rune

Why would a tank travel on a road when there is enemy aircraft overhead? You would travel where there was some sort of cover. Also, how do you know where that unit was? Perhaps there starting position wasn't near a road. As for the German couldn't possibally win more then a minor, I guess the people who did better should go back and redo the game so they didn't do as well. Rune [ December 13, 2002, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

You did right the second go round, but sounds like you move infantry OR tanks. Combined arms are a necessity. Move your infantry up and use the shoot and scoot to keep the at guns pinned down. If you cannot spot them, area fire where you know they were. Infantry firing there will keep the crews heads down. Also, go more to the left as the russians. use a few tanks on the right to draw out the Tigers, then hit them on the side. Takes a little timing to do correctly. Try it with this, and let me know how you do. Rune

After the original attacks where scores of Panthers were lost...the Panthers tried keeping their face to the enemy. They lost a few when the Russians charged them at high speeds, but they held the line at the dry creek bed. Rune

Mark, I do have another source saying it was Grodno. I wonder if someone typo'd on the city name. I am afraid if I mention the T28 one mroe time to Steve and Charles, they will come out of the mountains on Steve's weasel to hunt me down. They WILL hunt me down if I mention the Spanish Blue Division yet again. hehehehehehe Rune

Yes, that source is definitely Russian. I have the same thing, like the 22nd or 23rd was the first run in. I didn't want to say the date as I was trying to find my source. Rune Here I found one source: In July 1942 the factory recieved the first blueprints of the T-34, and the first production model from Uralmashzavod was called "Comrade Stalin". The T-34 came as a sad surprise to the Germans when they encountered them in quantity in July 1941. (Even if the T-34 engaged the Germans for the first time on June 22nd at Gorki). http://www.thehistoryof.co.uk/World_War_2/Weapons/T34_Tanks.html Rune [ December 11, 2002, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

Actually the tank giving flag signals easily identified the HQ tank. Could an aircraft see it? In my experience as a pilot....yep. Rune

Mark, I do not know where you got the July information from, but I have seen records where the germans state they ran up against them in June. The russian themselves state that there was a counter attack using at least 181 t34s on June 26th. Valera also states there were T34s at the front before that. Here is the web page: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html Rune

Offwhite, while that is a possibility for some, it would not explain a 10 fold difference. Go onto the depot and look at CMBO scenarios. Search by my name. Go through the scenarios, see how many were rated, how many were, look at the scores and look at the amount fo downloads. I think you will be surprised by the trend. Ken and Offwhite, both are good possibilities. I think replayability should be junked. Not sure on some of the others...I had map ratings of 5, even though the map is compeltely accurate. Blame God, or the Russians, as I didn't create the terrain, just represented it. A Battle of Minors and my tractor works are both good examples. Both are based on accurate maps. So, it still will not prevent that sort of thing. I got maps sent to me from Warphead [bless him], and wwb and James went into the national archives and i paid for copies of maps for the designers out of my pocket. So no, it was NOT a quick battle modified map. Rune

Spook, Admiral Keth and Bigdog's site. I try not to impose on them as they do this out of the goodness of their hearts. It is why i brought the discussion here...if we can get the majority to agree on something, then maybe we could then approach them. Jim, Forgot to comment....Yes, we both say the stats are flawed but from different angle...and I think that can be added to the list of problems. To me a 0-9 scale the average is 5, to you it is 70%. Now how many other people rating it different ways? Also we will have to agree to disagree on feedback/review. You say you review it as if others would not get the point either. My reply is how do you know they didn't get the point? What happens to the times when the majority got it, and one or two didn't? It is why I still think the designer could be asked. If i reply yes, i had a lot of complaints on that, you know it is an issue, if i say it was the first i heard of it, then maybe the majority got the point or just didn't care. However, this requires trust that I would respond honestly, and the other scenario designers as well. Hmm... another quandry... Rune [ December 11, 2002, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

Jim, Do so here. Would love to see feedback. As for the 30 years of wargaming experience, I think I got you by a few years. Also, would give me an example of how you think scenario ratings should go. Cpt., For you, there is no problem, for me, there is. Yes, the scenarios are there for feedback.. To make my point do I have to stop sending scenarios there? Should all of us who think there is a problem quit posting scenarios? What good would that serve? Would I get better feedback? Would no feedback make me a better designer? Nope. again, the case where a scenario is downloaded 2000 times vs a 1 point lower score 200 times shows me the ratings do impact the downloads. The depot is not just a place to upload and download, I could place the scenarios on boot and tracks and forget the depot...but the point is I don't get accurate feedback, good and bad, that way. Rune

