Andreas

It is interesting to compare the lack of success of 12. PD with the fairly similar undertaking of 6.PD against the outer encirclement ring of Stalingrad (Akksaj battles Dec 42 'Winterstorm'). If the assessment of the Soviet strength is correct, 12.PD should have had at least even strength, and probably tank superiority. Is there a good study of the battles for Orel available somewhere?

Ken, I think we could have a good discussion about this. E.g. on what you would do with smaller scenarios, or with any of the points I brought up earlier, or the absence of FOW in general on replay. That is not the point however - pretty much the same arguments could be had about almost any aspect of the rating system. Nobody on the side of those arguing for some change asks that any category be dropped, on the contrary, the argument goes for increasing the available categories. If, say, I design a scenario with no regard to replayability (as I usually do, because FOW is one of the most important variables in my design approach), and say so in the briefing, do you think it would be fair that a low replayability rating should drag down the scenario rating overall, regardless of how much you enjoyed (or did not enjoy) it otherwise? Say you enjoyed it, but are peeved it is not replayable, would the rating system offer you a better service if it allowed you to give an overall 4 that is not affected by a 1 for replayability? Extending the rating system in such a way would improve it somewhat IMO. It would not be perfect however, since there is no perfect rating system. Fundamentally though the main flaw of the Depot is one that is very difficult to address - a lack of reviews, as Mace pointed out. I fully agree with him, and have come to the same conclusion as him. I am speaking as someone who is blessed (well, most of the time ) with a lot of reviews though, but I am still very frustrated about this. The bottomline is that while the Capt. Kernow approach of 'all is reasonably well' works for many designers and players, it no longer works for me. There are not enough reviews, and that needs to change as far as I am concerned. I have tried pretty much all I can to encourage reviews (provision of the link to the Depot and my email in the briefing, linked in my sig), but to no avail. That is a real shame. YMMV, before I am being told I am pathetic, or have eyes rolled at me again.

Kernow, I think you maybe confusing two issues here. The real service of the Depot to those who upload directly to it is that it gives them an instant 'client' base for their work. The reviews are probably just an extra bonus for many of them. I am fairly convinced you would see the same number of uploads if there was no review feature at all. For designers in groups like 'Die Sturmgruppe' and 'B&T' this is not an issue at all, we are more concerned about the reviews. With 'concerned' being the keyword here for a few of us (but not all). In an ideal world, an upload would happen for both reasons.

Rune, FWIW, I fully agree with the assessment. ISTR that when the Depot first came out there was some discussion about ratings too. Regarding the point that this is just a discussion started by some designers who can not hack bad reviews - with a 1-5 system, it will still be possible for anyone to give a bad review if they so desire. They give it a '1'. Introducing a 'fun' rating, will also increase the possibility to give a bad review - just rate it '1'. Some reviewers (e.g. Big Dog) have used their own 1-5 rating system (the famous x out of 5 WOOFs) , showing that they seemed to feel a need for a different system. If nothing else, I thing my little run around the block with ASL Vet has shown that there is a wide variety of opinions on what constitutes good scenarios. I am sure I would enjoy rating those four ASL scenarios '1' for fun, in the same way I suspect him to enjoy rating most of mine '1' for replayability. This discussion in my mind is about increasing the options, and making the reviews more relevant to both the designers and the players. The current mathematical average is just that, a mathematical average. I would not be surprised if it actually forces reviewers to give inflated scores on some aspects in scenarios that they enjoyed, and want to mark highly (if e.g. they had a lot of fun and want to recommend it, but the briefing was not too good). Thus a case can be made that the mathematical average has the potential to distort the individual score. Which in my mind is another reason to do away with it. My suggestion would be a hand-entered overall rating, and an additional rating for 'fun'. I would also restrict ratings from 1-5, not the current 1-10, which seems to turn into a 5-10 most of the time anyway. I think 1-10 gives an illusion of exactitude that simply does not exist. When we review tenders at work, we just have a 0-3 rating, and that has been enough. I would not apply any of this to past scenarios, sodd comparability, that is just extra work.

Sarcasm is something that you may have learned in high school or college. It's implied </font>

I would also quite like to know where I said anything about pre-screening? Or where I suggested that my scenarios were perfect/superior and the reviewers are at fault for scoring them low? I think ASL Vet has completely lost it by now (no news there then), so it will be fairly amusing to see what comes next.

I think the only thing that is obvious from this post is your complete lack of judgement on these matters, your tendency to make hyperbolic unsubstantiated claims, and a general aversion to other people having different opinions from yours. I brought up ASL conversions as an example for something I could not find myself to enjoy, to put it mildly. Your statement 'However, to me replayability is the most important criteria since it tells you how much that gamer wants to play that scenario again. If he plays it once and decides to discard it - well that's a failure in my mind.' is equally taken out of thin air to make a point about something that is important to you. It basically asssigns almost all my scenarios to be 'failures' in your mind. Which is pretty harsh as a judgement. That did not lead me to call you 'pathetic' though. You still have not answered any of my questions, instead you continue going on about how evil it is for scenario designers to suggest a different scoring system. How about you breathe into that brown paperbag a few times and try to answer them?

