Mad Russian
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mad Russian
-
-
I like short historical scenarios and the Depot has plenty of them. I continually watch the new scenario list to see what is available. I like the fact that, no matter what kind of scenario I want to play, it's accessible at the Depot.
I also go and check new reviews, to see what I can learn about a scenario, that I might not have played yet. I like the reviews but don't think they can be done objectively with the current system.
It also gives me a place to post scenarios and keeps me from having to open a web site myself.
The ease of posting and downloading is a big plus.
Panther Commander
-
Forgot to mention that I tried the tuturial and it was awesome. I probably wouldn't have tried it either until I read how good it was here.
It sent me looking for my LRDG books to see what other actions a person might make a scenario on.
Thanks for the heads up.
Panther Commander
-
Where would a person find this scenario and which system is it for? I looked on B&T and didn't see it there.Originally posted by Kingfish:If you think this scenario is good then you should try his newest - Well of souls. What a freakin' blast that was to play, and against the A.I. no less!
Panther Commander
-
Originally posted by John Osborne:
-
How small?Originally posted by eboul:Found it via the scenario depot but it links to the now defunct Tom's Combat Mission HQ. Anybody have it? Also looking for any other award winning small cmbb pbem scenarios. Thanks.
Panther Commander
-
Originally posted by John Osborne:
He was one of the six leading German tankers:
Sepp Brandner (Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 912);
Fritz Feßmann (Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 7);
Kurt Knispel (schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503);
Johannes Kümmel (Panzer-Regiment 8 of DAK) );
Karl Nikolussi-Leck (SS-Panzer-Regiment 5 “Wiking”);
Hermann von Oppeln-Bronikowski (Panzer-Regiment 35; Panzer-Regiment 204; Panzer-Regiment 11; 20. Panzer-Division).
One of the six leading tankers according to who? What source are you using?
I may need to get my hands on it if I don't already have it.
I like Wiking and I never heard of Mr. Leck being one of the six Great German Tankers.
Panther Commander
-
Originally posted by GreenAsJade:
I completely agree - please don't take away a way of relative ratings for scenarios, and ways to ask to see the ones that people thought were best.That is a valuable part of Scenario Depot as it is now, and it is _not broken_.
At the moment it is broken. The lists are not at all accurate. There are some scenarios that are not on the lists that should be in the top three. I know of a scenario that should be the #1 PBEM Battle and it isn't even on the list. So yes, it is broken, at the moment. By the way it isn't my scenario, just to forestall all of those comments.
Sure, there might be a scenario that should be 3rd instead of 4th or something, but only the author cares about that. The rest of the public uses the system to find the kinds of scenarios that lots of people liked. That is important.
If you find the lists important at the moment they aren't representative of the review system at all. I believe AK hasn't fixed that until this issue is resolved but I won't speak for him.
Panther Commander
-
The weapons of Vietnam and the earlier Arab Israeli Wars aren't classified or confidential. A lot of us are quite familiar with them.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:QUOTE]Why not just call it science fiction? Many of the capabilities of weapon systems is still classified, so you really can't do an accurate simulation
Panther Commander
-
It would be interesting to see the results of that particular poll.Originally posted by Admiral Keth:However, everyone still seems hung up on developing an aggregating numeric-based system. I am increasingly adverse to the implementation of any kind of system which can be subverted or corrupted.
_________________________________________________
I believe that ANY numbers based review system can be corrupted. If we use a simple Excellent-Very Good-Good-Poor-Very Poor rating system I believe that a better choice. Or something aa simple as "I liked it" or "I didn't like it".
The object of the system is to be easy to both use and implement. So the simplier the system that meets the requirements of a review is the best. What needs to be in a review? Does the reviewer like the scenario. Anything else is gravy. "Oh yes, this was a great scenario because...."
It is all opinion related. Whatever the opinion the reviewer has, is related AFTER he tells you, either he liked it or he didn't. So reviews should be along those same lines.
