GJK

Both are on The Proving Grounds, link below.

At TPG, you can go to "Join/Authors Login" and see the stats for each of your scenarios, how many and who has downloaded them (and maps if any) and also you can click to modify your scenario or delete it (once it's been "proven" and moved on to the SD or elsewhere...remember, we're just a playtesting outlet and not a permanent scenario archive). When you go to edit your scenario, you can change any of the parameters for that scenario, troop type, size, points, etc. Make sure you bump up your revision number and then you will be given the chance to upload an updated version if you want. Make sure that the updated version has the same filename as the original and it will take it's place. If you've made some changes and aren't sure if they were better changes or not, you could upload the updated version as a 2nd scenario, with it's own discussion and review area, and let us compare the two. Usually though, people have just been replacing the original with updates based on feedback given by others. There's more info in the "Help/About" section (or there should be, I better check that) Oh, and I belive the SD works pretty much the same way. I'm not a scenario author and haven't uploaded any there, so you would have to check with others on that.

There is a "Review" section at the bottom of each scenario listing. That is more or less a note to others letting them know how the play was and helps people determine if it's a scenario that they want to playtest or not. When a scenario is uploaded, a discussion "thread" is automatically created for that scenario and that is where detailed discussions about it take place, AAR's, spoilers, etc. The goal is to have the scenario's author join that discussion so that he can give and get feedback from people currently playing. You'll find far more "discussions" going on for scenarios than you will reviews. Mainly because we're all playing them PBEM mostly and as you know, those can take a while. It's kind of neat to discuss the scenario as the turns are progressing. That's the idea at least. As I always post there, I'm open for any suggestions that anyone has and if we come to an agreement on a change, I'll get to work on implementing it right away. Thanks for joining, look forward to reading some of your feedback!

I downloaded it yesterday and have it on my weekend "to play" list. I'll post discussions in the scenario discussions area on TPG and a review on TPG as well when done. Will you be modifying the scenario any based on reviews (not just mine, collectively)? If so, I'll hold off on reviewing it on the SD until a final version is posted and I've played it. Thanks for submitting it!

Ok, first I had the "flaming" arc of convenent tank, now I have the large VCR buttons in the field of battle. This time I have the turn saved and will send along to BFC. Oh, this is from the demo btw (still have a pbem going in it).

It's on the Proving Grounds, link in sig below.

In defense of the SD, TPG also has the issue of lack of reviews, or not as many reviews as the designers would want. There's some messages from a couple of designer's on the home page now to this effect. However, the one thing that is helping the author's is the scenario discussions area, which is less of a restricted "rate this, rate that" and just more of a "give us some notes about the play". Some stats from TPG: Scenarios at site: 124 Official "Reviews": 159 "Discussion" Posts: 599 Members: 610 Granted, some of the posts are simple one line "thank you's" but I think the majority of them make for quite interesting reading and I would think would help the scenario author immensely. They read like AAR's, give suggestions, requests and ask questions of the author as to why such things are present or absent. I guess that the "Discussions" area would be closely resembled by the SD's "AAR's" section. Perhaps more enphasis could be put to utilize that area of the site? I'll agree 100% with Lou though, I and many (most?) just want to grab a scenario, play it and then move along. It's almost a "chore" to go back and gather notes/thoughts and write a review that you 1). Hope doesn't offend the author 2). Is as accurate as possible ("was that a PzIIIh that took out my ATG...I forget...do I just say "that tank"? This review is going to look bad if I don't go back and get the model of that damn tank!") 3). In the case of a ratings system, what do you rate this particular scenario against? What is the "baseline" to model your ratings on? None are given, so everyone has their own interpretations. I'm getting wrapped around the wheel here, but as I posted many posts ago, I think getting the scenario author's and the players of the scenarios to actually communicate together would not be a bad thing. The scenario discussions area on TPG are by far the most popular item and actually, it's fun to post a mini-AAR or to probe the author for their thinking on some things. Just another $.02, I'm now out $.06!

Look inside your CMAK install directory, there should be a .pdf titled "CMAK Game Manual.pdf" which is the full manual (213 pages). I believe it's just about identical to the CMBB printed manual.

Found the correct address for Byte Battler, apologies for getting it incorrect the first time. Byte Battler

I will have to check for that at the end of my current Pbem of LoD. My opponent informed me that my sniper took out one of his TC's just last turn. In fact, it seems that playing the demo, there's 4 events that sure seem to have a higher percentage chance of occurring than I've noticed before - some of this has been hit on already but (and exhaustively, so I'll hold comment): 1. A sharpshooter will take out a TC; 2. A "gun hit" will disable the MA of a tank; 3. Both sides will have a number of prisoners & 4. Friendly fire by the P-51's.

Gautrek, the "Byte Battles" would be perfect I think. I have "Byte Luga" by Harryink on my site and I think Der Kessel has many more. The Scenario Depot has one additional. Good little battles, usually under 20 turns. Byte Luga was a blast, read my review on my site if you like.

