Somebody, write a review!

[Sergei]

Sigh. It's tiny, 12 turns, single player and has been downloaded several hundred times during over a year - yet no-one has bothered to write even the smallest anecdote about how it played for them! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Play & review!

[Stoffel]

I know the feeling,btw,

You said on Proving grounds you dl-ed one of my scenarios,named Prokhorovka?

Any chance of some feedback from you?

Henk

[junk2drive]

What! Spend 30 seconds swapping CDs???

Well I guess I could...

[Sergei]

Oh yeah, I remember that one. I started it on PBEM but my opponent quit without saying anything. :confused:

[JasonC]

I can't be bothered to log in to these things, but I will tell you how it played for me.

I put the BA-64 scout car in front to look for AT mines the hard way. Then all the T-34s in a row, the regular leading, SMGs mounted. The SU-76 next and the AA halftrack bringing up the rear of the column.

I ran the scout car down to just shy of the first obvious kink in the road. The lead T-34 moved about 50m behind it, meant to be out of infantry AT range, and buttoned. The rest of the column lagged a bit behind those with a pause for the other T-34s and 2 pauses for the rear vehicles. The first run was made without incident.

The following turn all the SMGers dismounted and moved through the woods left of the road, through the first obvious ambush site. The scout car did a quick "peek", enter the kink and reverse out again ASAP. The first T-34, buttoned, was to move closer to the kink and rotate to face it. The rest of the vehicles were closing up.

I got a sound contact to infantry hiding nearby but the infantry did not see any ambushers. I knew they were there. It is frustrating to do the correct thing and get no result, and not have time to follow up with the doctrinally correct move - continue searching to find the sound contact hiders. With only 12 turns there isn't time to do this repeatedly.

So I moved one SMG squad through the ambushee kink with orders to cross the road. Another to clear the end of the first tongue of woods left of the road. A third to cross the road farther up. HQ to the left side of the road but right next to it, in the scattered trees lining it. The scout car went as far as the SMGers had gone past the kink, and the first T-34 went just through it, while the others all closed up to where it had been.

That got me a second sound contact and then triggered the first ambush. Three units opened, and bagged the BA-64, slaughtered its bailed crew. They caught one squad crossing the road and hit 4 SMGers. They were in turn wiped out before the end of the minute by everyone and his brother. (OK, a few ran off into the woods, routed, but same diff and only like 2 men).

I moved out astride the road with the infantry after that, the tanks heading down to where the infantry had already reached. The AA halftrack got tac AI "caught" on the road-woods kink and put in some crazy attempt to steer around it, losing a minute rotating etc. A 2 man SMG remnant was leading just right of the road, and got fired on, getting a sound contact and dropping to 1 man left.

I had the squad in the woods to the right run at that point, expecting to find the shooter in the woods right of the road and get them from behind. The rest of the infantry (one squad and HQ) used advance from woods to woods left of the road. The T-34s pulled up to get LOS around the corner, tight and forward. SU and AA just closing up, the AA needing the minute to get back into the column anyway.

The run worked and caught the ambusher at 8m from a blind side. Wiped them out, losing the last man in the scout unit and one in the flankers, to close combat. But the move of the infantry on the left of the road went badly, picking up three new shooters, one way to the left, two in the woods ahead of the column at two different distances, 60m and 100m about. The tanks went to town on the second of those, but the lead squad on the left was halved and panicked and the HQ was down a man and pinned 6m short of cover.

The next turn was all about chucking big HE at these brave infantry scalp hunters. The squad left of the road area fired across it, the HQ advanced to cover, the panickers panicked. The AA HT sprayed the nearest, and the SU area fired at it as well. The tanks fired at the farther units, with one of them also fast moving forward and right to a place with LOS to all of them but more than 50m away. Somewhere in this fracas one of the TCs unbuttoned foolishly and got capped.

The minute of heavy stuff KOed one of the shooters and put the others heads down. Time was short, so I advanced all the vehicles the following turn, each of them having 15-30 seconds for area fire on remaining positions and the rest for moving. The lead one went for the exit route, stopping short of the next obvious ambush point, but too close as it happened.

The big problem at this point is simply time and infantry depth. I've got an HQ and a 5 man squad functioning with 4 others in cover and not being shot, but with no time to get back in it after any pause to rally. The doctrinal thing is to pause the tanks in the fought through ambush site and chuck HE at all the likely next ones, while the infantry continues forward astride the road. But that would take 3-8 minutes more than one is given. I find it hard to care.

