Potvin
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Potvin
-
-
Europa Universalis II
-
franko? Sorry, don't know him.
But if you like his stuff, find his email at the SD and write him that you want him to design a scenario/operation for CM:BB!
Tell him you are a big, big fan. Butter him up. Then have him design a HUGE battle north of Leningrad.
I'll play test.
Cheers,
Atlas
-
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...
-
For those designers who have an interest, may I suggest you pick up an old copy of the computer game, "East Front II."
More of a divisional-sized representation, it has a few good battles that may inspire you.
-Atlas_TH
-
Does anyone design CM:BO scenarios anymore? :confused:
-
Still no review?
-
Atlas_TH here under a new name b/c I've changed my computer and my internet access due to a nasty, nasty bug.Originally posted by Andreas:Hi there, can't respond to reviews on the Depot yet, so I do it here.
You raise two points in your review:
1. Infantry-weak Soviet forces.
This scenario represents the attempt by a Soviet armoured force that is far ahead of the main effort to seize a German position from the march. Because of that, there is no artillery other than Katyushas (who were very mobile themselves), and there is only the infantry that could ride on the tanks. I agree that ideally the Soviets should have more infantry - I am sure that e.g. the commanders of 47th and 37th Mech Brigades near Belyi in November 42 did think the same too, or the commander of 25th Tank Corps at Tatsinskaya, in December 1942. Historically, the tank-heavy make-up of Soviet mechanised forces at this time of the war made them infantry weak as soon as they outran their accompanying rifle divisions. The scenario consciously depicts what happens next, it was not a decision about balance.
2. The designer and one reviewer both are Der Kesselites
Yep - and almost everybody should know it. We review each others scenarios after playing/testing them. We have done so all the time in the past. I know that other groups don't do this. Since we are open about our allegiance, I don't think there should be a problem with it. While I agree that it may appear unsavoury, I have yet to see a Der Kessel scenario being hyped by a fellow member of our group when everybody else thinks it is sh*te.
I would be interested in others' views on this though, although I am not sure we would want to change that approach.
Anyway, let me first start by saying that Andreas is a damn good designer. I've enjoyed many of his games; if fact, one of his scenarios is on my top 5 list.
1. Thanks for the explanation. I did not downgrade the scenario in that regard. More of a "ahh shucks, many tanks, open fields, no infantry support."
2. Your work stands on its own, not worried about people 'fanboying' you, per se.
However...
I think that play testers are by rule NOT UNBIASED. They helped create the scenario, they guided the production toward their own preferences. And when they review, they are biased in that the scenario was partially made to their specs. They should like the scenario, they helped make it.
I guess I have no problem with site-mates ranking reviews if they did not play test it, but that's just me.
In all honesty, I'd take any review (assuming the person owns up to his association with the designer) than none at all.
Perhaps, wwb_99 (another fine designer) has a good idea about the all zeros...?
-Atlas_TH
Are Operations Worth Designing?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
...especially against the AI.
I've considered designing my own, but the increased work does not seem to add up to a more interesting or enjoyable gaming experience for the players.
I've played most of the disk operations against the AI and I have found that, on attack, a narrow penetration to the map's edge in the first round pretty much ends it all. On defense, forget about it! The AI is not a challenge.
Do people play operations head-to-head? Doesn't look like it.
Should we even bother to design hth operations?