Spook, I can agree with your points BUT, if I can't get someone to read the briefing correctly, how the heck can I be sure they read the depot instructions? Someone posted a review and complained about tanks that weren't even in the scenario! [i think it was one of Dan's]. I know of a lot of players that don't want to read the details, just as there are those that want to know each and every name of the soldiers on the battlefield. Too many different styles... It is why I think we go with an overall fun rateing. Do we need 1/2 stars/tanks/dead scenario designers rateings? Not really...unless that is what everyone wants to do. As I said, wish I knew the answer...but at least we are talking about it...and you see other scenario designers think the system could be revised. Rune

Cpt, Because unfortuantely not everyone is like you. Look at my CMBO scenarios. The ones with the highest rating got the most downloads [over 2000] Yet, another scenario, rated a point lower has only 200 downloads. To say the points don't make a difference would be in error. Since I named at least six scenario designers who DO feel there is a problem, then maybe there is a problem. Also members of Boot and Tracks and member of Der Kessel have problems with it too. Not everyone, but enough for me to take notice. I could just walk away from the depot....but why punish Admiral and Bigdog for the good they are trying to do? Yes, a 1-5 average WOULD help overall, especially if the scores were not averaged, but made the user read the comments. Just as there are people who download everything I make, and the people who won't touch a scenario I make, there are people on the fence trying to decide. Give them the proper tools to decide. Rune

Matti brings up a good point. IF it was 1 bad review and 50 good ones, things average out. Since that is far from the case, a bad review carrys a lot of weigh. Why is this a concern? Because if a human error is made, a scenario gets panned. The problems as I see it, and this is only my opinion: 1. Too few reviews. 2. The 0-9 system is not understood by the reviewers. 3. How many people know if you don't want to rate something, give it a 0. 4. As Dan said, too many people using a part of the review to balance out the score. 5. How many people understand that a 5 is an average review? 6. Too many people not taking the time to understand a scenario and don't ask. A fictional scenario is exactly that. A Night scenario is exactly that. Etc. I think I make a good case on how not liking 1 part of 1 scenario can cause the entire rating to be a low lower then what it should be. So...how do we fix? Rune

One addition to this...on a 0-9 scale system, 5 should be the average. How many people out there won't look at a scenario below 7? Below 8? How many people really understand a 5 is average? a scoring system of 1-5 everyone is familiar with. 1=bad 2=ok, 3=average, 4-above average, and 5=outstanding. How many online voting places for reviews use the 1-5 star system? Why do movie critics use it? It is used because most people understand it right off the bat. As I said, wish I knew the answer. Just can't help but feel the system, as is, is flawed. Rune

No ASL, way off the mark. The thread exists to talk about the scoring system and how to balance it all better for the long run. As I stated COUNTLESS times, not every scenario is for everyone. There are as many different styles of playing as there are players. It is why I make a wide variety of scenario types. So you assumed I was putting down Jim, when nothing was farther from the truth...and I even apologized to him for the misunderstanding. [but not for thinking the scoring system needs an overhaul] I shake my head at some of the reviews, like saying a fictional scenario doesn't have a historical force. Yet, in the scenario it IS marked fictional. Why should that bring down the overall score? I could ask Admiral Keth to change things or reply...but too many people look at the score and nothing else...a shame really. How many here KNEW a 0 was a non-rating? How many people put a 5 in cause they didn't know? Why should a single review, subject to HUMAN ERROR, cause a scenario to get a low rating. In all honesty, if scores were done away with completely, and just feedback given, it wouldn't break my heart...BUT...I understand what Admiral Keth and Bigdog are trying to do. However, a more fair away of assessing is needed. To me, the bottom line is...WAS IT FUN? give it a rating for that, and maybe for pbem play, as I can see the concern there. Maybe do not add and average the scores, let the readers read the feedback comments. However, I could be off the mark. It is why i started the thread, to get other scenario designers feedback. Talking with a lot of designers, they all feel something just isn't right. Well, that is easily said, but comming up with a fix we all can live with is what I am after. Berli, Andreas, WWB, JWXSpoon, myself, and others from Boots and Tracks and Der Kessel feel the same way. Others feel no changes are needed...so what is the compromise? I wish I knew... Rune

Tryign to get this back on topic. Let us take xyz scenario. Decent playability, a LOT of fun, maybe semi historical, but the briefing is short. In that reviewers opinion the map is a little less then average. So, for that particular person the review is 8 for pbem, 8 for Fun, 2 for briefing, and 4 for map. Averages out to a 5.5. One other review gave it straight 8s across the board, likign the scenario. Overall rating posted is a 6.75 and someone skips it. It was skipped due to the fact that someone didn't like the briefing nor liked the map. Where as if just rated for fun 4 stars and 4 stars gives it a four star rating, and a scenario that could have been skipped most likly would not be. Or if we did away with the combination score totally, a 4 star review and comments followed by the same thing. Is it perfect? Nope...does the scenario get a more realistic feel for fun? yep. However, that is why I started the thread..to gain feedback on a better scoring system, or at least point out the foibles of the present system. Rune

