ASL Veteran

Sarcasm is something that you may have learned in high school or college. It's implied In answer to your questions - YES. How do you do it - that's up to the designer to figure out because there is no one 'right' way. Every scenario has a life of it's own - and there is a lot of art involved that is specific to the designer. I said that I view a low score on replayability to be important and you don't. So why do you keep getting bent out of shape about it if you don't think it is important? I think the scoring system is fine the way it is.

Okay, first off the fact that this thread exists is an indication that you are unhappy with a review that you recieved ... doesn't it? I wouldn't use the word insult ... slammed just means that you felt that the reviewer hit you and you hit back ... here ... on the forum. That's all that was intended by the slam remark. I never implied that you were being insulting. I would characterize it more as an angry response to a negative review. Second, Andreas slammed a whole genre of scenarios with a few casual dismissive lines. It would be similar to me saying "Well, I guess if your view is formed by CMBB CD Scenarios, it would explain why I think all CMBB CD Scenarios I have played are ****e and a waste of my time. I usually thought they were badly made, but it may just be that they are actually bad scenarios by design. Just shows how different tastes can be." I hope that you can see why I took exception to his remarks Rune. [ December 11, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

The reason I called you pathetic Andreas is because you chose to slam something that wasn't even a part of the topic (which I thought was turning into a discussion about scenario design philosophy). ASL was irrelevant to the ideas that were being put forward. Not once did I mention ASL or even use it as a gauge to correct scenario design (although after seeing your posts, I suppose I should let Ray Tapio know that everything he has ever made is pure crap - even though his whole company is based upon it). In fact, my example of good scenario design was a scenario made by Kwazydog - "All or Nothing"! I merely expressed a difference of opinion about something and you chose to slam something that wasn't even a part of the thread's topic. If you use a philosophy that is different from a philosophy that I prefer - more power to you. Everyone already knows that you are the best scenario designer on the web, so what are you all bent out of shape about? It is obvious that your scenarios are not the problem, but that the way the scenarios are scored at the depot are the problem. As long as informed scenario players can score your scenarios in a method that is more friendly and understanding to your philosophy, your scenario designs will be proven to be the superior ones that we all know they are. Not only should the scoring system be changed, but I think there also needs to be a method of pre screening reviewers to ensure that they are suitable for posting commentary on a scenario.

Obviously we have a 'difference of opinion' on the subject. You're pathetic.

The balance issue is important if it is your intention to have a scenario played multi player. Balance is irrelevant if you intend your scenario to be played vs the AI. If you are planning to play a scenario PBEM or TCP/IP then balance is a critical factor for an enjoyable game. I think that perhaps some have the impression that scenarios are exclusively for teaching or 100% historical accuracy and that balanced games are the domain of the Quick Battle. I disagree and feel that there is a place for balanced scenarios that target the multi player audience as a scenario and a Quick Battle are different animals on several different levels. Teaching and balance are not mutually exclusive! I have a PBEM partner who downloads scenarios from the web regularly .. I let him pick the scenario of his choice but I pick the side. Well he picked two CMBO scenarios once - "Hell's Highway" and another by Franko that I don't recall what the title was. Well, when he picked them I told him I wasn't sure I wanted to play those because I would crush him like an egg in both of them if I played as side x (German in Hell's Highway and American in the other). He insisted and I duly crushed him like an egg in both. Afterwards he would say "wow, I really didn't have a chance in that one did I?" and all I could do was say "Told ya so." I don't know what he got out of it, but I sure didn't get anything out of it (regardless of how historically accurate the scenario was).

You don't have to stop giving reviews - just stick to positive ones or face a public blasting from the designer! :eek:

I personally feel that replayability and balance are two of the most important factors. I want someone to say - wow, that rocked and I want to play it again. Kwazydog's old scenario from CMBO "All or Nothing" - now that was a great scenario. I played it at least six times PBEM and I never tired of it once. I like the rating system at the depot as is. I think it accounts for all the factors that make a scenario successful. In my mind, you must strive to score well on all those marks - briefing included. A fun scenario with a weak briefing is exactly that - a fun scenario with a weak briefing and it should be scored accordingly. If replayability isn't a factor for a certain designer, then just ignore it when someone scores you low for it. 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. Admiral, don't change a thing!

