Jump to content

Potvin

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Potvin

  1. 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.)
  2. Hmmm... Double post. -Potvin (AKA Atlas_TH) [ January 07, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Potvin ]
  3. 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)
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. Not gamey at all. You want gamey! ...Declare war on Denmark, so the Germans can not plunder it.
  9. MTC: Stop when spot units. Hunt: Stop, Attack, Keep Moving after threat eliminated.
  10. 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
  11. ? 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:
  12. 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 ]
  13. 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."
  14. Jeff, Would love to play that scenario one day, but...unfortunately, this is my "no CM:BB" time of the month. I need to keep away from this most addictive game or else it will swallow my life completely. I'll look you up when I have the time. -Potvin (a.k.a. Atlas)
  15. Bought the game a week ago. I sent you an email with my opinion.
  16. Has anyone at BF asked? Seriously. The battle model in COS is much, much better. COS has winter effects, delayed purchasing, combined army operations, paratroops, engineers, better politics...etc. Add all this to SC graphics, AI tweats, dedication, head-to-head and you have a huge, huge WINNER. Check it out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clashofsteel/files/ SC has kept my interest for only three days. SC+COS = SC2 and the best strategic WWII game ever. I'd invest! -ATLAS
  17. Buy the rights to Clash of Steel, spruce it up, add live head-to-head, and a few SC extras and call it SC2. I've read many of the suggested changes for SC II and most have already been implemented...ALMOST A DECADE AGO! I've been waiting years for Clash of Steel II. I'd give an arm and a leg to see COS and SC morphed. I'm serious! Why reinvent the wheel? How much do you think it costs to buy the rights to COS? -Atlas
  18. September 3rd, 1939. Against the human or AI: 1. Bump ANTI-TANK Tech for Germany to 1 (represents STORM TROOP discovery of First World War AND mobile infanty tactics.) 2. Give the US 1000 points to start when they come into the war. Not enough historically, I know, but if you give the US too much, they can launch D-Day (and hold) in early 42. 3. Give France 200, England 200, Italy 100 and Germany 300 to start.
  19. Bought it the other day, played for a couple hours and... ...I think SC is not as good as its predecessor, CLASH OF STEEL in many ways, much better in others. Relative to COS, I prefer SC's interface, graphics (especially the mods...WOW!), much better AI, technology options, the inclusion (however rough) of Canada and US, and human v. human play options (COS only had hotseat when I played, may have changed sinces.) Most importantly, I love the fact that the designer is dedicated to this project. COS had a better political model, snow effects, more room to maneuver in North Africa, axis tank "armies" that could actually punch through the Soviets, a better submarine model, a more intuitive "partisan" model (hate it in SC when Yugo Parts take a German city and start recruiting!), better purchasing routine (took time to build ships and larger items, so you had to plan strategically), actual transports (Operation Sealion could not happen on a whim and few extra dollars.) It could go on an on regarding MY personal likes and dislikes, but you'd do better to play COS to get an idea how addictive SC can be. There is at least one site that allows you to download COS for free. It is a dos game, so you may be SOL if you have WINDOWS XL. Cheers.
×
×
  • Create New...