Atlas_TH

Got a chuckle out of this one... Two reviews of the same scenario, Rune's "A Battle of Minors". Which review graded the scenario higher? 1. "I was having fun until I got so many reinforcements that it became a chore to keep track of everything. It just got too big for my personal taste and I lost interest due to all the micromanagement of the constant streams of reinforcements. I completed the scenario, but the last few turns I just rushed things." 2. "Loved it! My first game of CMBB and I played against a longimte CMBO human foe. My only beef is that the game crashed on the 25th turn! I was moving my tanks in close to the church, quite confident of the win and blammo - stuck blue bar at the bottom. We tried opening it up as a PBEM but it still crashed. I can only hope it doesn't happen again..." ************************************************** * * * * * 1. 8.00 2. 7.83

I thought this was a player v. AI scenario? Anyway, remember, your opponent NEEDS to exit much of his force before the game ends. Don't count yourself out.

Ummmm...that thing he said about watching the AI "learn", not true.

Yes, the scenario is "Action at Manutchskaya," based on the battle described in "Panzer Battles," by Maj.Gen.F.W. von Mellenthin. You will find the scenario at the Scenario Depot. Agree with Renaud. Great book but not MUCH ELSE besides "Action at Manutchskaya" as far as small unit action descriptions on the Eastern Front. [ October 15, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Atlas_TH ]

Do not know the author, but play-tested the scenario. Must say, "Berezina River" over at the Scenario Depot is a great German Player v. Computer game. Check it out and review it at: http://ns9.super-hosts.com/~dragonlair.net/combatmission/CMBBscenarioreview03.php?UniqueID=98&Name=Berezina+River Any other shameless plugs?

Abbott, Good work. Since I played test, I will not review it, but I think you have a winner. -Atlas

Keth, Thanks for you efforts on our behalf. Any suggestions we make are not meant to detract from the excellent job you and yours have made in creating/upkeeping the SD. Your site is the best already. Question: Can't you already zero-rate every category without hurting the overall? Question: How many hours would it take to change the "overall" score to an independent variable? Comment: The five star rating system could use s 1 to 5 scale and not literally "stars", per se. Not sure if that is useful enough to consider. Does that make it easier to program? -Cheers

Nice AARs. BTW, did any of you offer your review of the scenario at the Scenario Depot? [ October 15, 2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Atlas_TH ]

How do you get people to download YOUR scenario? 1. Quality control. Join a group like B&T or DK. They work hard to ensure a well researched, balanced scenario. I've rarely been disappointed. 2. Advertise on the message board. Do you know about B&T's Stalingrad add-on? Bet you do. 3. Alphabetize. Make sure your scenario starts with a number or the letter "A". Just like "AAA Painting" in the phone book, people choose the first thing they get their eyes on. 4. Make it "Historical" or "Semi-Historical." Most do not care either way, but many players will pass completely if it is fantasy. 5. Use SS Troops. Mention "Totenkopf", "Viking," etc...in the title. A player once told me he loves to play against them. There is a strange attraction... 6. Others?

Dook, I checked out your three churches scenario over at SD. Looks like fun, but I threw my CM:BO disk away about a year ago so I can't play and can't review. Sorry. -Atlas p.s. I once posted a CM:BO "fictional" scenario and did not use my usual handle "Steven Kleary". It is called "Bottom of the Barrel" and it never got over 80 downloads. Not one review.

Should the rating scale for scenarios at the SD be adjusted? Two ideas, one stolen from Big Dog. 1. Use a 1-5 star rating (ala Big Dog). From movies reviews, people can more easily identify *=poor, **=fair, ***=average, ****=good, and *****=outstanding. 2. Use the same measures (map, briefing, force balance, replayability, v. AI, PBEM) AND add a last category, "Overall", that is not an average of the other measures, but is independent and determined by the reviewer. That is to say, is the "briefing" really as important as whether it is a good PBEM? And there is an overlap in some of the categories. Aren't v. AI, PBEM, and replayability endogenous to "briefing" and, especially, "force balance"? (e.g. How can you have good replayability if either the map, briefing or force balance stink?) Another issue: I reviewed a game where I first played the AI (weak) and then played TCIP (good). When I put in my review (AI=4, PBEM=8) the scenario took a ratings beating. What I really wanted to write is overall, this scenario is recommended (****=four stars). The players can read to see if it is a good PBEM or AI game. (Or do a search using "PBEM" or "AI".) Let the reviewer make the overall call on whether the scenario was enjoyable. He can make comments on why he thinks so. (Really, how many times have you bumbed or lowered a "briefing" so the average would fit your overall perception?) These are only ideas, probably old to most of you, but just need to vent.

Man o man, do I agree with this. My cellar is stuffed with $60 books on the East Front, every two-bit half-assed chronicle. When I hear of one I don't have, I go out and buy it. CM:BO was a blast, but my interest in the Russo-German War (which boggles the mind in both its scope and relative lack of documentation) makes CM:BB an addiction. Anyway, to get back to your point, I agree creating a "fair fight" is important, but, DANG, I want the players to FEEL the history too!

Eden, SurlyBen is right, the Scenario Depot is your place. I have to admit, though, you make some very good points about reviewing a scenario (vis-a-vis "expertise" and "spoiling") and damn funny post. I agree that designer's reviewing other designer's scenarios can be problematic, if not downright incestuous. Designers - especially ones in the same group - may choose to grade upward to ensure others do likewise for them. A good reason to only grade designs of people you do not know, which is tough in such a small community.

You make some good points, and I tend to agree with most of them. Since 4. and (especially) 6. seem to reference me directly, I'll restrict my comments to those two areas: 4. There was really no reason I set half the German forces to enter as reinforcements (on turns 2 and 3), other than I felt like using that particular feature of the Editor. On the other hand, having them start on the map wouldn't really change the German player's set-up, so I went with it. IMHO, it adds a small element of tension to the scenario --- especially the random entry of the Tiger platoon. 6. I started out with 25+ turns and play-tested (thanks JonS!) my way up from there. Basically, I realized that, A) CMBB requires a much more cautious advance then CMBO did, the AI takes a lot more time to attack then a human does, and C) why the hell not? As you pointed out, most games go for the 30min-or-less rule. "Greyhounds..." is set on a long map, and I wanted to give players the time to not only advance, but to mop-up if they so desire. PS: By the way, thanks for the review at the Scenario Depot!</font>

wwb_99: 5) Yes, that is the scenario I was writing about. You had good reason for the padlock, so yours was not the best example. Still, I've done the same thing in my designs, only to have players tell me THEY want control, not history. Oh well. (BTW: I loved that scenario.) 6) I know there is very good reason people want games to be over in a certain period, I do. But in PVP games, which are the games that keep CM:BB addictive, do we really need time limitations, especially on attack/assault? Just a thought. In general, I agree that the lack of player reviews hurts our incentive to pump out good scenarios. It absolutely stinks when you invest 40, 50, 60 hours or more preparing a scenario, it is downloaded a trillion times and you only get one or two reviews (one of which is always from a novice player who got trounced and wants to blame you.) Do we need a new review system? Should the Scenario Depot require that for every scenario a designers submits, he/(she?) must review 5 scenarios (non-friends, ones with fewer reviews...) What should we do?