_________________________________________________
Changes that _will_ be made are as follows:
1) Remove the Awards line - Maybe re-implement at a future date with better graphics.
2) Change the location of the download link - Some players have difficuly in locating this link.
3) Add the capability to search for vs. AI, and PBEM battles.
4) Add A PayPal donation link.
_________________________________________________
Could we get a search criteria for type of battles as well such as Historical and Semi-Historical? Possibly size related as well? Lots of players play a particular type of battle that they are well versed in and favor.
_________________________________________________
In addition, how do the authors want to handle historical rankings? Simply archive the lot and start fresh? Leave them in place as is and ignore them for future ratings? This aspect needs to be handled in a logical and simple fashion, plus not invalidate the effort everyone has put into placing reviews over the past couple of years.
_________________________________________________
My thoughts would be to get rid of the lists entirely, they aren't updated at the moment with correct values anyway, and then keep the historical download data on each. Keep it simple.
_________________________________________________
In summary, the aggregating numeric system is soon to go the way of the Dodo. Let us concentrate our design efforts to a more simple and effective system. Once again, there must be a concensus, first from the authors, and then from the players, on how the system is going to work. This board system has the capability to post polls. Perhaps we can beg/wheedle/cajole MaddMatt into activating that feature for a one-time vote. [/QB]
Panther Commander
-
Is fire in the game supposed to allow a unit to stay in a fire without being affected but not allow you to move into the same area?
Is this a bug or a desired affect?
Panther Commander
-
A can of worms huh? That is an interesting analogy. There are several that I would see would fit in that category. Not sure I thought this was one of them, but everybody gets a say.
What system would you like to see implemented? I see about a three way split on the thread. I really don't care what is done but the number system 1-10 I think is broke and needs fixed.
We use playtesters at HSG as well. And there are scenarios that I know of that have 200+ downloadson them and not a review so the SD obviously is doing it's intended job. We still do post to the SD however. It is the best place for gamers to get fresh scenarios all in one place.
Steve
-
Nope not mad at what he had to say. Just that, if I hadn't stumbled into the particular thread he was in, I'd have never gotten his comments in return. The designers comments to a review are as important as the review itself to me. I read what the designer intended to happen. That often clears up many a disputed issue.
Every designer I know and that more than likely includes Rune spends HOURS and HOURS getting thier work ready for use. When you consider the fact that his is included on the CD it is even more impressive. I obviously wasn't ready for the debacle I met. To a certain extent that is Rune's fault as well as mine. I should know better than to take a designers breifing as gospel. I have seen too many of them be mis-direction. I personally don't use that tact but I know it exists.
I would be happy to play test. I have a group that has diverged from the semi-retirement of CSDT. The new group is Historical Scenario Group (HSG) and we design and playtest our own material. I am currently working two Kharkov 1943 operation and eight CMBB battles. There are three that are in playtest at the moment in addition to the others. I just made a scenario for the first time that has a version to play against the AI and also one for H2H play. I'm not sure how the players will respond to that approach. Feel free to jump into the PT circle at any time.
Or if you want to do CMAK you have to wait until mine gets here.
Steve
-
Yes I read that review some time ago. Along with the other reviews.
Your advice is essentially for his "next" work, is it not? Do you think he is going to reissue this scenario? I think he probably won't. So that means that the suggestions you make are for later work. I guess in that regard I could have made some suggestions. See the post below to your first set of comments.
I firmly believe that we get better by getting reviews. I was in fact going to post another review on the SD to alter some of the tone of the review after playing it again. Once again, I don't have a problem with what Rune thinks of my review or me. It is the fact that he made the comments and then to my way of thinking hid them over here.
________________________________________________
Either way, I hope this has been instructive to you. If designers need to learn some lessons about how to make scenarios, I think it is just as valid to say that a lot of reviewers have a few things to learn about creating a sense of community rather than just a private playground for their own bitterness or preconceived notions on how to play CM.
_________________________________________________
And what bitterness or preconceived notions would those be? I have nothing against Rune or anyone else in this business. Without the guys like Rune who busts his butt to get out a scenario for us all to play CM would be much less a game.
