Potvin

Most awesome AARs. I thank you both. This is the best post, by far, on any of BF.COM's Forums. And, for us grogs, better than porn. If you have time, take snap shots of the action, go back when the match is done, edit your posts and place the pictures for the rest of us. Beggars can't be choosers, I know, but we'd really aprreciate it. DAmn! This is mucho fun. Cheers, Atlas (who forgot his password long ago AND has switched emails so many times that he can't have them resend it.)

Hmmm... Double post. -Potvin (AKA Atlas_TH) [ January 07, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Potvin ]

Hmmm... See both sides of this issue. I've created four scenarios for the Scenario Depot - two CMBO ("Terror by the Rhone", "Sandig's SS...") and two CMBB ("Action at Manutchskaya" & "Ghosts of Radziechow," which BTW is my favorite, but only has one review) - and I don't care who plays them. At the same time, one of the reasons - big reason - I have not created any more scenarios is that I don't feel the "love." Like Mikey D. wrote, 600+ people download your scenario and a couple people review it. A designer puts in hours and hours to create a scenario, test it, retest it, tweet it, and then test it again. And, at present, there is little useful feedback, and - more importantly - rarely ever a "thank you" for the effort. Truthfully, appreciation is the only currency we designers crave. I wish that all those who utilized the depot would make a pledge to review every single scenario they downloaded AND played. It is a small price for the designer's efforts. And, if you find it such a big chore to write a long review, then keep it short and only rate the scenario (1-10) in the PBEM and/or vs. AI categories. (If you played Head-to-head, get your opponent to rate the scenario too.) -Potvin (AKA Atlas_TH)

Nice site, glad to see a healthy interest in WWII. Comment: Main visuals are WAY, WAY too busy; that is to say, hard on the eyes. Otherwise, good show.

Andreas, I saw that review way back, shook my head and laughed. It brought to mind a few things... 1. Reviews have limited value. How many reviews are "stacked?" (friends pumping up the ratings of friends) How many are a downgraded because the player is (a.) too inexperienced or (b.) too masterful? How many are written by people who do not play the correct side? Who likes urban brawls? Who likes steppes fights? Who likes infantry crawling through chest-deep snow? Who likes a scenario more in v1.01 vs. v1.00? etc.... 2.SD Reviews suffer from what statisticians call a "Sample Selection Bias." That is, the reviews are not random. People choose to not make reviews or make them. Do people review scenarios because a) they really liked them they really hated them c) the designer told them to d) they really like the designer's previous work e) they saw a bad review and wanted to counter with a good review f)...etc? Some have suggested the bias is to inflate the review numbers. I don't know. 3. A historically accurate (or nearly so) scenario is not necessarily an interesting or FUN scenario, or at least it is not necessarily interesting and fun for everyone. (See my review of the scenario in question.) 4. The best designers can't please half the people half the time. One of the highest ranked CMBO scenarios at the SD (Clubfoot) is super original, super clever, super well-mapped (WOW! That damn dam!) AND...I did not enjoy it. What's wrong with me? Just some thoughts. Cheers and keep up the good work, - Atlas

Almost cracked a rib, lauging so hard. Read this author's response to a brid-brain review. "Tigers!??? There are NO tigers in this battle. The least you could do is play the battle BEFORE you review it. Also don't use this forum to flatter yourself."

Is this the solution? 1. Five star rating system (*=poor, **=fair, ***=average (as one reviewer wrote, "as good [enjoyable] as a QB"), ****=good, *****=excellent). 2. Block off irrelevant ratings (e.g. rating a PBEM scenario after playing vs. the computer.) 3. Make the final overall rating independent (not an average) of the other ratings. Boring maps are often historically accurate maps.

Not gamey at all. You want gamey! ...Declare war on Denmark, so the Germans can not plunder it.

MTC: Stop when spot units. Hunt: Stop, Attack, Keep Moving after threat eliminated.

Hmmmm. Some designers, for the sake of saving you from bringing up units from the rear or to simulate flanking assets, plant reinforcements in forward areas. Not sure if this is the case here, but would not be surprised. Could you post a picture? -Atlas

Bump

? Do you mean like in WWI, when a) Turkey did not exist and when the Ottoman Empire (which included the area now known as Turkey) fought on the same side as Germany/Austria-Hungry? :confused:

Gentlemen, At this point, I suspect, Vox is enjoying the fact that you (we) actually give a rat's ass what he thinks. I suggest we let him (and his posts) slide away. I for one will never more respond to a VOX or vox-like post. Agree? -Atlas [ November 18, 2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Potvin ]

Glad we now agree.

Some fine commentary in reaction to some very, very casual generalizations. Just a note on what Flash said... True, the Stukas were vunerable if they did not have local superiority. Untrue, that they were no longer effective AFTER the BoB. In the Soviet Union, Stukas detroyed many hundreds of tanks, especially after they gained 37mm guns. (One Stuka pilot destroyed what amounted to an entire brigade of Soviet Tanks ALL by himself.) Overrated? Read "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" or "The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Kesselring."