I've finally sworn off QB ME's. Too often, one (or both) sides just run mad-dash to the flags to squat there and defend (non-realistic), making it basically at least a Probe, but the other side not having a troop advantage to break in with.
Here is a new (sample) general idea of a map idea. What does anyone think? It would be a map to load as a QB ME. Both sides have a confined staging area, and will have to decide which flags to go after, with what forces. I want to eliminate both sides just charging forward to the flags like a game of dodgeball.
.
.
"Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid doing entirely."
.
(12-07-2010, 07:04 AM)Mad Baron Wrote: I've finally sworn off QB ME's. Too often, one (or both) sides just run mad-dash to the flags to squat there and defend (non-realistic), making it basically at least a Probe, but the other side not having a troop advantage to break in with.
Here is a new (sample) general idea of a map idea. What does anyone think? It would be a map to load as a QB ME. Both sides have a confined staging area, and will have to decide which flags to go after, with what forces. I want to eliminate both sides just charging forward to the flags like a game of dodgeball.
.
.
Looks very interesting, what sorta points size game is this aimed at?
I have found the same issues with QB's, probably the reason that I do not play them very often other then att/def type games. I think that it is the mapmaker's fualt that games end up as initial flag rushes. The random generation of the map frequently produces maps that provide too much cover for both sides all the way up to the flags, therefore why not charge for the flags, the enemy does not even get a good chance to see you before you are most of the way there. Yes, you can change the random generator's tree coverage and hilliness ect. but it just does not make good maps, and with less coverage you are often trading shots from the opening turn all while crammed into the small start-up zones.
I think that you are on the right track with making your own QB maps, but try this.... place the large flags closer to each sides starting points and the smaller flags in the centre. this way the centre of the map is worth less, and each side gets a chance to control several large flags early in the game, with the winner being the one who wanders into enemy territory and takes one or more of the larger flags. You will have to watch map size to make sure that there is enough time to accomplish the extra move distance, the battles, and the control of the enemy flags. Multiple large flags on top of one another ups the rewards for attacking enemy flags and eggs on each side to duke it out while building a solid defense at the same time.
It is the time limit that makes it all unrealistic. In a real battle you wouldn't get just 27 minutes to win. There wouldn't need to be flags at all without a time limit - you could just meet and try to destroy each other - but not many want to take a year to finish one game.
"Most sorts of diversion in men, children, and other animals, are in imitation of fighting." - Jonathan Swift
12-17-2010, 09:45 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-17-2010, 09:51 AM by Mad Baron.)
I appreciate all the input--it was all good stuff!!! So I've been re-thinking my original design for a home-made QB ME map. And not like I'm trying to design THE map, just a proto-type that might serve as an idea for future designs of the same sort.
Attachment is just a random example, made from previous ideas posted already:
1.) small initial staging areas
2.) large 'home' flags to defend
3.) small center-map flags available to capture initially
4.) battle options being how to defend home flags and which other map flags to go after to gain a victory
I think the maps need to be pretty large, with at mimimum 2000 purchase points but better at 3000, and probably 40-50 turns (variable) to allow maneuver time.
What does anyone think of this? ;)
.
.
"Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid doing entirely."
.
It looks ok, I would move the large flags about half way to wards the smaller flags, so that each side has to move somewhat in order to take the flags and get set up before the enemy can get at him.
Also, I try to not get too hung up on an even placement of flags, but like to place them where it makes sense that they would be, eg. like a clump of trees on a hilltop with a good LOS to lots of points on the map, or a heavy building, or a ridgeline, and the list can go on. I think that players like to fight for flags that have some significance to the battle.
I do not try to make the map equal for both sides, but do give each side some cover in the beginning. If each player gets a chance to look at the map before buying his units, then it really does not matter if one side get some better ground at the start.
Curious as to how this is working out - is anyone playing any of these maps? If so, how's it going.
I've always thought the ME problem was more due to the relatively large number of flag points on the board relative to casualty points. Not unusual for the random generator to throw 900 or so flag points on the board in a 3000pt ME. Given that this represents a potential 1800 pt swing (-900 if your opponent has the flags vs. +900 if you get them all), it makes sense to throw a lot at the flags, and not worry as much about force preservation - it can still be worth it to lose a platoon of tanks taking a large flag, if you can push your opponent off it and grab possession. I think just putting fewer flag points out there would still give some reward for taking territory but make force preservation a higher priority. Makes sense to rush a 300pt flag and camp on it, but if it's just a 100pt. flag, it starts making sense to let your opponent grab it and then nuke him with HE.
This is, in effect, the direction Baron and Ratzki are headed - bunch of small flags in the middle. I suspect the large flags won't really come in to play - if your opponent makes it far enough to seize your large flags, he's already thrashing you, I'd guess.
I've tried games with no flags at all - doesn't really work given how CM scores. Both sides tend to sit back in cover and wait for the other guy to move - the guy who gets hit moving is always going to end up on the short end of the casualty stick, and thus the scoring stick. I remember reading a post somewhere once about someone who tried a no-flag game - both sides crouched in the woods for a while until one player sniped the other causing one casualty, then they got bored and called a CF - it ended as a total loss for the guy who took the casualty because of the ratio scoring.
You have to find the line where the flag points are worth going for but not at the expense of the whole force. I think that if the flag positions make sense and the players are fighting for the points and they receive some advantage from the flags position on the map, then you can reduce the flag point totals as the owning player should be able to take advantage from the superior position to cause more damage to the enemy force.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