The aforementioned "too close as it happens" means the lead T-34 triggered an infantry AT ambush (of course). It was a molotov, hit the top, did nothing. The T-34 had its turret completely the other way round area firing at the last ambush. No spot, not even sound. I area fired at the only locations it could have come from with the tanks farther back, and fast moved onward. All vehicles did, with 15 seconds to toss in a round for the 2nd and 3rd T-34s. The AA HT took up a position with LOS to all remaining known positions to hose anybody who stood up again. The SMGs - such as they were - moved as well as they could, but could only confirm kills of the nearest enemies, without seriously helping at this point.

The area fire did its thing and everyone scooted. Half a platoon of busted up SMGers and the AA halftrack remained on the map.

Did I enjoy it? No not really. The terrain gives no real control to the player. It feels scripted, not played. Like the designer is trying to sit in my chair instead of staying in his. Too much of the outcome turned on uncontrollable single items like a spot or only sound when walking practically right over a hiding ambusher, or an infantry AT hit doing NSD. With 3 more minutes, let alone a more realistic and leisurely pace, the available force can do the job properly with HE tossed ahead of time.

The layering of the infantry AT ambushes are not dramatic, they are "oh no, not again" things. Every wood tile that reaches into the road, send an SMG squad or 85mm HE first. I know the drill to execute but am not given time to, for play balance purposes. Feels simply contrived. At no time did I feel my force was in any real danger from the Finns, but I also felt like I had to expend my infantry pointlessly just to speed things up.

If there had been even a single alternative in exit routes, let alone three possible, it would have had some elements of real strategy. As it was, I felt like the only decisions left in my hands were (1) which vehicle to send first (2) how soon to dismount the infantry (clearly, soon), and (3) where to send HE before you've seen anything just because you know the designer has hide Finns in the obvious bushes. I didn't even feel like I was in charge of how fast to drive - by the time I had blown through the first two ambush firefights, the answer was "every turn as fast as possible or you will never make it".

You asked.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I can't be bothered to log in to these things, but I will tell you how it played for me.

Oh yeah, it's so big a trouble to log in, compared to writing a 12-page review (gee, it must have taken more to write that than to play the scenario). :mad: But thanks for the opinion, anyway. If you would like to condense it roughly to 500 character main review and 500 character spoiler section, I will quote it in SD.

[Bannon DC]

Ahahah.

My review is at SD. 500 characters or less in both sections.

Could use a tweak to whip the AI into doing what it is supposed to do. The AI sucks. But why do you and I continue to make scenarios? I guess because it is fun when you actually get it to work right.

I'll look for your review on any of my stuff at TPG. :cool:

[JasonC]

I write at output speed, as fast as I can type. Hence the typos that litter my posts. If you want to condense it, feel free. I don't use the site, particularly, so I'm not going to. I wrote a review because you asked for feedback, not to put it up in lights. As for log-ins, I just don't like them. If I'm going to post there a thousand times, fine, no bother. I'm not.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bannon DC:

I'll look for your review on any of my stuff at TPG. :cool:

You betcha! That is, I'll try it for the first 12 turns (nah, your deed will get rewarded when I get room on my PBEM list)

[Stoffel]

Hi Sergei,

I dont know whats wrong with the depot.

But I cant seem to log in,if I can I will put a review in.

Played the battle roughly the same as Jason did.

Only here my BA got immobilized at the bend in the road,after that I moved the tanks and the HT forward shooting at the woods in front of them(area fire)

This caused the infantry in the 2 patches of wood near the VL to dug in,eventually routing them.

At turn 10 I could rush the armor forward to exit the map.

My infantry could simply finish up the routed troops.

My opinion is that it is a nice battle to play against the AI if you have 20 minutes or so of free time.

Its usefull to train for combined arms attacks IMHO.

I dont think its suitable for head to head.

The defender lacks firepower,and its obvious for a good commander to guess where the ambush would come.The attacker is limited to the road,without freedom of movement.

Which makes it boring for the attacker.

Maybe some daisy chains to hinder the attacker?

[British Tommy]

Hmm, so I take it we wont be seeing Jason reviewing any scenario's at the Proving grounds then?

[junk2drive]

If you log in to download the scenario...

[junk2drive]

Review posted.

From the above link you have to login.

I closed the window and went to my bookmark, found the battle and posted. Cuz I'm always logged in.

[Shmavis]

I don't understand how a person can say he doesn't have time or can't be bothered to post a scenario review when he has thousands of posts on a related forum,...but I don't understand many things.

[GreenAsJade]

You guys beating up on someone who kindly responded to a request for a review need to pull your head in.

