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?

I've noticed on the player v. player message boards that the games are most often QBs, which got me to wondering: what are we doing wrong? I think players want more control that we can give them. They want their units, their time-line,...their game. I think eventually most of us will be making maps, not scenarios, b/c this is what the players will need to plug in to their QBs. Already, some of you are designing with this in mind. That said, I'd like to get a consensus on how we can compete with such a trend. How do we make our scenarios better? I've hit some of the chat rooms, talked to some friends and considered my own opinion and here are a few design issues that may subtract from the scenario and frustrate the gamer. *=I've done this before. 1) Reinforcement areas that are under enemy view. Uggh! There are more than a few scenarios on the CM:BB disk in which troops and equipment "show up" in the middle of the battle. Unless chaos is the intent (chaos=less player control), give reinforcements room to move. 2) Tanks (or bog prone units) that arrive as reinforcements in boggy terrain during wet weather when there are roads available. If I can't keep the tanks from bogging after 100m, how did they get in the middle of those shattered trees in the first place? (In one CMBB disk scenario, I gathered all my troops to protect a road access and the main battle tanks arrived on the other side of the board in wet scattered trees, which brings me to another pet peeve...) 3)* If reinforcement show up in strange places, make sure the briefing says such an arrival may be a possibility, otherwise the players will assume they show up on a road or staging area in the rear - an area that is usually not under enemy observation nor likely to make your vehicles bog - and plan accordingly. 4)* In attacks and, especially, assaults, why have reinforcements come piecemeal? From my research, attacks would wait for every available asset. I know everyone wants to include "reserves", but reserves can be held back by the players themselves on the map and do not need the designer's guiding hand. Unless there is good (historical or rational)reason, start the scenario with troops ready to rumble. 5)* Try to stay away from padlocking defensive units when making a Player v. Player scenario. Some of the best designers do this sometime and it diminishes player control and enjoyment! There is one scenario on the CD that padlocks a 88mm gun (the key to the whole scenario), but lets you move two others around. Why? Players want to be creative in defense. Let them. 6)* Timing! This is an issue that gets little play, but I gnaws at many players. Why does every battle have to be over in thirty five turns (minutes)? Some battles are pressed for time, I can understand, but too many want you to rush your troops around without proper recon. What is the rush, especially with Player v. Player scenarios? I just reviewed a scenaro ("Greyhounds...") where the author designated 50 turns in a not-too-big scenario. I did a double take, was going to say something, but then it dawned on me, "Why not?" Give more rather than less time, unless you need to balance things out, but really you should balance things out with the map and the troop allocation. Any comments, contributions, flames? I'd like to read what you think and what you have heard from players. -Atlas [ October 13, 2002, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Atlas_TH ]

http://ns9.super-hosts.com/~dragonlair.net/combatmission/

Bannon, The AI is incapable of an organized attack. (Period.) It is much easier to construct a scenario attack against an AI defense, but, as you pointed out, that is problematic too. That said, here are a few helpful hints for trying to make an AI attack work. 1) The obvious: Give the AI a ton, and I mean a ton, of extra units. 2) Make sure the AI has good approaches. No bottle necks (bridges, swamps...) The AI will send tanks one at a time to their doom. 2) Give the AI a high, high level of fanatism. (They will be less likely to cower when the player drops 105mm ART.) 3) Use strategically placed reinforcement markers to introduce AI units in areas you want to threaten (flanks, in the rear, etc...) Others will have more ideas on AI attacks. As far as keeping soldiers in their fox holes...I've had some success by keeping them "hidden". Good luck.

Already sent. (Atlas=SPK)

Nothing. A fellow designer told me that a scenario is "Historical, if you base the map accurately, if the units are correct, and you have done the best you can, then it is historical," which I personally disagree. It is impossible to base the map accurately with the tools CM:BB affords, know all the units down to each platoon, travel to the battle site to see the lay of the land (if it has not changed), get information on what the area looked like in the 1940s and include hundreds of different factors that influenced the battle. But I do not fault those who see it differently. If they put hours and hours into gathering information, working the map and briefings, they have the right to call their scenarios more "historical" than "semi-historical." I have made many scenarios, some more "historical" than others. Do we need a rating system so the players know the depth of the scenario's history? Not sure. Hopefully, the "semi-historical" scenarios we create, based on recorded history (which may or may not be completely true, but that's another debate), will inspire others to read more on the East Front and make their own decisions.

From Haupt, "Army Group South: Wehrmacht in Russia, 1941-1945." Initial divisions in the sector: 3rd Motorized Infantry Division (MID), "Grossdeutschland" MID, 24th Panzer Division. 6, July "Grossdeutschland" detached a recon party to the railroad at Voronezh. The 24th Panzer Division was entering the city from the south. Designer Note: Aircraft had destroyed much of the inner-city. The Engineers constructed a 16 ton bridge across the Don. 2nd and 3rd Air Defense Battalions defended bridge. Also: Soviet 21st Army may have been involved.

Abbott, Excellent Player v. AI scenario! Look forward to playing the final copy. -SPK p.s. Make sure people don't forget to rate the PBEM/TCIP game a "0" and not a "5."

Recently had this discussion over at the Scenario Dev. site. I am also one of those designers who can't hang the "historic" moniker on any of my "semi-historic" scenarios (BO or BB). http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002090 -SPK

Vader, Send it my way. -SK (gwen@spwl.net)

blazethedog, The story of which you write was mentioned by Gen. Heinz Guderian in his book, "Panzer Leader." (page 143.) The visit by the Russian military commission happened in the Spring of 1941 and "The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact (Germany's) heaviest tank." I highly recommend "Panzer Leader" to those of you who have not had a chance to read it. -SPK p.s. The Scenario Depot has another scenario that includes the KV-1 (and KV-2) tank, "Ghosts of Radziechow," based on 11th Panzer's (AG South) armored battle during the first days of Barbarossa.