Treeburst155

Considering the strength of the Grant turret, I'd rather not have the 75mm so I could get fully hull down. That turret is one tough nut to crack. Not so, the upper hull.

The hull down M3 is still killable from the front. The upper hull remains exposed even when hull down. Turret hits will not kill at 700 meters, but hits on the upper hull can do the trick. I didn't realize the upper hull was exposed when in "hull down" position. Maybe it's just the M3?

They can hold up fairly well against 88's as close as 700 meters away. This means a hull down M3 at about 700 meters is virtually unkillable from the front. Very interesting....

Hmmm.....I never considered the high priority of good play against the AI for CD scenarios. In light of that, I'll not be starting any more PBEMs of the CD scenarios. This will probably save me quite a bit of disappointment.

I think RaggedyMan brings up a good point. I think the tendency to dislike a scenario is greater when one loses. Perhaps there should be another set of three checkboxes for reviewers: "Won", "Lost", "Draw"

I agree. As much info as possible should be given about the scenario. Perhaps a link to spoiler info on another page would be possible. Playing blind is already on the honor code anyway. Everybody has an editor. Just so spoiler info for blind players doesn't jump right off the page.

Perhaps people who register at The Scenario Depot should be asked to briefly supply in a profile what their likes and dislikes are concerning scenarios. This info would then be available to scenario shoppers. My "Reviewer Profile" would be something like this: I don't like running out of time with a significant number of combat capable troops still on the map. I don't like flags near map edges or in the middle of open terrain. I think the luck factor in CM is more than enough without adding planes or low percentage reinforcement arrivals. I don't like tiny scenarios. These profiles would help shoppers determine who their favorite reviewers are. [ January 11, 2004, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Sergei, I think the review grade should simply be the reviewer's overall opinion of the scenario based on his point of view (the "Played As" checkboxes). Nothing more complicated than that. The reviewer simply grades his enjoyment of the experience. The review process should be kept very simple to promote more reviews. Asking players to rate a dozen scenario aspects is asking too much of most people I think. The whole thing hinges on getting lots of reviews. If this happens, you will know a bad scenario, and a good one, without having to play it first. I might give a scenario a "D" because it is too short. Someone else might give it a "B" for the same reason. What I see as "too short", they see as a "frantic, exciting scramble". This is all fine. With enough opinions players will be able to judge scenarios they will likely enjoy, which is the whole point. Determining reviewers who enjoy what you enjoy will be necessary. [ January 11, 2004, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Sergei, "Favorite Reviewers" would be something scenario shoppers would have to help them pick scenarios. Rating criteria? How about "FUN"? This will mean different things to different people; but that's OK. To get noticed, unknown designers not affiliated with a design group need to blow their own horns loudly. Simply uploading a scenario to The Depot with no fanfare is almost guaranteed to result in few downloads and few reviews for the unknown designer. If you've created something you really believe is worth playing, announce it to the forum. Be proud of it! The shy unknown will always be unknown. There are just too many scenarios out there for it to be any other way. Berlichtingen, I would like to see a fairly high percentage of "C" scenarios. This allows the Good, Great, Bad, and Terrible ones to stick out like a sore thumb. This would not keep me from playing a "C" scenario, especially if my "favorite reviewers" were giving it higher marks. [ January 11, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Sergei, Every reviewer has his own likes and dislikes when it comes to scenarios. They will grade a scenario differently for different reasons. Still, given enough reviews, a picture will begin to develop. The key to scenario shopping will be this big picture, and also how your favorite reviewers scored the scenarios. What makes a favorite reviewer? Someone who grades scenarios as you would, and therefore likes the same type of scenarios you do.

I will agree that scenarios tend to have "fingerprints". If you play enough scenarios by one designer, you will learn to recognize his work. However, playing two or three scenarios by someone would not be enough for ME to recognize a designer, or enough for me to disregard or eagerly await his next offering.

Word would get around on who designed what. Only the designers themselves could really protect their anonymity. This would mean hotseat playtesting by themselves, or with a select few highly trusted playtesters. With anonymity, new designers would be on equal footing with the established pros. They would have a better chance of getting their scenarios played and reviewed.

The scenario grade should be assigned by the reviewer based on the "fun factor". I think most people would consider a highly unbalanced scenario to be not much fun most of the time. Balance in CM is virtually impossible to achieve. The scenario need only be balanced enough to be enjoyable for both sides. That is all that can be expected, and all that is really needed. Anonymous scenarios......yeah, wouldn't that be fun.

Good point, Xerxes. The only real negative to picking scenarios by designer is that you could be missing out on some great work by an unknown.

Designers would get more reviews, and more HONEST reviews if they submitted their work anonymously. Once every year or so, the designers would be revealed here on the forum. It could be a fairly major event around here, and quite fun.

If a scenario sits on the fence, why not give a grade that reflects that fact? The average scenario should get a C. Most scenarios should get a C. If a reviewer had an especially good time doing a blind PBEM of a scenario, he might want to give it an A or a B depending on just how memorable the experience was. The grade should be based on the reviewer's enjoyment of the experience. Different reviewers are going to give different grades. The scenario shopper wades through all these opinions, taking special note of reviewers who tend to agree with him on what constitutes a good scenario. BTW, I love the reviewer incentive idea where reviewer's reviews get rated as useful or not. This is great incentive for thoughtfully grading a scenario IMO. I doubt you'd get scenario shoppers to vote on the usefulness of reviews however.