Try "The Schoolhouse" at the scenario depot.

I can't imagine them doing a mediterranian theater CM without dynamic lighting (for flares and gunflashes and stuff). There was so much night fighting in North Africa that it would almost be a shame to have the same type of night combat there that we have now in CMBB.

As far as I know, the only person at BFC who has even gazed upon the outside of an ASL box is Moon ... and even that might be incorrect. However, I know for certain that Kwazydog has never played it, and I have sincere doubts that either Steve or Charles have played it (or even looked upon it). Doesn't make them bad people of course . ASL had a lot of limitations from being a turn based cardboard and paper game. If you were patient enough, ASL could be played blind with three sets of identical maps and an independent judge informing each player of what was happening, but that was pretty tedious.

The problem is that what works for one player will not always work for another player. There are also so many variables involved that nobody could hope to give you a stock 'how to' answer for every situation you may encounter. Trial and error .... that's how you will learn what tactics fit your personality the best.

IIRC If a unit is forced to route and can't find a safe path, then they are forced to surrender or are eliminated for failure to route. When no quarter is in effect they will low crawl one hex if forced to route in the open. If no quarter is not in effect and you are forced to route in the open within normal range of a known enemy unit they can capture you instead through interdiction. There is no way a broken unit in ASL can 'stay put' if a known enemy unit is adjacent (within 40 meters) or if the broken squad is in open ground within normal range. Now a squad in DM I think must always run for a woods or building assuming one exists within that squad's ability to reach said woods or building within one route phase (and not towards a 'known' enemy unit of course). If no such terrain exists and no enemy troops are adjacent then they can remain in the non woods or building hex if they want. It has been a while though, so I may have to break out the old rule book again as a refresher.

I have sent you my version of The Commissar's House that is currently undergoing testing. It uses the actual historical location from the Red Barricades map (I think it was put out in one of the ASL Annuals). If you want Stalingrad 'lite' you can always try "Streets of Stalingrad" that I have put up at the Scenario Depot.

Block Busting in Bokruisk is a conversion. I believe it comes from the magazine "The General" or one of the ASL Annuals, but it has been so long that I don't really recall exactly which magazine it was in.

I don't know about TCP, but if you are playing PBEM both players don't even need to have the scenario. The player initiating the game sends the file to his opponent and you're off and running because the scenario plays off that initial file. I imagine that TCP would be a little different though? I don't know - never played TCP before.

Also known as Bobruisk depending upon who you are talking to. The Soviet offensive of 22 June 1944 created a situation where German forces were trapped in the city of Bokruisk. The city was declared a 'fortified place' by the Fuhrer and the troops defended as best they could. A very compact scenario which should be an enjoyable match when played TCP/IP. It is available at the king of all CMBB scenario websites "The Scenario Depot". Playtesters rated this scenario as perfectly balanced for TCP or PBEM play. Also an interesting game when playing as the Russian vs the German AI. This scenario is difficult to win as either side in multiplayer games, and easy to lose if you make a mistake.

I am going to respond to you by e-mail. However, for the casual reader ... there are hundreds of (hand added BTW) shell holes all over both maps and there is also lots of rubble on both maps. There are limits to what one can do visually with CM and if a building isn't a completely flattened pile of masonry (maybe the walls are up but no roof) then there isn't much I can do about the 'clean' look. I suppose the degree is in the eye of the beholder. If you have a comment about the terrain, please add it to that portion of the questionnaire or e-mail me and I can put your suggestion to the group. Suggestion, review, survey, decision. That is the process I am following.

