Rune,
I hear ya! LOL.
Very true re: no two reviewers are alike in their preferences.
A few examples:
1. I hate urban fighting. Anything that happens in a factory makes me drool with boredom. I tried to review your "...Factory" scenario, but my bias got in the way.
2. I like big, big maps. The whole idea behind German tactical, operational and strategic planning was "freedom of movement." Even if it takes five or ten turns for the action to start, I like the control to attack or defended in a greater area. (From what I read, MOST people like the action to start right away.)
3. I prefer PBEM and head-to-head. AI scenarios have ZERO replayability for me. In fact, if CM:BO and BB had no pvp capability I would never have bought the games in the first place.
4. ...etc...way too many preferences to list here, which is the point, I think.
Anyway, I think the "DISK" scenario designers did a fairly good job. IMO, there are some truly mediocre scenarios, there are some great ones and there are a few lousy, lousy ones that I cannot believe made the grade. (Rushed into production?) There are many new scenarios at the SD that are much better.
That said, I think the disk "designers" did a good job presenting a diversity of battles.
Ask someone else, they'll disagree...