Just as a quick question, who do you think is qualified to review games? The designers? The players? Anyone? Just curious.
Steve
-
Well hello Michael, nice to meet you.
What I found most offensive is the answer here. If he is going to give an answer why not to me? Why not somewhere that he knows I will get it?
I will agree that he didn't have to answer me. BUT if he did why not send it to me?? When I answer my reviewers I post it with the review. I saw Steve Hines remarks, he is entitled to his own opinion, as are you, Rune and I.
You make some good points. So let me answer some of them.
I didn't put my review up here, I just responded to what Rune already posted. I can easily post the review as well if you think it should be here.
I played the game once as the Germans in a PBEM. I did recon the Americans. The German briefing said the Americans were not expecting anyone. I went and researched the scenario, AFTER, I played it.
I saw the G/L's on the right with my infantry and waited until I had all 15 German tanks on the map. Then I tried a long range duel with my Pz III's hull down. When that didn't work, I advanced towards the G/L's with my Pz III's, to be hit in the flanks by the HT's, 37mm ATG's and Shermans. Which all together outnumbered my tanks. By the time all the German armor arrives in tact the surprised Americans have had tanks reinforce them. How surprised is that? Maybe the scenario isn't as unbalanced, as the briefing is misleading.
You are right about my being a bit more diplomatic about the opening comments. What I should have done is wait a bit for the smarting to wear off before doing the review.
The German briefing states that the Americans are not prepared to defend...now you have played this sceanrio...and know full well that they are in fact ready to defend and will with great determination.
See you assume that I did no recon. I knew exactly where the G/L's were when my first five PzIII's came on and I knew that the G/L's alone outnumbered me. So I waited for the rest of the German tanks to show up before attacking.
"Here's a news flash for you", falls under cool off, before you write the review. Sorry about that one too. I apoligize to you, Rune, for those two comments. They were uncalled for and very unprofessional on my part.
You state that the Americans being not surprised is a given. Why is that? The designer can show them being surprised in a couple of ways. One way is by having the American armor not start showing up, until AFTER, the German armor is on the map. Another is to have AT guns, that appear AFTER a time on the map. So that the German actually gets to operate against a defense that isn't up and running on all cylinders.
I assure you that I lost tanks from hits on three sides. That is flanking shots from all corners of the map. I know that, when I had all my Pz III's and advanced, there were Shermans, HT's and ATG's.
There were six reviews given on the SD for the scenario. Not one of them met any of your criteria for a valid review. The only exception being that some of them stated which side they played.
According to the previous reviews I found on the SD there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the scenario. It was a great scenario. The only thing I have against it is the play balance. The play doesn't match the briefing. IMHO. That sets the whole tone of a scenario for me. Obviously that wasn't the just of the game.
What petty comments about the briefing?
I did not offer him any advice. What good is that going to do? The scenario is on the disk. Is he going to change the version before it ships? No, the review was for other players, with the intent of letting them know this scenario may be very tough as the Germans. Even unwinnable. As you say none of the reviewers stated what side they played. I thought I made it quite clear that I played the Germans. You even stated I did.
Apparently I don't view positive remarks in the same light as you do.
I am sorry that I appear as a blowhard with nothing to offer. That was certainly not the intent. I do not have a Phd. but I don't consider myself an idiot either. I have designed wargame scenarios since 1972 and have been involved in producing from scratch several. Some of them tactical level WWII armor games such as CM produces.
I saw somewhere, and I believe it is on your thread about reworking the SD review system, that the review closely relates to the amount of success a player has with the scenario. I believe that is true. It was in my case. If I had cooled off first I would have replayed the game before doing a review on it. The previous reviews had been so positive that I wasn't prepared for the result that I got. For that I need to apoligize to Rune again. The review should have been done later and with more research. I'll give you that.