I believe that Mr Speaker has already put some scenarios on the Scenario Depot so you can check them out if you like. My own project is ongoing as I want to make sure every scenario is fully tested and tweaked before making them available for download. I am not working on a timetable either, so I can't say when they will be finished. I'm not sure where I will be putting them, but when I get closer to completion I will ask some sites to see if they want to host them (if anyone would be interested in hosting them, just let me know and I'll let you look over what is planned and what is completed so you can determine if you want to host them or not). I want to have them available in various themed "packs" complete with AARs (when available) and a readme so a setup where each one is individually downloaded (among many others) would be less than ideal for me. I have also planned to make these scenarios accessible to anyone - not just ASL fanatics . The testing is time consuming though as the scenarios are intended for multiplayer and if a tester is playing PBEM - well, it could take a while to get some feedback (and thanks again to those six testers dutifully slogging through all those scenarios). If you would like to assist in the testing process though, just let me know and I would be happy to include you in the testing group.

Well, for one thing I don't think the AI actually "knows" how to exit. I haven't actually experimented with it, but I've never seen the AI exit a single thing .... ever. So, if you are doing an exit scenario as a one player scenario it would be best to recommend that the player play as the exiting force. Use small flags to encourage the AI to move, but use them sparingly to discourage the player from feeling obligated to control them.

Ah, yes I now see that he was referring to the Quad 20mm flak gun . I assumed he was talking about the single barrelled version. I think it was the single barrelled version that was in the test, but only Achim can confirm that. I would agree that a Quad 20mm spits out a lot of firepower, but the problems of causing immobilization would still be the same as before. The four barrels are also spaced fairly widely apart, so unless you get the range right you are going to be hitting all over the place. That and each barrel will be vibrating too of course. As long as they are good, good, good, good vibrations... sorry, I couldn't resist.

Crates are doodads, just like brush, grain, steppe grass, etc

Are you certain of that ROF? That sounds a little high to me, especially considering that the MG42 has a cyclic of around 1,200 RPM and is considered 'astonishingly high'. In any case, all of the rounds fired by the Flak gun are not going to be impacting on the same part of the track - if they are hitting the track at all. The hits would be distributed all over the tank just from the weapon's vibrations when it fires. The angle the tank is facing will also have an effect. The target area of the track alone from the front facing for most vehicles is fairly small, and with undulations in the ground it would probably be a fairly difficult target to hit. Targeting the track from the side would be even more difficult. I also haven't run across any personal accounts that indicated quick immobilization is normal with small caliber weapons, because in CM it seems to happen consistently in under 2 minutes. Every once in a while I could accept it, but every single time? That seems a bit much to me - especially when considering personal accounts. The personal accounts seem to indicate that it is the cumulative damage from numerous small caliber hits which eventually cause the suspension and track system to fail, not that the track is "snipped clean" and broken after a minute or two of firing. Without more data though we are just engaging in speculation. How about if we just let Steve and Charles look into it and leave it at that for now? We can then test it again and see where we are at.

Yes, I am thinking that the immobilization results are a little too quick for my tastes ... the Tiger in the part I posted above took a lot of damage in the tracks and roadwheels and still kept on going. There are also numerous other examples of Tigers that keep going when their tracks and suspension are getting pounded. Of course, that might just be a peculiarity of the Tiger so ... ? Still, it should take a little more than one or two minutes to disable a tank like that with small caliber weapons. Thanks, Steve, for looking into these issues for us. Here is the rest of the Tiger passage: I'm thinking that the results of immobilization would be a delayed result. The track and road wheel damage doesn't seem to result in immediate immobilization with small caliber weapons. [ September 22, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

Hmmm, I do find this result to be interesting. I'm curious to know if, after you get the immobilization result, can you cancel the Flak's targeting of the tank and hide it to see if the crew of the IS3 will bail when no further fire is directed at it? 3 bails out of 4 immobilizations is not a 100% ratio either, so we now know that the crew will not bail 100% of the time while under fire in an immobilized tank. We just need to find out where the 'breaking' point is. Also out of curiosity, can you see what morale status the tank crew is at when bailing? ie, Alerted, Cautious, Panicked, etc. Is the result the same with one 50mm PAK instead of one 20mm Flak?