Where in any of the replies did ANYONE say pre-screen the reviews or reviewers? Hmm...No where. What was said: "If you aren't sure about something, ASK before giving a bad review". Common sense approach. No where was it stated nor implied that you should change your review...but ask if you aren't sure. So AGAIN, YOU take something and change the context. Same way you implied I was bashing Jim for his review. The same exact thing you just accuse someone else of doing. Double Standards Rune [ December 11, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

Jim, Yep, I see your point. Then how about a system where you can see the amount of stars 1-5 whatever and the comments, but does NOT add the scores together. Forces the players to read the comments and make a better decision rather then an low number due to one rating. I know if I would see 2 5 star opinions and then a 1 star opinion, I would want to knwo why before I played the scenario, rather then maybe skipping a 3 star rating. Poor Keth and bigdog...redesigning THEIR work. They of course can tell me to sod off...and I would not be insulted. However I know they like feedback and want to get better just as much as I want to be a better designer. Hopefully someone comes along and has a brillant idea on how to balance the scores better. Rune

Actually I can..ASL Vet comes in and implys I would insult a person for a bad rating. Never have. Someone speaks about ASL scenarios and not his scenarios in general, and is insulted. Double standards... Go back and read what I said, I never said Jim's opinion was wrong, for him it is correct. Not did I ever insult Jim. However if someone is not sure about something, ASK. If you didn't tell me about the way the scenario was marked play as Allied, I would have never known. I think rating as 1-5 as an overall rating would work. Software places do that for user reviews already...and hey, it worked for the movies for years... Rune

Cpt, I didn't say anything about the way you reviewed it, rather had an email come to me, I would have known it was lsited wrong on the depot. You may play it as Germans and still not like it...and that is fine. But, the scored are all added up, so say someone gave it a 8.80 and you gave it a 2.4 based on an error. the scenario averages a 5, and players skip it not bothering to read the details.... see the problem? Thick skin or not, this could pan a decent scenario because someone just didn't play it the right way. I have had the Iron Roadblock slammed for balance and replayability. Umm..it is a tutorial, marked as a tutorial. I can name you at least 4 scenarios panned, and the reviewer played the wrong side, or maybe even picked the wrong scenario. Since all the scores are averaged in, they take a hit and could be skipped, and for a reason that is silly...and that is my point. Since only a few people rate scenarios, a panning can hurt a good scenario big time. Rune

Wait...wasn't it just aimed at me that ok say good things unless you want to be panned by the designer...then someone doesn't like that design, and they are pathetic? So Andreas doesn't like ASL conversions, not his style. Didn't I just say that players bring their opinions and bias' to reviews? He is just as entitled to his opinion, as Cpt and Jim are entitled to theirs. Unbelievable... Rune

Cpt, I have no idea why that is posted on the depot...will have to send Admiral Keth a line about it. I never noticed that. The AI should usually be the defender. At no place anywhere have I ever stated it should be played as the Allies against the AI. So, my point, it would have been panned for an error, and my feedback would have helped. Also, a 5 star system would still serve the same purpose. An overall rating at a glance is a lot more helpful and accurate then ratings getting 5s when they didn't test it that way. That would not have been changed. And I like the idea of being able to review reviews by authors. If you find someone with your tastes, then you can read their reviews. Rune

