Cpt Kernow

Previous Post deleted. Look scenarios make the game. Try and imagine CMBB with a finite amount of scenarios. Eurghhh. No anticpation or surprise, borg recon eurggh. If some (But not all, see the scenario designers patron saint) designers want there work put out there a certain way, I may not agree with it ( I dont) but I am totaly prepared to accept it. [ January 07, 2003, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Captitalistdoginchina said if scenario packs enable my scenarios to be played by a wider audience then i am quite happy about that. I do like to get feedback at the depot, but since reviews are few and far between it is not really such a big issue I nominate that we make Captitalistdoginchina the patron saint of SD's as he has shown considerable virtue as a human being by his adoption of this attitude. As a saint he can serve as an example to other less enlightened SD's who seek callow praise and adoration. I'll phone the vatican.

Spoiler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I KILLED THE KING! I achieved this by fast moving down the road network onto the first left hand turn (Out of loas of KT) Get some tanks there (some will die but hey you got loads) with those tanks start leap frogging, moving the tanks in the start position over to the left hand turn and those in the left hand turn onwards on to the road-network that is handily 1. In a forest blocking all LOS to the KT 2. Comes out just behind the KT Using this tactic you can close to within 150m of the KT on its flank or rear. Onec you have killed the KT the scenario descends into a slaughter. Great~!

I think that there is a lot of the pot calling the kettle black on this thread Scenario designers seem to be claiming a god given moral highground that lets them post in a TROLL/non-rational and emotive like manner but not those that might have a cotrary but valid opinion. I agree with them but the way several of them have made their case in this thread is shamefull. It is to be seen that it not just the process of scenario creation that is of service to the community. It is the dual process of creation and review. I dont care if the reviews massage a scenario designers ego, I care that they are the only sources of information about the quality of a given scenario. If i think a scenario is great or realy stinks I make sure I get it out there for others to see. I have downloaded these packs so I am a hypocrite, however I am concerned that they will interefer with the reviewing process and therefore limit the amount of information available about scenarios. Perhaps the packs should include a readme urging people to review the sceanrios at the depot with hyperlinks linking to the page each scenario is displayed on. [ January 07, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Is a good scenario. Great Map but is a tad to easy. Dont know uf the author toned up the ruskies yet or not. Sed he would. Germans get loads of crack troops and a surfeit of armour. Still worth playing, reckon would be better suited to head to head as the ruskies need a human in control to stand a chance. Ruskies do get assests but the AI wastes them. Got a tactical by the forth battle.

Fion. I dont make assumptions about your opponent. I conclude from his dismal performance (Loss of all his armour/your loss of of only IS2s) that perhaps he lost the armour battle more than you won it. The german player has such advantages in this scenario that even the AI can leverage them into a win against a competent human. Basicaly the german tank commander has it a lot easier in this scenario, all he has to do is stand off at distnace and make sure he isnt flanked. Your opponent must (as demonstrated by his losses) have failed to do this. All though the russian player has a numerical advantage, this will be soon traded in if he opts for a straight up toe to toe fire fight. Flanking the enemy armour and getting in close is your only hope and this isnt the easiest task as one is forced to cover some distance and therefore abandon one's infantry screen.The presence of ATG's dosnt make this any easier.

taps fingers on desk

Lets not forget how strongly the American administratation is invested in OIL. I dont want you to look at the the economic/geopolitical fortunes of the American Nation State as an hypothetical construct, but rather the very simple personal agendas of those governing said nation state. Condoliza Rice has an oil tanker named after her for christs sake. Basicaly an illigitmate american hegemony based on familial and corporate affilliations is seeking to drag the western world into war just to further its own base ambitions. As far as the inspectors go. Show me a weapon. Have they found anything yet. have they fxxk. What realy makes me sick is the fantasticaly cynical exploitation of sep 11 for personal and economic gain by the american administration.

bump till resolved

bump

Nebel. if you fire youe artilery without LOS (Line of sight) from your FO then the artilery will drop at a random location.(It will miss in other words) Only heavy calibre artilery can be counted on to "damage armour" and even then not that often. Atrilery is HE (High explosive) not Armour Peircing.

