutia. It all depends on what you feel like that day.

I like both games and will be playing them both.
 

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
Steve-O sez :

Yes, the guy who sets up the game can choose the map AND preview it before finalizing his selection. And yes, I do expect there will be some gnashing of teeth and whining about this by the 2nd player. Our standard answer to that is... if you find someone trying to screw you over in multiplayer, refuse to play with him again. Works every time :laugh:
That’s brilliant. I can not for the life of me understand how you could ever defend such a boneheaded 'feature'.

I can't wait to hear what Redwolf will have to say about this.
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,686
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
Talk about being able to Cherry-pick...

I can hear a lot of "2nd players" going; "no, pick a new map, no, pick a new map... AND do it quicker this time."

It would seem under Steve's version Player-1 has all the time in the world to "look over" the exact map he wants (and likes) for the BEST locations for key-hole shots, ambushes etc. While Player-2 will be under the "come on hurry up let’s get the game started already" pressure.

Yes you can, "refuse to play that player again" but why should you even be forced into such a possibile position?
 

Bil H

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
Easton Maryland
Boneheaded feature?

Sgt Kelly, I play mostly QBs in CMBN and I have never had an issue with the map.. you can allow the game to choose or the player can choose. What's the issue? If the other player chooses and you don't like what you see when you preview it when purchasing your map tell him and start over. These maps can be previewed in the scneari editor also, so you can both come to a consensus on what map you want to play on.

Or, just let the game choose.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
I thought someone said in the thread that the QB can be chosen by the user or it is 'automatic'?
I need to look that post up...
:)

here is something...but not confirmed AFAICT (bold my emphasis)...

Rocky Balboa
I believe Heer Hardenberger said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heer Hardenberger
This allows you to examine the map and customize your force accordingly. Maps can either be chosen by the player setting up the game, or chosen automatically. In this case Warren chose the map himself.






a tip for breaching bocage in CMB4N...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal Dude View Post
Ho boy the cherry picking you can do... and with the new attachment system it can reach stupendous levels.
I've gotten in the habit of attaching a 3-man demo team riding on a jeep to some of my tank platoons to breach bocage for them.

Yankee Dog replies:
I don't think this tactic is particularly gamey, at least as a general concept. The U.S. Army experimented with various tactics for breaching the bocage. One thing that was done with some success was detailing teams of engineers with explosives to work closely with tanks. This worked passably well, though one problem was that the engineers themselves were easily "brushed off" the tank by small arms fire and/or mortar fire, making it difficult for the infantry and the tank to stay together.

The only thing that seems a bit ahistorical about your tactic is using a Jeep to carry the engineers around -- In the examples I've read of this tactic, the engineers rode on the tank if they couldn't keep up on foot. But since CMBN doesn't model tank riding yet, your use of a Jeep for transport seems like a reasonable abstraction. After all, the engineers are nearly as vulnerable in the Jeep as they would be on the back of one of the tanks.
Cheers,
YD
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I can't wait to hear what Redwolf will have to say about this.
I am not too concerned about this.

One reason is that I will have to see, and I mean game on hands, whether CMBN is suitable for competitive multiplayer in the first place. If not then it doesn't matter. That would be kind of OKish. TacOps isn't suitable for competitive either and people have lots of fun. Maybe even more.

Second, this is a typical "ran out of programming motivation and something else is more important" (and we all know there are plenty more important bits to flips left) that can easily be fixed if user reactions raises the importance high enough. BFC has an increased tendency to fix things like this if it causes too many protests, see the blue bar.

I maintain that my main concerns are fog of war and defensive cover related, starting with how cover and concealment from vegetation are modeled. If they screwed this up the rest of the rubbish doesn't matter.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I can hear a lot of "2nd players" going; "no, pick a new map, no, pick a new map... AND do it quicker this time."
On the tournamenthouse ladder is was SOP that either player can reject one map when playing on automatically generated maps.
 

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
What's the issue?
There is none. I'm just remarking on the fact that a system - whether it be used a lot (by you) or not - whereby one player gets to see the map and the other one doesn't is dumb.

If the other player chooses and you don't like what you see when you preview it when purchasing your map tell him and start over.
The point being that you can't do that.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Steve-O sez :



That’s brilliant. I can not for the life of me understand how you could ever defend such a boneheaded 'feature'.

I can't wait to hear what Redwolf will have to say about this.
Actually, I thought it too but both players will be able to fully look atthe map before they choose their forces.
 

junk2drive

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
7
Location
Arizona West Coast
Thanks Bil that clears it up. Unfortunately not enough people liked the PCK style of command (or other things about the game) for it to take off. I think going closer to CMx1 with PCO is a good choice but only time will tell.
Sounds like BN has a Close Combat style of morale and CC was the best at that in its day, IMO.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
J2D, I hope all is well in the PCO camp and we can expect to see that game released soon!

I don't want to get into too much detail in comparing C2 between CMBN, CMx1, and PCO. First of all I think CMx1 is irrlevant and obselete, at least to me. I know some of you still play it, but I don;t and haven't for years, so I would not be able to give a valid point of view.