Jim, I won't be able to read your email reply til I get home, so apologies for not responding there first. Without going into all the decisions on why things are like they are on the CD scenarios [and there are reasons], it would have been too much to bite off at one time. Heck, even the one line briefing on the main screen was a hot topic. With what we had we did what we could...but to me, tutorial means I am being walked through something. While the scenario is meant to teach a point, it would not be a tutorial under that definition. Let us say I had to work with that definition in mind. As for point system, that still is a concern for new authors. Hey, mine are on the CD, but can anyone feel more low then getting a pan on the review of a scenario then a new author? I want to encourage new authors, BUT I still want players to have feedback and avoid the true dog scenario. However, everyone should remember what a dog is to you, will NOT be to another player. Oh, and by the way, where I work they DO review on a bell curve system, a system DROPPED by companies like Ford and others...but that is a subject for debate another time. As I said, I respect other's opinions...I just wanted to point out here, that everyone has a natural bias. ASL stated two player scenarios have to be balanced. I disagree, and there is even a tourney where the scenarios are not balanced. However, they rate the scenarios by having each player play each side then comparing the scores against others in the same scenario. Does this mean ASL or the ladder doing this are wrong? Of course not! It just means each person looks at scenarios their own way...and hopefully if they didn't realize it, they do now. As for asking about my purpose...that way it came across it never appeared that way. The point of the scenario was to use the road, and the problems that go with it. Yes, you can group fire, but that is the only way to do it without bogging down. The Russians can and should take potshots using their equipment and doing shoot and scoots. Other AT assets can stall the advance long enough to have artillery drop on the column, so the germans can't just lay back and plink. All tactical problems I hope some learned from..which you recognized. So, I still feel if you aren't sure on something on a scenario...ASK. It doesn't hurt...I learn and sometimes the other person learns. Bruno asked to do another pocket scenario with me, and we are comparing notes now...if he doesn't mind doing a scenario with an evil designer. As for changes...for the CMII engine, I have already talked with the guys on some changes I would love to see for the scenario designer. The briefings in html so I could INCLUDE a map in the general briefing or maybe a screen shot of the map I created. Suggestions on terrain types which Charles already gave his OK to. [No, I won't say...rather keep you in suspense on what is next. ] The post AAR briefing I already asked for...as right now I have to put the historical outcome in the main screen briefing...and I do NOT include information like you said since I do not want to spoil it for the players. Another suggestion was reinforcement markers...for reinforcement #1, I can select 3 flags where they come in and give a % to each flag. 50% chance they show there, or 25% at the other two. Makes the games a little more random, and hopefully in CMII [which is the engine rewrite]. Just cause I have thought of some of these already, does not mean I know everything. So as not to flood the BFC crew, please feel free to send me suggestions for change. I can approach the guys when the time is right. Dont worry, i give credit where credit is due! Last... I will fight for your ideas if I think them good. If I don't, then I will say so and you are free to push the point yourself. There is an internal joke on how stubborn and insistant I can be...ask the guys about German Rifle Grenades or the Spanich Blue Division. [These last comments are aimed for everyone, I just realized it wasn't clear] Rune

ASL Leader, Bull****, I didn't publically blast anyone. I said if you aren't sure why something is a certain way, ASK before posting a review. It was suggested shortening the map and have the last 10 minutes. That would change the scenario dramtically. Would it show how units had to deal with the mud? Would it show the long range fight that did happen? Did anyone ask me why it was setup that way? Nope. I have had others who didn't like a scenario, fine, I am the first one to say people play different styles. I am saying replayability in a scenario is pure crap. People like Andreas, Berli, myself, wwb, Scott_b and other designers say the same. You are right, we are all wrong. Also no where did I say all scenarios have to teach, and you imply i think they should. Reading what I said, 1 of 60 battles teaches about mud. I have made near 100 battles, and many of them used in tourneys and for ip play. I make all sorts of battles, as there are multiple player types. Jim R., No, the point is instead of assuming things, ASK. Did you think to send an email asking why the long approach, or did you just rate low without understanding why? Look at the quote. I have two sentences about the review. No where did I insult you. Not anywhere did I insult your opinion, I quite clearly say if you aren't sure about something ASK. My point is the rating system is not fair. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to ask you to ask before posting anything. Doesn't mean you have to, but I ask when I test someone's scenarios. As for your pet peeve about MEs, and it isn't...it was necessary to get the AI to act a certain way. Defensive and the units would have hung back and the fight would never develop. ME, and the AI is more aggressive, and against the AI is a necessity. Since that is the parameter, i put it in the briefing. Instead of getting peeved over it, asked and answered. Jim, keep rating the scenarios, i appreciate them. Go back and read what I posted...you read into them way too much. Both, You both assume the ahistorical and teaching comments were aimed at you. No where did i say that. "Comments on my scenarios good and bad are always appreciated....and that is my point. Before you rate something bad, ASK why it was done that way" Pretty much speaks for itself. Everyone else, Apologies for being side tracked. I still feel, as do others, that the rating system needs an overhaul. Berli, wwb, myself have posted to that effect. ASL disagrees. It is the reason the thread was started, to get opinions from all sides. Let's try to get back on that subject. Rune

Well, if you look in the scenario, it in fact says Mud. Now, why should I have to say "Watch out for Mud". I put the ground conditions into the main briefing for a reason. Ditto for Dan's scenario... why would you assume a researched scenario wasn't setup a way on purpose? I said earlier, and will say again, play a scenario with the defaults the first time through unless specified not to. Spoiled the fun because it was a historical setup? Because it was a realistic terrain and problem? Try playing it and learning from it. Ask the author if you think it is a mistake, I reply to my emails. I even put in the briefing web hits where you can read about the battle. I don't do that for my health. My bottom line, I am not going to insult the intelligence of the average player by holding his hand. Mud is mud, night is night. Most players get the point... Rune