Quick Battle vs Instant Battle

Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (Full Version)

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

Message

steel god -> Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/10/2009 5:10:59 PM)
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?

cesteman -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/10/2009 8:14:25 PM)
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.

Ironclad -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/10/2009 8:38:25 PM)
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.

jscott991 -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/14/2009 12:57:58 AM)
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).

Mad Russian -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/15/2009 12:34:13 AM)
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

hgilmer3 -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/22/2009 2:09:22 AM)
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?

Gil R. -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/22/2009 3:30:44 AM)
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.

hgilmer3 -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/22/2009 4:12:26 AM)
Ok, cool.

Mad Russian -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/22/2009 5:02:19 AM)
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

Gil R. -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/22/2009 6:02:00 PM)
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.

Mad Russian -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/23/2009 4:02:13 AM)
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

Anthropoid -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/23/2009 4:20:04 AM)
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? [:D]

Rekm41 -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/23/2009 2:07:09 PM)
You never know what they can be up too out there Antropoid

Gil R. -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/23/2009 6:10:12 PM)
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.

Gil R. -> RE: Quick Battle vs Instant Battle (7/23/2009 6:11:03 PM)
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? [:D] This sort of thing gets discussed on a regular basis.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375