Bimmer

Generally speaking, I do not offer feedback on most of the scenarios I've downloaded and played. When I have, it has been to identify specific issues that need to be addressed (IMO) to make significant improvements in the scenario. If such comments are not necessary, or there are so many issues that no amount of tweaking will help, I don't bother. Simply selecting a number of stars without commenting is not something I even think about doing. But player and designer perspectives are different. As a gaming community you are always going to have more players than designers. Would it be nice if more players offered their feedback rather than just grabbing what's offered without so much as a thank you? Sure. But as so rightly noted above, "who does 'polite' anymore?"

It will definitely slow down some machines. I had to make a few adjustments in my settings to get it to run well, but then my machine is rather old.

The first iteration of this scenario has been submitted to the Repository. Three variants are included: one H2H, one US vs. AI, and one H2H variant with ahistorical reinforcements. Enjoy.

This is quite true, I suspect. Greater fidelity in the model promotes greater fidelity in scenario-building. That said, individual design priorities come into play pretty early in the process. Personally, I try to make sure that the scenario is entertaining, by my standards; this means I don't build monster scenarios, and I don't keep things rigorously historical unless the battle was fairly balanced and that this can be modeled well within a limited scope. I will build small to moderately sized scenarios depicting anything from purely fictional situations to those based on a factual premise to those built as close to reality as possible.

I can't speak to the situation you mentioned regarding a designer quitting; I am unfamiliar with it, and certainly wouldn't want to speculate. Everyone has their reasons, and unfulfilled expectations could have contributed. You're quite right that any rating system is imperfect. The problem with the Repository arrangement is two-fold, I think. The scoring (number of stars) is most useful for players looking for guidance, but in order to be representative, it needs many more scores per scenario than are usually found so that a meaningful average can be generated. I believe my most-rated scenario has 10 scores; this is hardly enough to limit the effects of outlying scores. The second problem is that feedback is, as I suggested above, often rather useless to the designer from a constructive point of view. There are exceptions, of course, but when dealing with a random sampling of a user community, you cannot expect that the comments are going to be universally highly informed. This is why vetted beta test teams are employed. If the designer's expectation of Repository comments is to provide useful feedback he is destined to be disappointed; a similar result is likely if he expects wide-ranging adulation from users who incur no obligation to provide such after downloading. In short, the Repository and similar such mechanisms will by their nature fail to provide much for designers (and modders, for that matter). When it comes to developing free content, if you're not primarily self-motivated, you will inevitably be let down by users who have no vested interest in providing useful feedback.

How much of an issue this is is very much dependent upon the designer and their motivation for designing and publishing scenarios. I can speak only for myself. I am a designer. I get at least as much pleasure from creating as I do from playing. I have researched and designed scenarios and campaigns for a variety of systems, and I have designed complete game systems. I do it as a creative outlet primarily for my own pleasure. When I publish something that is available without cost, I do so knowing that my choices and methodology will not work for everyone; I don't care. I'm not doing it for the user. I did it (past tense) for my own pleasure. Once it gets out, it's entirely up to you whether you like it or not. Now, that being said, feedback can be helpful, and one always wonders why there is no apparent response after hundreds or thousands of downloads. Thoughtful, considered feedback is welcome; random babbling about why you should have done something or other radically differently in a carefully researched historical scenario or giving X number of "stars" without any comments is pretty useless. Designers use feedback to broaden the basis of their informed self-assessment, but anyone who relies on it to drive their process cannot be seriously considered a designer.

Well, my first contribution - the Palma di Montechiaro scenario I posted a WIP thread about - is essentially done. After building that ridiculously densely-populated map, I had to run through fairly extensive testing, which required some significant changes, and I decided to add a non-historical H2H variant as well (not much testing on that one). I'm on vacation at the moment, but I'll get it posted up once i get home.

The peep sights on U.S. weapons of the WWII era were a lot better than the V-notch sights on most other countries' weapons. The apertures are a bit small on some, but not terrible. The additional sight radius of a receiver-mounted rear sight helps quite a bit with accuracy as well. Remember that these were combat sights, not match sights; the match sights of the era (micro-adjustable rear with front globe) are considerably more precise than any combat sight, but also far more fragile.

Great - thanks.

I'm working on an AI plan for the Italians, and I cannot seem to get the AI to stop firing on-map indirect fire-capable guns at support targets. At least an ambush order stops 47mm AT guns from firing, but nothing silences the 65/17. Not only does the AI insist on firing at support targets, but it has no regard for obstructions, like buildings, that might be in the way. It would be really nice if on-map guns given ambush orders in the AI plan would ignore support targets.