Since you are obviously not interested in learning, why should I bother sharing any information with you? We could have had a nice discussion about recon in force doctrine, during which both of us could have learned something. To do so, I just needed to know the level of your knowledge about other nations practice. Since you want to see that request for elucidation as a put-down, fine. You'll just continue believing that the Germans did everything better and more aggressively than everybody else and were generally superior, while I won't bother reading your posts in the future. That way we are both happy, you in your ignorance, and I save time. Have a nice day.

Hey, you did not have to play them I actually reviewed them very harshly on the Depot too, and again, I did not name any scenarios, nor would I do that when using such strong language. And again - nowhere did I say or even insinuate who may have designed them, and in actual fact ASL Vet was not the designer of any of them. BTW - thanks for the help with 'discursive', I did not know that word existed. You may want to check its meaning though I think I am usually far too discursive

This is quite funny. You can also just find yourself somewhere where your work is appreciated a bit more, and where you can be sure to be able to do things you are interested in without getting stick for that from some cretin and very little, if any, positive feedback from all the others.

Kernow, I am sorry, but that was not just my opinion but that of my PBEM partners as well. I stand by it too. The scenarios I played were beyond hope or redemption, with discursive (is that a word?) and reasoned discussion or not. How is that more pathetic than your opinion on Rune's scenario? You should also reread my comment if you think that I meant ASL Vet's scenarios (none of which I ever played, but I will also make sure now that I never will, since he is obviously interested in different things than I am when it comes to scenarios). I talked about 'ASL' scenarios that I had played.

And that is different from other nation's how?

Thanks Berli - since I never played ASL or SL, I did not know that. That pretty much explains everything.

Obviously there is one rule for Mr. ASL Chap, and one rule for everybody else Rune. I would not bother too much about him or his opinions.

</font>

You're pathetic.

While I am here, I am also of the opinion that a single rating on the depot, to be manually entered and not based on any average, would increase the usefulness of the feedback. YMMV. With that said, it is really of no great concern to me at the moment, since I do not see myself designing any scenarios for public use in the foreseeable future. I have other, and more rewarding things to keep me busy, namely CMMC2. I have been positively surprised by the amount of feedback on CD scenarios on the depot, which is probably a sign of how low my expectations are by now. I also think that in general the reviews are useful, and positive, which is nice. There is the occasional idiot, but I guess there is nothing that can be done about it. Like Rune, I have always, and often at length responded to anyone sending me an email about my scenarios. I prefer that as a way of feedback, because it allows a dialogue that the Depot at the moment does not allow for CMBB scenarios. I guess that missing feature makes life a bit more difficult for us designers.

You are welcome to your opinion, but how would you design a scenario in which e.g. a very weak force holds off a strong force so that it can be replayed? Or a scenario in which the timing and surprise of reinforcements entering has a serious effect on the battle? Or a scenario in which both sides are roughly equal, but one side starts the fight very disorganised and needs a breathing space to organise itself? Or a scenario in which a weak force has to attack a strong force? I am sure I could think of more, but that is not that relevant. The point is that in any of these, once you have played it once, you can not play it again, because you know what is going to happen and you will plan for it. So to tell me that scenarios that I have designed to take some or all of the above into account, and create surprise for the players, are failures in your view is an interesting statement. Well, I guess if your view is formed by ASL, it would explain why I think all ASL conversions I have played are ****e and a waste of my time. I usually thought they were badly converted, but it may just be that they are actually bad scenarios by design. Just shows how different tastes can be.

Aside from Schmidt, the story of the Russian Front would be the lesser without the memoirs of von Manstein, Guderian, and von Mellenthin. One can make the claim that these famous German personages may have had other agendas or chose to remain silent on more sensitive issues, but the fact remains they were all field officers with experience and skill who participated on the Russian Front. Their story is one of the German Army and since it was the major combatant of the Soviets in WWII, their story must be included among the diverse panoply of publications on the Soviet-German War.</font>

lol - at least it gives some indication of how unsatisfactory is the "work" done by the likes of Carrell ... </font>

To SO: (Repeat of question asked above.) To both: How "not realistic" is it. At CMBB's scale how often did mixes like those mandated above happen? </font>

Do you need it in English or German?

Hmm, not sure if I would draw such a general conclusion from it. From the narrative it sounds as if 12.PD was thrown into a fight with superior attackers, without preparation, and at very short notice. It then had to continuously counter-attack. I'll post something on Soviet defensive tactics in the next few days relating to that.