At least read a thread before dismissing it. The question is: why when AI has Radio FOs loaded in Kubelwagens in setup they do not move Theres too many leaps to judgement on this board and more carefull consideration of posters posts might curtail this. OK. [ December 18, 2002, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

I think we are forgetting just how gamey some CMBO quick battles where. Ive just finished a CMBO QB PBEM game (35 turns) On turn 28 my opponent was asking me to surrender, by turn 35 I had launched a sneak counter attack and retaken every flag on the map (3) The satisfaction of carrying out this strategy was undermined by seeing my victory taken away from me by my opponent flag rushing a sherman to each flag on the very last turn. This lead to some of the flags being disputed. Of course in real terms these shermans now had a life expectancy of much less than a minute but in game terms that minute was never going to happen. Anything that ends this kind of gameyness has to be a good thing. If you dont like it just turn it off. My only minor gripe would be that the variable endings dont seem that variable, e.g. there is allways a lot of extra turns, its rare to see just one or two extra turns. A bit more unpredictability would be good as this is the effect variable endings are looking for. [ December 12, 2002, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

I am here basically repeating my post from above but from a different angle. 1. Do bad reviews lead to downloaders choosing bad reviews. not in my exprience.Happy with 95% of downloads. 5% unhappy with not attributable to bad reviews but in fact to overly good ones leading me to choose a scenario I think is foobar. 2. Is the presence of bad reviews acting as a disincentive to scenario designers uploading there scenario's. Again not evinced by GIAGANTIC amount of scenarios uploaded to the depot. Conclusion: Bad reviews are not a problem. Current system works. Cheers. Kernow

Rune. Its simple. If the current review process means I download good scenarios then the current process works. Yes I do download good scenarios. Are scenarios designers unhappy with the current system. Not evinced by the huge amount of scenarios uploaded. In short, it dosnt matter to me what system is used as long as the system: 1.Means I download good scenarios. 2.Scenario desiginers continue to post scenarios. Current system fullfils those crtiteria. Kernow. [ December 11, 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Whow everyone calm down and chill. Andreas, dont take this the wrong way (please) but to this neutral observer your posts seem the most aggresive.(Using the word liar is most definately Schroener like) Lets keep this on track which is a dialogue basicaly about how reviewers can/do score scenarios at the scen depot. If it was to go to the five star system, well I think this would excerbate (grrrr) the problems made clear by Rune. E.g. scenario skipping due to low marks. I assume the five stars would have to be an aggregate of reviews. Theres no reason to assume that a few bad reviews could ruin a star rating and thus lead to skipping. If it wasnt an aggregate who would determine the intial star rating? The scen designer? Hardly ideal. I base my arguement on the following and would apprecaite comments on these points. 1. As a downloader I am happy with 95% of the scenarios I download from the scenario depot.These downloads are based on the comments of other reviewers. If I was "skipping" other scenarios would only be relevant in this context if I was skipping "good" to download "bad" scenarios. This is not the case. Therefore on this count we must consider the scenario depot a success. 2. I can only conjecture on the experience of the uploader (scen designer) but given the huge number of scens uploaded to the scen depot I can only conclude that general satisfaction is the experience of the uploader (scen designer.) Therefore on this count the scen depot must also be considered a success. Therefore from the perspective of uploader and downloader the scenario depot is a success. To use a charming american aphorism "if it aint broke why fix it." Kernow. [ December 11, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

I think calling a scenario "****e" is perhaps a bit undiplomatic and is not that constructive. Whilst not neccesarily pathetic one would perhaps expect the scenario designer to repsond with a comment just as undiplomatic and unconstructive. Dont take this the wrong way but calling a scenario ****e is a bit Kloss or in my experience Schroener like and perhaps there was another way for you to voice your opinions. Yes discursive is a word.