Do you have your money where you mouth is? Are _your_ reviews up there? Even if they are, so what if a prolific writer prefers to type here than there? I too find the current SD offputting, and put less energy into going there and writing reviews these days. 500 char limit is just silly, for a start.

Since when does JC or anyone _owe_ you reviews on the SD.

Sheesh! For cryingout loud already. What a mob of freekin whingers!

GaJ.

[JasonC]

I thought the site makers might be interested that at least one potential user finds it all rather clumsy and off putting. While I appreciate the effort they put in to providing this service, and I occasionally download scenarios there (which I did not need to register to do), I have not regularly used it.

I dislike registration systems generally, and I fail to see the point of them 9 times out of 10. The average web site is not fort knox and hardly requires a password. Remembering a thousand of them is a royal pain, and reusing them to get around that problem compromises them where they actually do matter. (I have since gone through theirs).

I gave the thread starter here an AAR because he asked for one and hadn't received a dozen from others already. If every heckler already used the so easy to use system and posted their own review as the thread starter asked, we wouldn't have occasion for this thread, now would we?

[GJK]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I thought the site makers might be interested that at least one potential user finds it all rather clumsy and off putting. While I appreciate the effort they put in to providing this service, and I occasionally download scenarios there (which I did not need to register to do), I have not regularly used it.

FWIW, and I'm not sure if you're referring to TPG or not, but registration for it comes in two forms - short and long. If you just want to download (and hopefully review) scenarios, then you can just fill in the short form which only requires an email address (so that the authors can contact you, but is NOT published on the site or available to non-authors) and a user name and password. That information is kept in a cookie so you don't have to log in again (unless you don't accept cookies).

The "long form" is for those seeking to find other opponents and asks for your playing preferences and such.

While I agree that nobody should be forced to submit reviews/suggestions, I don't agree with cheating the author the knowledge that you have downloaded their work without letting them know - that is the sole purpose of having a log in system on TPG (and other sites I would guess).

Just my thoughts on it.

[British Tommy]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

You guys beating up on someone who kindly responded to a request for a review need to pull your head in.

Do you have your money where you mouth is? Are _your_ reviews up there? Even if they are, so what if a prolific writer prefers to type here than there? I too find the current SD offputting, and put less energy into going there and writing reviews these days. 500 char limit is just silly, for a start.

Since when does JC or anyone _owe_ you reviews on the SD.

Sheesh! For cryingout loud already. What a mob of freekin whingers!

GaJ.

SHEEEZ! take a chill pill GAJ!

Jason is a big boy and can handle abit of hassle easily without you running to his defence. His replies so far made interesting reading

[GreenAsJade]

No, I won't "take a pill". Sometimes someone need to tell it how it is.

Sergei posted a request for a review. 1 person responded here almost immediately. (I note two others at TSD now... not contributed by the whingers).

And for their trouble they get heckled about whether they choose to put the review into TSD!

That's just not on, chaps, and I think someone has to say so. It's not about whether JC can defend himself. It's about whether he should even have to.

GaJ.

[GreenAsJade]

On a different topic, the purpose of having registration at TSD is so that people can't (effortlessly) anonymously slang off at or ridulously praise scenarios. "Accountability for what you say".

I for one fully support that.

GaJ.

[JasonC]

Green - not the reason for it according to those running the site. But if it were, how likely is it, really?

The habit of putting everything behind a sign in screen, password, and cookie system makes some slight sense for a controversial site, one that expects to otherwise be inundated with disruptors, one that is linked to by half the world, etc.

I think it probably cuts down the actual posting or final use by a factor of anywhere from 2 to 5 times (based on sites I've run and such). If 80% of your visitors are ignorant gits you want to leave, put one up. I will simply hit the back button 9 times out of 10 when I see one, and I doubt I am alone. Even when I am interested.

If I expect to use the thing 100 times, fine, otherwise the last thing I want is another freaking password. Next they will be asking for your password at the corner grocery, in Starbucks, when you get on a train...

I just don't think this remotely applies to a site like that. Nobody who isn't a CM fan is even going to know it exists. CM fans are not notoriously ill behaved.

At any rate it is a pain, one I have put up with now, is anybody happy? Didn't think so.

[GreenAsJade]

"not the reason for it according to those running the site"

... oh? Can you point to a different quoted reason?

I was involved in the discussions that led to TSD V2.0, and it is to these that I refer.

What I remember is that scenario designers strongly wanted their scenarios reviewed by people willing to say who they were. Scenario designers were the ones actively concerned that "other people's friends were giving their friend's scenarios a good rap all the time" or that "particualr people always slag scenarios of a particular type". They want to be able to identify/track/respond to/filter out those people.

