QB Vs Scenario

Meat Grinder

Meat Grinder

FGM Lieutenant General
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
11,319
Reaction score
8,643
Age
58
Location
Tennessee
IMO, Quick Battles are the man's game in CM. Scenarios are all well and good, but a QB is like a chess match. Each opponent starts on equal ground. You win or lose on your own merit, from negotiating house rules, to picking a map, to choosing forces, to actually playing the game.

Discuss.
 
I enjoy both formats as well.

QBs provide more of a balance or attempt at balance. You also get to play with toys you might not run into very often in scenarios.However, they are more of an artificial construct due to picking what you want, picking the map and all that stuff.

Problem with scenarios is that you can run into some real lemons. On the other hand, a real good scenario beats a real good QB IMO. Maps tend to be spicier in scenarios, too.

Is there a depot of sorts out there with CM2 scenarios from which to draw?
 
I'll play either but much prefer scenarios. QB's I have played are often seem to be won or lost in the 'shopping' beforehand. Also there is no option for reinforcements in a QB, whereas a scenario can be reinvigorated 40 minutes into the fight. However, as TakeTheBody says - there is a wide range in quality within the scenarios available and if you like playing blind (no spoilers) as I do, you have no way of knowing what you are getting into. Hopefully the discussion section of the new Scenario Depot will be able to give us a heads up on what a scenario is like in general without giving away the detail.

The fact that the game allows for both types of play is one of its strengths.
 
I checked out greenasjade and all I could find on the site were mods. Is there a different site for scenarios?
 
You didn't look good enough, I downloaded 3 scenarios for CMRT yesterday. They are inside the same list, also QB maps.

Otherwise you can find scenarios at BF Repository but they are the same. I didn't find yet things like the good old Boots and Tracks.
 
I do love a good scenario, but getting to pick your own force is a lot of fun.

I especially like playing QBs on maps that are too big for the recommended forces. Seems like a lot of scenarios really cram units in. I like there to be a few minutes for recon before the battle really gets under way.
 
DellieJonut said:
I especially like playing QBs on maps that are too big for the recommended forces. Seems like a lot of scenarios really cram units in. I like there to be a few minutes for recon before the battle really gets under way.
Click to expand...

+ 1 . Besides giving more room to move around, playing on larger maps also limits the "map edge effect" which doesn't exist in the real world.
 
Scenarios are well supported by BFC and are the basic game play mechanism and always will be. Most players who purchase CM - and wargames in general - fight the AI. H2H and TCIP are less utilized. This is why I think the QB system receives much less programming effort. The maps are excellent but the OOBs are - well - bizarre too many times when AI generated.
Forces generation and the addition of reinforcements are much needed improvements. The ability to save OOBs once built so they can be married to maps is another often seen suggestion. AI branching etc..

None of these ideas are really new just summarized here.

One thing I constantly read is the need for smaller battles that can be played in one evening or playing session
- historical or hypothetical. I have been trying out a way to produce these in a relatively quick manner. At least for the hypothetical ones.

Kevin
 
It's not forbidden to play QBs against the AI. You can choose the troops on both sides and train for situations you can set up.

I remember when I started CM I often played QBs agaisnt the AI with computer selected forces so I had to adapt to what I was given. It was also fun to play with some vehicles/troops I would never have chosen... :)
 
But the AI very often produces OOBs that do not fit well with the AI plans nor are very close to historical. This has been an ongoing issue that players really want addressed.

Kevin

I remember a QB armor-armor when AI attacked with a huge line of su-76s against my handful of panthers. It didnt last 5 turns once contact was made. Su-76s were not used this way.
 
Corsaire31 said:
It's not forbidden to play QBs against the AI. You can choose the troops on both sides and train for situations you can set up.

I remember when I started CM I often played QBs agaisnt the AI with computer selected forces so I had to adapt to what I was given. It was also fun to play with some vehicles/troops I would never have chosen... :)
Click to expand...

I never played a QB against the AI, is it worth the time?
 
Generally QB AI is not very good at attacking or MEs. But it can be interesting to have AI play defense to test some situations.
Never tested with CMx2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom