Spookster

Greenie, No slight intended. Cleary your data is helpful for the reasons we both agree. I also imagine, since yours is a close-knit group, word of mouth does spread regarding most balanced scenarios and, since (like it or not) the interest in CM is tapering off, I doubt you can get big samples on the assumed "imbalanced" scenarios. Cheers, Mike

Neat, but... You've created a circular self-selection problem in rating your games. As it stands now, people tend to play games that are "Balanced", and stay away from the "Imbalanced" ones, even though most the imbalanced ones (many of which are my favorites)do NOT have a big enough sample size to make a determination on their relative fairness. Another problem, and I've found to be a big one: Maximizing balance does not always maximize enjoyment. It is a huge component, but I've played PBEM games with good balance that were not necessarily better than an "imbalanced" one, like: "Message from Geotz", which has a ton of drama, intensity and charm. You know all this, I'm sure. And, of course, you are interest in measuring the best head to head scenarios for your player rankings. How about this?: Allow players to play all the scenarios, even the so-called imbalanced ones. Win or lose, nothing is recorded until that scenario has a significant sample (which I assume your stats guy can determine). Then, previous games can be compared against a meaningful average. Wins and losses can be determined relative to other games. That way, players can play a greater diversity of scenarios and be less afraid of "imbalance" issues. Just my 2 cents. -Spookster p.s. BTW: Great job with your site. If I ever played as much as I did in the BO days, I'd join.

!!!

This is what I like to hear/read. Thanks for the updates, Panther. -Mike

Like to see the letter, if you wouldn't mind posting. I'm out of town this week, but I'll check back on Monday. Peace. -Mike

Recommend. Give it a shot.

Steve, Just called the Ronald McDonald House. Left a $100 donation to the facility. (Apparently, Wayne Gretzky is a big Calgary Ronald McDonald fan. So I am in good company.) Talked to a Ronald McDonald associate, who told me, "Matthew's doing pretty well." Good news. The associate offered to connect me to the room, but since I've never met the Grace family, I said it was enough to tell them that the "CM Community has them in their thoughts." Somehow, I think "Warmonger" is the least fitting name for Tom..."Good Father" should be his moniker. Peace, Mike

Maj West, I think there are many interested parties to a CM:Pacific, but are there enough to make it financially worth-while for BF to produce such a game? Personally, I have no interest in the Pacific Theatre, mainly because I have an Armor bias and Armor is what CM models well. (Those "stacks" of infantry running around are not my cup of tea.) If BF were to produce a PT game with a new engine, I'd consider buying it; otherwise, nope.

Andreas, Is there something we can do to fix it? -Mike

I may be getting a little senile, but I'd like someone to confirm/debunk my thoughts on the following scenario at the depot: HSG-Homecoming Please, for interest of objectivity, do not read my review. I'm interested in your views of the quality of the scenario AND the challenge of the scenario (too hard, hard, fine, easy, too easy) vs. AI - specifically, Germans vs. AI. It should not take you very long to play, and I promise it will NOT be a waste of time. Just curious as to whether I'm going mad. Thanks. -Mike p.s. Post reviews at SD...thanks.

Ponyi Express Review CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! Ranking 10. Played: Germans. Verdict: Minor Loss. Upside: 1. Sweeping vista, with enough cover for an approach. The dry/wet river bed is a nice touch. I think if it were a true river, I'd have been sunk (worse than Minor Loss.) Your choice of 85mm on the hill worked well (too well), but, like you wrote, I'd have rather had the heavy guns. 2. Elephants! This is a scenario where both the strengths and weaknesses of these beasts are well measured. I lost five of them. 2 to flank shots, 3 to close encounters. 3. Plenty of Artillery (and smoke). Many scenarios forget the King of War. What element of war killed more people in World War II? 4. Little things, like in the set up, you lined everything up, nice and neat, for ease of deployment. When units came from reserve, they were not in LOS of the enemy...etc. 5. Finally, I really liked the way this scenario merged history with the CM engine. Too many times, I've seen historical scenarios fail because the engine cannot "recreate" the situation. For example, my pet peeve is city scenarios...they just don't seem to work. Troops bundled in packs of 12 or 9 or 8 are great as a proxy for infantry in a broad scenario, but in the city, hand to hand fighting, door to door, window to window, just cannot be captured with the CM engine. (I have long ago given up on urban Stalingrad scenarios for just this reason.) Downside: 1. I'm of the opinion that such grand scenarios need more time, 100+ turns. Let the players decide when to stop. [This is almost always my bias. I know this is how designers like to balance game play, but I prefer that the unit balance, and topography balance do the job.] I could be wrong on this one, especially for marketing reasons - players like them shorter, than longer. Minor: 2. A few uneven stretches of map. For example, the train tracks on the German left flank are a bit wobbly. A touch here, a touch there. Poor loser: 3. I wanted better German intelligence. I know, I know, this was not always given in war, but DAMN, it sucks losing an elephant at 1000+ meters to some dumb AA Gun. Lastly, what really sucks for this scenario is that NOBODY has reviewed it at the SD, which probably means that not enough people have PLAYED it, which is a complete shame. I'm done singing your praises. I look forward to playing one of your other scenarios and trashing it in a bitter, egotistical review that serves only to make me look more intelligent. Otherwise, cheers.

Pat, I am sorry to be so harsh. I did not mean to imply that your scenario was a waste; in fact, it has some great elements. I really enjoy "Germans-desperately-holding-the-line" scenarios, as these situations were all too common, especially post '42. What you should glean from my comments is that your best has yet to come! I mean to push you forward, not hold you back. As an example, I just played Jeff Weatherspoon's epic "Ponyi Express" PBEM. (Sorry Jeff, have not reviewed it yet.) These types of scenarios are breath- taking, all immersive extravaganzas. They really put you there...every move is important. Load this one up. Put it in the editor...look at the map...look at the units...play it solo. This, to me (MY bias), is the essential scenario, it has it all: history (you'll know the reason the why the ELEPHANT needed MGs), freedom of movement, tanks, infantry, artillery...) From what I've seen of your scenario, you are capable of such gems. You wonder what are my "qualifications" to rate scenarios. First, and most important, I am a player. Back in the day of CB:BO I played in many ladders, tournaments...etc...I was a "gamer", if you will. Now I play casually, mostly PBEM scenarios, sometimes head-to-head online. Second, and far less importantly, I have designed a few large PBEM games - five to be exact. Three have been well received, one (my first) was a disaster and one languishes at the SD for lack of PR (a BO battle created a few days before BB came out.) I leave you with this note: What I wrote is just my opinion. I think people, through reading my reviews, know my preferences. I appreciate all who contribute to the SD, bad or good, and I don't mean to belittle anyone's work. Just to let you know, the "bad" scenario I submitted to SD, I let sit - made no changes, nothing. Instead, I went to work on my next scenario "Terror by the Rhone" (BO) and got it right. Cheers.

I sent you an email, Mantra. Load her up, let's rumble! I like big scenarios!

To everyone, I'm done reviewing for a while. Have to move on with life. Sorry if I offended you with my remarks. Just stating my opinion. Keep up the good work. Jack, Sorry I did not submit the review until today. I played alot in December, took some notes, and filed them all at once. I must say, the key to a fantastic scenario is creating atmosphere, and "Defending the Dead" does just that. My bias is toward a combined arms (INF&ART&ARM) scenario, but your scen was enjoyable. The way I won? SPOILER BELOW! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The whole Russian LEFT flank was left largely undefended (one MG and the HQ elements in the hut.) The T34 decided to take a stroll to the church with a few turns remaining. I left 40% of my units at the church to engage the enemy (including my MGs and 50mms.) I think this pressure drew units away from the rear? Best of luck with your next design.

Wrong. The quality of the reviewer cannot be controlled for, our task is the system. </font>

Would you please elaborate. A broader scale provides more discrimination and the ability to assess differences. What provides more information- Do you like? Yes or No Vs. Like Very Much, Like Somewhat, Do Not Like). </font>

Outstanding idea. I applaud you. Are you looking for vs AI or H2H as well? More people should review. Do one a week, one every other week, one a month, whatever just do ONE!!! The CMAK section is beginning to fill up with scenarios that are looking for reviews I believe that only Welcome to Africa has the required 3 at the moment. Panther Commander </font>

My buddy and I will try this one this afternoon, after he gets off call (surgeon.) If he's still standing...

Fellas, I've had the time to review of a couple of Andreas' scenarios. I especially enjoyed his "The Drama Begins" player v. AI scenario just posted at the SD. Since I believe this scenario is destined for greatness, I wanted to invite any who are willing to give it a taste and write a review. (p.s. This not a plug for a friend...I do not know Andreas, but I do like his work.) Secondly, since I have a few days before I have to get back to work (give up on CM for a while, sigh), I want some suggestions on which other scenarios I should review to get them over the required THREE reviews. I cannot promise I will like the scenarios, but I do promise to review them with complete honesty. So if you have a scenario that you think is outstanding but languishing at the SD, post it here. Thanks.

Any concensus?

Wouldn't worry about that. I have at least 10 scenarios and ops for CMBB in the pipeline. Which compares to a grand-total of two for CMAK. </font>

Wouldn't worry about that. I have at least 10 scenarios and ops for CMBB in the pipeline. Which compares to a grand-total of two for CMAK. </font>

Given: Battlefront has created an incredible gaming system that has entralled me to the point of addiction over the past three years. Problem: The N.Africa and Italian Theater seems like BO lite, especially compared to East Front. Situation: No motivation to design for AK. Secret Wish: BB was created last. The Russian Front was the decisive theatre in WWII - hell, it may have been the most decisive war in history. I wish all the new features in AK (those dust trails are most excellent) were used in BB. I hate to say it, but AK "feels"...less, somehow, like being hit with a 20 mm shell after being hammered with an 88. Does this make any sense? The real question: Is this the beginning of the end for the CM craze? Or just for me? Flame away... Sincerely, Mike

Michael Dorosh, Never mind. Just one of those "sensitive" days for me. Feeling better now because I've just returned from my mail box with... SPOILER BELOW . . . . . . . . . . . . CMAK. -Mike