CMBN has a more nebulous C2 system than PCO I believe.. what I mean is that in CMBN if you have a unit that is out of C2 then it becomes very fragile and pressing home an attack, or sticking to a defense becomes very difficult. A unit out on a limb is very fragile in CMBN. I think this has a very realistic feel to me, at least when commanding at the Company command level, which IMO is the ideal battle size for a CMBN scenario. I've played battalion sized games in CMBN and though it works, it's not as clean and fun to me as the Company level.

PCO on the other hand is more strict in it's aplication of C2, especially with its Platoon orders. It is harder to break off a section, an individual vehilcle, team, or squad in PCO than in CMBN. This is a good approach if you want to simulate combat a higher echelon and I think that PCO is best palyed at the battlaion level.

CMBN requires you to get down in the weeds with your units and be careful with unit placement, carefully moving into hull down positions and being aware of all threats to every vehicle, squad, gun, and team in your command. PCO on the other hand is best played a at higher level and does not require that amount of micro management. That is one of the things I liked about PC when I first saw it.

I like both approaches actually.. in CMBN it is fun to get down to the weeds and place every vehicle. It is also fun IMO, in PCO, to pull back and give orders at the Platoon level and the game handle the minutia. It all depends on what you feel like that day.

I like both games and will be playing them both.
Good to see you active here, Bil. Thanks for posting your thoughts.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I am not too concerned about this.

One reason is that I will have to see, and I mean game on hands, whether CMBN is suitable for competitive multiplayer in the first place. If not then it doesn't matter. That would be kind of OKish. TacOps isn't suitable for competitive either and people have lots of fun. Maybe even more.

Second, this is a typical "ran out of programming motivation and something else is more important" (and we all know there are plenty more important bits to flips left) that can easily be fixed if user reactions raises the importance high enough. BFC has an increased tendency to fix things like this if it causes too many protests, see the blue bar.
I agree with this. I actually like the idea. I would trust my opponent to come up with a 'good' map more than the computer to come up with one on its own. That's what is happening in the new system. If buddy wants to discard a couple, go for it, if it means he is shopping for an interesting one for both of us to play on. If both players see the map before forces are "purchased", no big deal. Or, as pointed out, the computer can auto-pick, as pointed out.

Picture this email exchange;

Player 1: Wanna QB?
Player 2: Sure.
Player 1: I'll send a set up. I'll take Axis, 1,000 points, meeting engagement?
Player 2: Ok, but pick a good map for us. Something with medium hills and village sound ok?
Player 1: Sure. Bocage?
Player 2: If you want. But if that stupid Hill 37 map comes up, jettison it; it's dreadful.
Player 1: I agree, I hate playing on that map. If it comes up, I'll junk it.
Player 2: Sounds good.
 
Last edited:

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Steve-O sez :



That’s brilliant. I can not for the life of me understand how you could ever defend such a boneheaded 'feature'.
I can only imagine you would make a remark like this because you either haven't read how it works or don't understand it. So I'll take a minute to brief you.

When setting up a QB, multiplayer or solo, there are drop down options that allow the person setting up the battle to have the computer select the map or the player (if playing multi player the person not setting up is able to tell if it is computer or player selected in a list they receive stating what the QB parameters are).

Also, under each players list of QB options there is the ability to allow the player to view the map before selecting their units. So it is flexible enough where each, one or neither of the players may preview the map.

If you don't think it is a good idea to preview a map before purchasing then don't select "preview map" when setting up the QB. Nothing boneheaded about that. The control over the "boneheaded feature" is in the players hands. They don't have to use the boneheaded feature if they don't want to. And with the list of parameters that the non-set up player receives it is transparent what choices the set up player used.

Being able to view a QB map before purchasing units is a request people have made since CMx1 originally came out (full game replay is another long time request). Because of that I doubt many people will feel that it is boneheaded that they now have the option of viewing the map before purchase.

As Eric the Midget (actor) would say: "Bye for now"
 
Last edited:

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
Also, under each players list of QB options there is the ability to allow the player to view the map before selecting their units. So it is flexible enough where each, one or neither of the players may preview the map.
Then please explain the following statement to me :

And yes, I do expect there will be some gnashing of teeth and whining about this by the 2nd player. Our standard answer to that is... if you find someone trying to screw you over in multiplayer, refuse to play with him again. Works every time :laugh:
If both players can preview the map, then why would one of them have to be gnashing his teeth and whining ? And how could one player be trying to screw the other one over ?

The only logical conclusion that could be drawn from Steve's statement is that only one player (the one that sets up the game) can preview the map. If that is contrary to the facts I am not at fault for that.

You are also hereby advised that if you choose to continue with this pedantic, condescending tone you will be answered in kind.
 

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
I think the problem is that the first player chooses the map.

Actually, thinking about it, a player could go as far as dropping in their own rigged map in the qb folder where their opponent has to fight uphill over hundreds of metres of barren dirt. Then their opponent could preview the map and tell them not to be such a knob.
 
Last edited:

Bil H

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
Easton Maryland
Both players can only view the map once they are in the purchase screen. When choosing the map, the starting player only has a little screenshot to go by. If the players really want to find a suitable map it's best that they open them in the scenario editor one at a time, make note of which one they both like and then choose that one for the QB.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about it is no big deal.

By the way, I posted the Opening Moves (two part post) portion of the AAR just a few minutes ago.
 
Top