This talk of faggot's and fasces is grossing me out! To each is there own as far as sexual preferences go, but do we have to talk about body excrements? What kind of game is this any ways!!!! :eek: :mad: :eek: :mad:

Hi Rake, You can post it to the maps section of The Proving Grounds (link in sig) if you need a place to host it. You'll be given the direct link to it from the site once you've uploaded it and can post that link back here in the forums for everyone else to see.

They already have mods for that Now in the interests of keeping my membership of this community in good standing, i'm not going to say where to get them. I won't have the problem between switching between CMBB and CMAK because I didn't buy the forme, but I fully intend that the latter will be 'modded' in that respect anyways. </font>

I got it in Houston yesterday... </font>

Grog Dorosh is writing it now!

Ok, after protesting to GaJ that I had the correct directories selected, I in fact did not have the correct directories selected. I kept reading it as asking for the directory where the game is installed and the directory where the BMP folder is. Of course, it's asking for where the MOD folder is that contains the mods. Duh. I've asked GaJ to add this to the instructions for dum-dum's like myself: THE FOLDER WHERE YOUR ZIPPED MOD FILES RESIDE, NOT THE BMP FOLDER FOR THE GAME! He replied that he'd do even better and not let you select a directory where no zip files reside (I believe is what he said....it's really been a long day, ok?) So anyways, that cleared up the problem that I was having which is very similar, if not identical to what sdk is having.

How about modding the CD-check? I'm getting tired of swapping disks to accommodate both my new CMAK and old CMBB PBEM games! :mad: :mad: :mad:

GJK! You didn't! (Did you propose to Gail?) Suppose she takes you up on it? Suppose she weighs 400 lbs and looks like a Sherman tank? Oh well, I guess in that case it would be love at first sight... Michael </font>

Get cranking scenario authors!

Oops

sdk mentioned in another thread that he also uses winrar as his primary archiver. I do also, maybe that's a key? I wouldn't think so - I'm guessing that McMMM (Mic Yummmmmmm) has it's own zip utility in it - but what do I know? P.S. Lou, haven't seen you at The Proving Grounds in a while, miss you over there! Stop by and visit us, you'll like all the updates that have been added.

I'd like to throw in my $.02 if I may. I modeled The Proving Grounds heavily on the SD after emailing Adm. Keth and discussing my idea with him over a year ago now. I feel that we've had a pretty good review-scenario ratio, granted we have just over 100 scenarios compared to the 1000's that the SD has (scenario's are moved from TPG to other sites, primarily SD though, so this isn't an actual reflection of all the scenarios that have been on the site). My review section is very limited, it's just a comment with no rating - I wanted to keep it that way for TPG and don't recommend that for the SD, but I think the best thing I added was the scenario discussions area, which supplements the reviews section. In the discussion area, members can post comments on the scenario as they're playing or have just played it. The author is encouraged to post there as well, answering such questions as why something was included in the scenario, what was background information for the design, etc. Spoilers are commonly posted in the discussions area, as a warning indicates. That, coupled with the front page message board encourages interaction between members - downloaders, and authors alike. We have sort of a communal feel to the whole thing and I've been very pleased to have been able to offer the site for others to enjoy. For TPG, membership is required. This tracks who downloads scenarios. All downloads are logged and available for the scenario authors to review in their authors administration area. Their admin area quickly shows what scenarios they have uploaded, how many and who has download them, and the reviews for each - all from this one area. Authors can use their admin area to follow up with people that have downloaded their scenario but have yet to review or comment on it - should they choose. When a scenario is uploaded, a discussion area (thread) is automatically started for that scenario. The author doesn't need to do anything to get the discussions started. Keith, if there's anything on my site that interests you, let me know and I can work with you as best I can. I'm programmed in WebDNA, but the concepts are close enough that the ideas could be converted to PHP. There's nothing brilliant with the code on my site I don't think. Also, and I know you have a lot on your plate so I haven't brought this up again until now, but I used the same variable names for all the parameters of my scenario upload with the idea being that someday in the future authors could easily move their "proven" scenarios from TPG to the SD without having to retype all the information. Some sort of import function. I can discuss this further with you via email if you'd be interested. I think interlinking our sites would benefit us both - the idea of TPG is that just developed scenarios in need of playtested are uploaded here. Once they're ready, they then move along to the SD. This gives you the cream of the crop - without being a "competitor" to your site, but hopefully more of a compliment to. Please feel free to contact me should you like to discuss anything mentioned here, or if I can help in any other way.

I get the very same type of errors unless I put the actual .zip files inside my .BMP folder and mod from there. I've emailed Martin (author) about it a few times and he says that it shouldn't work that way since most people save their mods to other places for obvious reasons. I just played around with it, and I can't even use a "Mods" sub-dir of "BMP", get that error, but if I put the zip right in the BMP folder, it works fine. All paths are set correct for the game in McMMM (Mic Yummmmmm)