Quick Battle vs Instant Battle

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Quick Battle vs Instant Battle

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Quick Battle vs Instant Battle

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/10/2009 5:10:59 PM

steel god

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

When using Quick Battle what happens when the forces involved exceed the side of the board? There's only so many squares on that QB board, and even the units in the routed column are not fighting. If two large armies square off, and over flow those boards, are those units not calculated for the battle? The QB routine (if it limits the amount of units that can fight) would appear to unfairly punish the Union side by limiting it's battlefield advantage of numbers, while rewarding the Confederates battlefield advantage of higher quality.

Is my understanding of this correct? If so, would it not stand to reason that the CSA has the advantage in all PBEM games where Quick Battle is mandatory?

Post #: 1

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/10/2009 8:14:25 PM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

I hate quick battle. Just as you said, if you have more units than the board allows then you can't use them all. I either use instant or detailed battle.

(in reply to steel god)

Post #: 2

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/10/2009 8:38:25 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

And yet instant and QC are the same battle resolution system; the only difference being that QC shows what happens whereas instant just shows the end result.

(in reply to cesteman)

Post #: 3

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/14/2009 12:57:58 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

I raised this very point in another thread and was told it was intentional.

The problem is not that the battles are limited to something like 90k on each side, the problem is that the CSA routinely has 90,000 men or more in its eastern army (161,000 in many of my games in fact). Lee only had near this amount once: at the start of the Seven Days campaign.

So the battles become even matches in terms of manpower and the Union can only win QC when they are on the defense (usually).

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 4

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/15/2009 12:34:13 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

So the battles become even matches in terms of manpower and the Union can only win QC when they are on the defense (usually).

Which is interesting since that's how combat resolution in PBEM takes place.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 5

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/22/2009 2:09:22 AM

hgilmer3

Posts: 530
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

So..... is there any reason to use quick combat for anything other than to watch instant combat in slow motion? I would have thought things like +10% to bayonet and +10% to damage would create different outcomes than instant combat.

Am I wrong?

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 6

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/22/2009 3:30:44 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Quick combat lets you choose a general strategy. There are different approaches one can take in terms of setting up, so QC lets you maintain some amount of control.

(in reply to hgilmer3)

Post #: 7

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/22/2009 4:12:26 AM

hgilmer3

Posts: 530
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Ok, cool.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 8

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/22/2009 5:02:19 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Quick combat lets you choose a general strategy. There are different approaches one can take in terms of setting up, so QC lets you maintain some amount of control.

How is that in PBEM? In all the QB resolutions in PBEM I was a part of I never got to setup any of my forces. All I got to do was watch the computer fight the battle.

Where is my choosing the general strategy in that?

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/22/2009 6:02:00 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Quick combat lets you choose a general strategy. There are different approaches one can take in terms of setting up, so QC lets you maintain some amount of control.

How is that in PBEM? In all the QB resolutions in PBEM I was a part of I never got to setup any of my forces. All I got to do was watch the computer fight the battle.

Where is my choosing the general strategy in that?

Good Hunting.

MR

We did it that way because the only way you'd be able to control quick combat in PBEM would be to have there be two phases -- a movement phase, followed by a phase when players set up their battles. That's twice as many e-mails, twice as much time... not to mention that it would be a programming nightmare. So the obvious way to go was to have QC for PBEM be handled by the AI, just as in instant-resolve.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 10

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/23/2009 4:02:13 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Quick combat lets you choose a general strategy. There are different approaches one can take in terms of setting up, so QC lets you maintain some amount of control.

How is that in PBEM? In all the QB resolutions in PBEM I was a part of I never got to setup any of my forces. All I got to do was watch the computer fight the battle.

Where is my choosing the general strategy in that?

Good Hunting.

MR

We did it that way because the only way you'd be able to control quick combat in PBEM would be to have there be two phases -- a movement phase, followed by a phase when players set up their battles. That's twice as many e-mails, twice as much time... not to mention that it would be a programming nightmare. So the obvious way to go was to have QC for PBEM be handled by the AI, just as in instant-resolve.

Yes, I understand why IC was used. It's just the way the other post is constructed it reads like you have a choice between IC and QC in PBEM when you don't.

No problem. I was just making sure I hadn't missed something else.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 11

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/23/2009 4:20:04 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

It would be cool though to have a game that was set up for MP (as well as against AI) that was more or less totally focused on detailed battles, and assumed campaign dynamics as more or less given. Any plans for something like that?

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 12

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/23/2009 2:07:09 PM

Rekm41

Posts: 561
Joined: 8/8/2004
From: Canada EH!
Status: offline

You never know what they can be up too out there Antropoid

_____________________________

Keep Moving and Keep your Head DOWN!!

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 13

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/23/2009 6:10:12 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Yes, I understand why IC was used. It's just the way the other post is constructed it reads like you have a choice between IC and QC in PBEM when you don't.

No problem. I was just making sure I hadn't missed something else.

Okay, gotcha.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 14

RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle - 7/23/2009 6:11:03 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It would be cool though to have a game that was set up for MP (as well as against AI) that was more or less totally focused on detailed battles, and assumed campaign dynamics as more or less given. Any plans for something like that?

This sort of thing gets discussed on a regular basis.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 15

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Quick Battle vs Instant Battle

Page: [1]