With respect for everyone. Rune you cant compare comments made about your scenario ( which where made discursively ) with the comments: "I think all ASL conversions I have played are ****e and a waste of my time." and "They are the worst scenarios I have ever touched" Andreas was a lot more damning in what he said about ASL's scenarios. To be called pathetic in response whilst not fair is at least to be expected. I think reviewers should post there opinions but should do so in a discursive and reasoned manner. Anyway Peace :cool: [ December 11, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Yes. But I would have panned it for Allied v AI. This would have stoped others playing it this way:Result! If you want to give feedback you can by reviewing your own scenerio and just giving 0's for everything. With respect (I dont want us to go the way of ASL and Andreas) Given that this is a scenario "not made for popular consumption" as it puts other considerations above the "fun" element, I thought you might have been reconciled to reviewers pointing this out. I think the scenario depot has to be judged firstly on whether it helps us the gamers choose scenarios we want to play and on protecting the feelings of designers second. I dont think it can be failing on the latter because of the huge bulk of scenarios downloaded to the depot, a process that might have been interrupted if designers found the experience too negative. Its just that for me the depot works just fine. However I would rethink this if bad reviews made you and others like you stop designing scenarios as I depend on you to keep this game alive. ( a process dependent on the scenario designer) So if you get a bad review, just have a stiff upper lip and keep churning out the scenario's for no pay and sometimes no thanks. Cheers. Kernow.

I think perhaps there is some over sensitivity here. I was on my way to post a "bad" review for korsun relief but stopped off here first. The reason why I was going to post a bad review is quite simple. At the depot the scenario the scenario is recommended as first play Allies v AI. Playing this scenario this way can not be the best waySpoilers. The AI's armour got bogged down in the intial stages and only one panther had the mobility to make it to the main road flag.This was promptly dispatched and the game dragged out to close. Having played this against the AI, I would not for several reasons allready pointed out above choose to play it PBEM. Whatever the scenario designer had in mind when desiging this scenario dosnt change my opinion about that, it wont suddenly make me want to play it. As far as I am concerned the scenario depot system works just fine. Imagine I had no prior experience of this game. I go to the scenario depot, I read the review, I choose not to play it PBEM. Result. I make an informed choice that mirrors my choice with prior knowledge of the game.However you cut it, that is proof of a system working. I and I imagine the majority of my peers goto the scenario depot to choose what scenarios we want to play. Each person will have there own criteria about what scenarios they want to play. As long as the review help someone make an assesment about whether a given scenario meets these criteria everything is fine. The vast majority of games I have downloaded from the depot have met my criteria and the reviews have been fundamental to this process. My review would go something like this. I dont want to post it as it may seem aggresive and I am only trying to engage in dialogue. "Having seen what the designer had in mind when creating this scenario, I think this scenario achieves what he set out to do. The tactical lesson learned is important, principaly how to manouvre armour in mud, however I would not choose to play an PBEM game over severall months just to have this demonstrated to me." [ December 11, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Well Im involved in this tournament. My games hadnt advanced to the point of recieving reinforcements. Thanks for hte heads up. Kernow.

Just come back from the pub and fired up CMBB. Dont know if its a bug or anything but some of my my realy realy small tanks (axis or allies) just dont seem chicken enough. (burp) They insist on frontaly challenging much heavier "monster" tanks. Even in hull down positions they insist on taking on and advancing towards much (burp) heavier opposition, please can we have a three screen thread ( at least ) about this, that I can get back to when I wake up tommorrow. Cheers. Kernow.

As relates to the choice of games. There are far more players moving onto CMBB and not playing anymore CMBO than there are players who own both games but have decide to exclusively stick to CMBO. CMBB is a sequal and is a number of powers superior to CMBO. However I would advise you to buy both games and treat CMBO as primer or apertif to the main course, the real steak and potatoes: CMBB

ER I dont know anything about war an stuff like that, but have you ever met yer average russian. They are hard mean and tough. I spent an exchange year in good ol US at LSU in Baton Rouge. We were told not to walk in certain areas at night. At first I thought this was odd, till I saw the "areas" then I stoped walking. Did the russians who where also in my dorm listen to this advice. NO, they walked wherever they liked. Did people try and mug them, oh yes. True there was a bit of a scandal when a russian shot a mugger with his own weapon but compared to the mugging population of BR this was the greatest inconvienance to befall the russians. True, yanks are soft as shxte and as far as there military compentency goes I can only say one thing: Friendly Fire. But your average russian can easily beat off you criminaly motivated armed and desperate yank 10 times out of 10 with just his bare hands. Now how this relates to the Ostfront I dont know.Its just having met russians and got an anecdotal grasp of their charachter Im not surprised that they survived all the hardships of the initial years of the war (and all the intense hardships of the years leading upto the war) to go on to eventual victory. Remember life for the average russian has/was (and probably still is) [been] a lot lot lot harder than it has been for you septics and us europeans.

Am now battleing against temptation to copy and paste locked thread straight into thread it was satarising.