The reason that this thread is here at all is because Rune did answer my review. BUT he did it here where I might not have ever seen it. You state that it is easy to critisize without offering suggestions. I suggest it is easy to respond to your criticism if the other person never sees it. IF he was going to answer he should have answered me. Otherwise he should have followed your course of action, written the review off as my being a blowhard, and forgot about it.
I will take your advise on doing reviews to heart though. I agree, that you should state which side you played, clearly, how many times it was played and which style game was done.
Thank you for taking the time to engage in the thread. I am still not sure that I agree with the rest of the world, that it is a great scenario, but there are a lot of people who like it. Maybe, the percentages just went against me, or maybe the rest of them should play the guy I played PBEM to see if they can beat him.
Steve
-
Rune,
You need to go to the Scenario Talk Forum and check out the new thread. Check out Why there are so few reviews given...
You will see the thread is about your comments here on this thread.
Panther Commander
-
rune
Member
Member # 821
posted December 02, 2003 07:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going to reply to the poster from the Scenario Depot. While I applaud greatly the work of Admiral Keth, you now see why I have given up on the depot, and no longer post scenarios there.
Spoilers in case you haven't played it yet....
*
*
*
Yes, you don't get it, as seen by the postings here. According to you, it is not playable since the Germans don't have tanks on turn 1.
Let's see, I have Nafziger, An Army at Dawn and others that all say the attack was led by, wait for it, by recon assets. You complain that tanks don't show up till turn 5.
So, five minutes into a battle you cannot launch a tank attack. If anything, the tanks arrive too early. However, i compressed what happened into a shorter time span. Use the few minutes to RECON and find out where the enemy is. Once that happens, you tanks have arrived and then launch the attack you planned. People here say all the time they want time to plan and then attack, they don't want to start in a fight right away.
The reason I picked the scenarios authors on the CD are they realize, there is NOT one style of play. Read all of the above to see how different people approached this differently. Don't get locked into it has to be one way or nothing.
No, you cannot surprise the Americans. No kidding. The engine doesn't allow that. You can set the tone, and most players will abide by that, but being a demo, I allowed it so players can try all sorts of things to get a feel for the game. There are also people who will always try gamey things, their loss. We have always designed the scenarios to be played with the default settings the first time through, and then play around if they want.
Out of about 35 emails I got, 4 asked questions, 3 thought the scenario was so-so, the rest loved it. You attacked it since it didn't fit you thinking. Sorry you didn't like it, but will take those numbers anyday.
Rune
--------------------
Berli on Lindan's comment of a Rune Scenario:
"Ah come on... if you were in an Italian tankette and a slight breeze started blowing, wouldn't you bail out? "
This comment was made on the scenario of the week thread postings.
I find it very dismaying that this type of answer is given, not on the SD where the review was posted, but here, where the reviewer may not even see it. No wonder players don't give reviews.
It is the right of every player to give his opinion and to have his opinion respected. Just as it is the right of the designer to be respected.
In his response Mr. "Rune" states that this is why he doesn't put scenarios on the SD any more. I would repsond, that if you can't take a bad review, you shouldn't put your work out in the public eye.
By the way I am the reviewer Rune doesn't appreciate. I post my scenarios and allow for player comments. And I answer every one of them directly. Not behind their backs or on another board on another web site.
Comments would be good.
Steve
-
The problem in CM battles is that you have to weight the rush to combat against the need to deploy. I usually try to have the scenarios that I make move to combat in three turns. That allows the player some latitude in setup and yet doesn't make them take 10 turns to deploy for the combat we are all here for. I do have a couple of scenarios that combat is capable of taking place deep into the game. Where two forces are both traveling towards the same objective that neither controls and you never know when you will bump into each other. It is a definate choice to use time as a measure of the time allowed the commander. If the scenario designer wants the commander to be under pressure there are few turns and alot of ground to cover in those turns. If the attacker has time to maneuver there will be sufficient turns to allow that to happen.
Panther Commander
-
Originally posted by Sirocco:
Exactly! If you can't hit the area target how accurate are you going to be hitting the pinpoint one?Panther Commander
-
Not to mention a complete 10 year series of small scale battles in Vietnam.