So while you say that "CM fans are not notoriously ill behaved."

1) The scenario designers thought that there was enough evidence to the contrary.

2) This thread itself contains evidence to the contrary.

I would also observe that

1) maybe the people who state that signins dramatically reduce input are usually those minority of people who don't like them

2) the communities that I participate in where you do have to sign in contain people who at least cared enough to bother signing in, and this seems to improve the quality of that community.

Hence, while I've never seen "unconstructive" reviewing at TSD, nonetheless I support contributors being asked to identify themselves.

GaJ.

[ May 04, 2005, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

[JasonC]

"the knowledge that you have downloaded their work without letting them know - that is the sole purpose of having a log in system"

As for what it does to participation, I base my estimate on the typical ratio of browsing guests to signed in members on various sites I've run. Yes it probably does improve the quality, particularly for any place that is linked to half the world, such that lots of people not in your actual target user set might wander in.

But in case nobody noticed, the thread was not started by a concern over disruptive reviews, but over a (local) lack of them. If a lack of reviews is considered undesirable, maybe people's priorities are a little backwards, purposefully telling 4 out of 5 potential reviewers to get stuffed.

Perhaps it is only 1 out of 5. I won't quibble over the number. Purposefully reducing feedback is a strange way to get feedback. Perhaps you like it the way it is. If so, don't run around asking for more reviews. If you do run around asking for more reviews, listen when people otherwise willing to take the time to write them, tell you why they do not make a practice of it at your site.

Or not. If your purpose on this thread is to ensure that prolific writers about CM who avidly produce AARs at the slightest provocation, never darken a favorite site of yours, you are going about it just right.

[GJK]

Jason-

Well, I'm not going to speak for TSD, and to be honest, I don't know if we're even referring to TPG or TSD or both - but, I'll cite you some figures from TPG:

2090 people found the log in system not so difficult - your nickname, email address and a password and you once you sign up, a cookie saves that information. Just like the BFC forums - the ones that you signed up for.

388 scenarios are currently under playtest at the site. Probably that many (or more) have been removed from the site with successful playtesting and moved on to TSD or other locations.

2774 posts (we call them discussions) have been made for those 388 scenarios, an average of 7.15 posts per scenario.

Now, I wont try and paint a rosey picture and say that we have perfect participation from those 2090 members. I will say that most join just to grab scenarios and never ever participate in any manner. Many signed up looking for opponents (we have an opponent finding section as well). Many joined and probably forgot about the site. But overall, I'm quite pleased with the participation levels. If I felt it was a flop in any way, I wouldn't be spending my time and money hosting and constantly developing the site.

But lets face it - this is a game, a game in a niche market with a major engine rewrite on the horizon. Who knows whats going to happen to TSD or TPG or Der Kessel or others once that new version is released. I can't say that I will have the time, energy or desire to rewrite the site to accomodate those changes (time periods, etc).

Ugh, I'm off on a ramble. Hey, it's no sweat off my balls if you don't want to sign up at any other site but this one. That's cool - your suggestions on gameplay and tactics here are top notch. You participate in that manner, others write reviews, while others do nothing but play scenarios that they snag off the sites vs the AI. I'm not a scenario author, I can understand their frustration at the lack of appreciation - but if it were me, I'd just stop creating scenarios for others - if nobody were talking about them at all. Hopefully TPG does give some outlet of discussion for most of the scenarios there.

So with that, I'm off to play ASL on VASL.

[JasonC]

Yeah, I signed up already, I said that several posts ago. You are happy to have 2774 posts from all your members combined, and I agree that is great, and impressive for any player run, secondary site. But then I've posted here about 3600 times since changing my user name, and maybe a thousand times or so more with earlier ones. And I'm by no means the most frequent poster here, others are well up in the ten thousands.

I don't mind having a user account and passwords and name changes and updating my email yada yada, for a place I've frequented for years, and posted to 4000 or 5000 times. I've posted to sites like yours maybe ten or twenty times, grabbed scenarios much more often. Why the discrepancy? Why haven't I posted a quarter of everything I write about CM, to sites like yours?

At least part of the reason is, I've hit the back button reflexively every time I've been asked an annoying question I didn't see the point of. I doubt I'm alone, though I may be pickier about it than a lot of people. If you got a quarter of my posts, your site volume would be a third higher than it is. I'm just one guy. Anything that puts a barrier between even a handful of people like me and your site, is cutting your overall input in half.

Now you have me signed up, anyway. So the above is purely take it or leave it, for your own consideration, free analysis that is worth what you paid me for it. Take it in the constructive spirit intended.