Request granted. I'll keep the altered scenario file to myself. I'm sorry. I should have thought a bit before offering it to people.

1) Go with registration 2) Use the "Played As" checkboxes. Choices should be: Axis vs AI, Allies vs AI, Two-player blind, and Two-player NON-blind 3) Allow the reviewer to give only a letter grade (A,B,C,D,F) after checking his "reviewer's perspective" in #2 above. Reviewers should be allowed to give a separate grade letter for each checkbox category which is treated as a totally separate review. The Scenario Depot visitor would browse reviews by selecting the checkbox category he is interested in. If he wants to know how a scenario does in the blind two-player category, he gets that list of reviews, etc..

This is my opinion of the CD scenario, "2 Pounders and Tigers". The opinion is based on a two player non-blind PBEM. By "non-blind" I mean that both players had knowledge of enemy setup zones and force makeup; but had never played the scenario. It was simply looked over briefly in the editor by both players. No spoilers below. This was a very exciting fight! Given two experienced human players I would say the tougher job falls to the Germans. This is due mainly to the freebie large flag given to the Allied player. If this flag were moved forward so that it actually had to be defended, the Allied advantage would all but be eliminated. The 36 minute battle is just a little short for the methodical German player. I would change the turns to 40+ before playing this one to insure that the Germans have the time to exhaust their ability to carry on with the attack. German reinforcements should be spaced out a bit to prevent tedium. I highly recommend this one for two-player battles. The German commander NEEDS to know what he is facing to really give the Allied player a fight he'll not forget. Therefore, I do not recommend playing this one blind.

This is my opinion of the CD scenario, "FlakFront!". The opinion is based on a two player non-blind PBEM. By "non-blind" I mean that both players had knowledge of enemy setup zones and force makeup; but had never played the scenario. It was simply looked over briefly in the editor by both players. No spoilers below. This scenario is deeply flawed for two-player non-blind play. It should probably be played blind. Even then, a fairly aggressive Allied player who knows how CM games are scored, will win easily. More flag points need to be placed on the German side of the map to entice the Allies forward once they have gained what is now the majority of the VL points. Without these additional flags, the scenario soon becomes a German attack with totally inadequate forces. German reinforcements should come in much sooner. I have revised this scenario for two-player battles. It plays much better IMO. Email me if you would like this revised version.

This is my opinion on the CD scenario, "The Brits At Anzio". The opinion is based on a two player non-blind PBEM. By "non-blind" I mean that both players had knowledge of enemy setup zones and force makeup; but had never played the scenario. It was simply looked over BRIEFLY in the editor by both players. No spoilers below. The scenario is not much fun from the Allied perspective due to severe imbalance. The imbalance is caused by the designers' apparent assumption that the Germans would be forced to use the roads due to the wet ground conditions. A warning about sticking to the roads, due to the wet conditions, is even mentioned in the German briefing. The truth is, "wet" in CMAK is very little hindrance to even the most bog prone armor. This fact makes the German task much easier to accomplish than was apparently intended. I suspect this scenario was never tested with the Germans trying more than a little off-road maneuvering. Change the ground conditions to DEEP mud before playing this one with a human. This will give a much more balanced battle.

This is my opinion of the CD scenario, "TF Stark". The opinion is based on a two player non-blind PBEM. By "non-blind" I mean that both players had knowledge of enemy setup zones and force makeup; but had never played the scenario. It was simply looked over briefly in the editor by both players. No spoilers below. I enjoyed this one as originally designed; but it can be improved IMO. There is a large VL about 150 meters from a neutral map edge. This means a large portion of the battle could take place very near that edge. The presence of the map edge alters tactics drastically. I would move this VL another 100 meters from the map edge before starting a two-player battle. There is also a small VL on the opposite map edge. This one is OK, and makes for an interesting side show to the main event. Because it is a small VL, no large amount of action is likely to take place there. The German attacker does not have enough time to accomplish his mission if he has any concern at all for limiting casualties. The time limit should be extended another 10 turns IMO. Ten turns is only 10 minutes. Sometimes I think designers forget this. It is possible the time limit was used as a balancing tool for the scenario. If true, a good explanation of why the mission must be accomplished quickly should be in the briefing. This is a fun scenario IMO. It may be a bit slow for the defender in the first half; but this is unavoidable if the attacker is to have options. Starting "in contact", or very nearly so, is just the designer committing your forces to a certain course of action, then leaving you to pull the trigger and pay for his mistakes.

But.....how DO you take a screenshot?

This is the one bad thing about having such a nice scenario editor. I think many very good scenarios never get played due to the sheer volume of scenarios produced. The Proving Grounds is performing a great service by testing scenarios for the community. Thanks!!

Large scenarios are better than operations. Ammo problems are minor compared to the problems with ops mentioned above. To alleviate the ammo problem, give all infantry max ammo, and have reinforcements come in to relieve those who have expended their ammo. They will need relief anyway. Also, ammo conservation is just another tactical consideration to add enjoyment. A large and long fight does not necessarily have to take place on a huge map. Reinforcements can steadily be fed in for both sides resulting eventually in a huge amount of units and the max time limit, all on a less than huge map.