Panzerlage 12. PD 1.7.43 (from Niepold's history of the 12.PD) - 12. PD was slated to go in at the northern shoulder of the Kursk bulge, but that did not happen. It had already concentrated near Tagino (35km SW of Kromy) to support the German attack. It was then needed to fight against the Soviet attack near Orel however, where it suffers very heavy losses. Total 73 15 III(kurz - 50L42 quite amazing these were still around) 15 III(lang - 50L60) 6 III(75L24) 2 PzBefWg 2 III(kurz) PzBefWg 32 IV(lang) (36 on strength) 1 IV(kurz) 0 VK1801 (3 on strength) - these are II w/80mm frontal armour AT 15 Marder (7.62r) (16 on strength) 4 towed 7.5cm 4 towed 5cm 1 towed 7.62r Recce 15 PSWs (light) 8 PSWs (heavy) Armoured (yeah right) infantry 8 SPW Pioneers 5 PPW (Sdkfz. 251/X for pioneers) Artillery No SP artillery 24 towed lFH18 6 towed sFH18 4 towed K18 AA 6 towed 8,8cm 1 SP 2cm 1 SP 2cm (Quad) 2 towed 3.7cm It is interesting to note that almost the whole division was at 100% personnel strength, and that also technically it was very well equipped. And then what happened.... The combat strength (Gefechtsstaerke) of the division on 05. July 1943 was 229 Officers, 1,106 NCOs and 6526 ORs. It had 49 tanks ready for combat, 20 of those IV(lg). The division enters combat 8 days later, in a counter-attack against an enemy penetration across the heights on both sides of Chmelewaja, west of the Oka river. The attack fails in the face of strong opposition by 2-3 Rifle Divisions supported by 1 Tank Brigade. The next days are a see-saw battle. During the night 16/17. July the Pz.Pi.Btl.32 is smashed up, only remnants can rescue themselves. A last attack fails on 19. July, and the division is taken out of the frontline and sent to Orel. Losses by day (altogether WIA/KIA/MIA): 13 July 17 Off 306 OR 14 July 18 Off 257 OR 15 July 18 Off 269 OR 16 July 26 Off 580 OR 17 July 8 Off 478 OR 18 July 11 Off 217 OR 19 July 15 Off 181 OR At the end of the period the combat strength (Gefechtsstaerke) of the division is 97 Off, 599 NOC and 3720 OR. Losses respectively are: 57% Off, 46% NCO, 43% OR. 20 tanks (60% lower) (of these 10 IV(lg) - 60% lower) and 10 ATGs are still combat ready (70% lower compared to 1.July). It goes on like that - 04. August during the retreat battles in Orel, 277 men lost, for no purpose. 09 August - 288 men lost in defensive battles. It is finally taken out of the line on 16. August. The combat strength of the line units is given in the first column (Off/NCO/OR), and the Grabenstaerke (real frontline strength, probably infantry, including heavy weapons) in the second column in brackets: PzGrenRgt 25 - 23/83/775 (15/55/447) PzGrenRgt 5 - 23/84/608 (12/58/346) Pz.AA 12 - 12/48/408 (7/19/113) Pz Pi 32 - 11/29/316 (7/19/209) Tanks - 38 (23 IV(lg)) I.e. after six weeks almost permanent heavy defensive combat (with heavy unsuccessful counterattacks carried out), the division had a strength of about one Abteilung of tanks, and a weak regiment of infantry. [ December 09, 2002, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

It is my understanding they were used in the Recce Platoons of the Panzerabteilungen and the Regiment. That is certainly how PR11 used them in the winter of 42/43. I don't think many were left in mid-1943 though, they had a disturbing tendency to get shot up For those interested: Panzerlage 12. PD 1.7.43 (from Niepold's history of the 12.PD) - 12. PD was slated to go in at the northern shoulder of the Kursk bulge, but that did not happen. It had already concentrated near Tagino (35km SW of Kromy) to support the German attack. It was then needed to fight against the Soviet attack near Orel however, where it suffers very heavy losses. 15 III(kurz) 15 III(lang) 6 III(75L24) 2 PzBefWg 2 III(kurz) PzBefWg 32 IV(lang) (36 on strength) 1 IV(kurz) 0 VK1801 (3 on strength) - these are II w/80mm frontal armour AT 15 Marder (7.62r) (16 on strength) 4 towed 7.5cm 4 towed 5cm 1 towed 7.62r Recce 15 PSWs (light) 8 PSWs (heavy) Armoured (yeah right) infantry 8 SPW Pioneers 5 PPW (Sdkfz. 251/X for pioneers) Artillery No SP artillery 24 towed lFH18 6 towed sFH18 4 towed K18 AA 6 towed 8,8cm 1 SP 2cm 1 SP 2cm (Quad) 2 towed 3.7cm It is interesting to note that almost the whole division was at 100% personnel strength, and that also technically it was very well equipped.