Not a win per se due to the scoring arrangement of the scenario, but playing Beyond the Belice as the Italians PBEM I did manage to inflict twice as many casualties on the Americans and control about 70% of the board at the end. It felt like a win....

Sorry to revive this, but I just noticed something interesting. One of the vehicles shown in the splash screens that comes up while a scenario is loading is an AS42 (AA) - the 20mm AA gun mount is rotated considerably further than it is capable of moving in the game. As these graphics appear to be stills of the in-game models, I'm back to thinking something might be bugged.

I'm going to give this one - and only one - bump. If no takers by the end of the weekend, I'll finish up the testing myself and release it when it's ready.

From what I've seen, Italian rifle sections are composed of two parts, so only two action spots are involved.

As some of you may know from the thread in the Maps & Mods forum ( here ), I'm preparing to release an urban combat scenario covering the battle of Palma di Montechiaro, 11 July 1943. Before general release, however, I'd really like to see if there are two players who would be willing to play a PBEM game with a pre-release version and document it in a detailed turn-by-turn AAR on this forum, as is currently being done with "Clearing the Niscemi Highway". It's a 90-minute scenario on a relatively small but dense map with roughly reinforced company-sized forces. So, if you're interested, please PM me. Players should be able to move things along in a timely fashion. Obviously, since it wouldn't do to have things fall apart before the end, people with long-term participation here will have preference. Also, anyone who played in "The Farm" CMBN tournament and finished in good standing (i.e., didn't drop out or disappear) would be welcome; some of you guys did great AARs for those games, so I know you could do the same here. Thanks for your interest, and feel free to ask any questions you might have here.

Just go to the "Immagini" tab and select "Carta IGM scala 25.000" and you should be good to go.

That does look like a handy source. The interface seems to have changed somewhat from what is described in those instructions, but once you track down the IGM 1:25000 option you're good to go. One odd thing to note: my tracker indicates the site is hosted in Iran. Nothing comes up as malicious or questionable, and the info I'm seeing could be wrong, but it still strikes me as odd. I think I'll be accessing it from one of my Linux machines from now on.

Yeah, I thought of that...after I had already built the entire map and meticulously set every interior and exterior wall on said map just the way I wanted it. It goes without saying that the buildings are not set halfway on the action squares. This issue, combined with positioning the poster flavor objects, is threatening to turn me into an alcoholic. An angry alcoholic.

I agree that entering buildings is far too easy. Worse, the independent row houses have doors on both ends, and even when you back them up to a modular building with a solid rear wall, the game allows movement between the two. It is, in essence, impossible to totally prevent movement between buildings if you use the independent buildings as part of a city block. I've done everything I can, but there are still places where movement is possible where I wish it weren't. Those awards are indeed interesting, and certainly show it was not an easy fight, but I wish I could read the citations. I do not have that McManus book, but I'll have to look into getting it. I will look at putting one or two of these shots in the screenshot thread. Thanks for all the interest and comments - I hope the end product lives up to expectations.

Yep, they are really nice; just look at the actual photo I posted above and you can see how close they are to the real thing. I just wish there was a way to add them to the modular buildings rather than just on the few independent ones.

No fakes here. All the pics are taken at high zoom in-game. The shots are cropped and run through a few filters in GIMP, but that's it. I'm using FIL (I'd have to check the specific settings) for the film effects and adding a little blur and adjusting contrast.

Battle testing is underway. In a week or so (maybe two), I'll be looking for two volunteers to play the final pre-release version of this one and do an ongoing AAR similar to the excellent one being produced by Bil Hardenberger and Normal Dude with "Clearing the Road to Niscemi". Watch this space.

I do understand the rationale behind the design decisions, though IMHO there are some limitations created that make draws too likely. Specifically, the terrain objectives are very large, and as such (and as you note) a few stragglers can unduly influence the results. Personally, I prefer to avoid using such large occupy objectives for just this reason. Perhaps dividing the map into quarters or sixths would offer greater flexibility. Further, the 65% threshold is workable to an extent, but without any points available for casualties inflicted below that threshold in addition, and considering the terrain issue above, it is basically a foregone conclusion that many games are going to end not only in a draw, but indeed with exactly equal scores. This seems unnecessary; offering at least some points for casualties, even a small number, would at least allow for some differentiation in results. Just my thoughts from a design perspective. I am well aware and respectful of the fact that other designers prefer other approaches.

Yeah, I just finished it PBEM with a buddy and the VCs are really odd. No credit for casualties unless you hit the threshold, and the terrain objectives are set to occupy, which is at odds with the mission description of conducting a patrol, and are pretty arbitrary. I ended up controlling 75% of the map and inflicting double the casualties I took and getting a straight draw. Seems like it would be a lot better with a few adjustments to the way the scoring is handled.