Panther Commander
-
Originally posted by Ant:
[QB]
Sorry but you're wrong. Smoke was most definitely used to mark targets in WW2. It was further refined during Korea with specific FAC aircraft. By the time of Vietnam using smoke to mark targets was an old and very well established technique.Sorry, what I got from the post was to pull out a smoke grenade and then mark your position. Like in Nam. If you want to call in artillery to spot the target that would work. However, a tank on the move is a bit hard to spot with mortar or artillery smoke. A building no problem, but individual tanks there is a problem.
Once again you are correct the General wasn't killed with CAS it was my intention to show you how hard it was to hit the entire German front line. We tried it twice and they didn't hit it either time even though the Germans didn't move.
Panther Commander
-
Let me air some facts here. During WWII the highest ranking American General killed was by the US Airforce. The air support was so bad that they pulled back a quarter of a mile and were still hit. Combat air support from the Western Allies point of view mainly consisted of missions behind the lines because it was so hard to hit the intended target. The Germans and Russians used air support at the level that you are wanting the Americans and British to use it.
You guys wanting to mark your positions with smoke are showing your age. That was a Vietnam tactic not a WWII one.
There were notable successes and failures for close in air support.(CAS)
The truth of the matter is that the Western Allies weren't that good at CAS. The terrain was prohibitive...think about hedgerows and the Heurtgen Forest, the pilots weren't trained that well for it, and we didn't have a dedicated ground attack plane. The British did with the Typhoon but the Americans didn't. That alone shows how much emphasis the Americans placed on CAS. It was a secondary mission for us.
The Russians painted their tanks on the TOPS for air recongition. The Germans have the famous photos of all those German flags draped over their tanks.
Do you remember seeing any Western Allied equipment with air recognition markers? No. Because it wasn't expected to be that close most of the time. There should be a way to call off CAS but we are still talking 1943-45 and the Army was still in it's infancy for talking ground to air.
So for my money and in my opinion you have what they had. WWII CAS. Imagine how you would feel if after capturing a hill with your armor the asked for CAS showed up and attacked you...knocking out most of your tanks and allowing the Germans to retake the hill. Read Caen: Anvil of Victory. It's in there.
Panther Commander
-
There is another alternative. If certain designers don't want to use the designer ratings, they wouldn't have too.
It could be offered as a benefit for those that do. I don't see where it would have to be something, EVERYBODY used, for it to be a useful tool. Obviously, not everyone who downloads from the SD uses the review tool, or there would be many more reviews. The same could be said for the designer ratings.
Panther Commander
-
WWB,
I think they are saying that you put a rating on your own scenario at the time you upload it. Then after the reviews start coming in that could reflect in the rating. No one is trying to say that the review shouldn't be accurate or even done. But that you should have some say in the results.
For instance. You make a scenario that is for two player but I play it against the AI and rate you way low for that. What I believe Green as Jade would have us put in place would allow you to basically throw that review out or at the least to downplay the bad review. A review that you got erroneously because I rated you down for something that you didn't intend I do in the first place. Please correct me where I fail to accurately portray the intents here.
Or I don't like all armor battles, don't like night fights, don't like small-huge, or whatever, and I give you the review on something other than what your scenario is about. Or maybe, that was exactly what it was about and I missed the point.
I would welcome such a balancing of the intent so to speak. I'm sure that any designer that has gotten these reviews, that seem to come from God knows where, would welcome a chance to level out the playing field a bit.
You may have even gotten some of them yourself. If you have this would be a way for you to have your say as the designer. I have found though that you can do about the same thing if you respond to a review. Even a bad one gives you the chance to have your say and defend your work.
Panther Commander
-
Well Michael, sounds like you get to live with some FF then. The game really does do a good job of modeling the air support and has a wide range of effects possible. I have had Russian aircraft continue to attack a Tiger tanks when it was dead, with a T-34/85 sitting right beside it!! Maybe the AI was goint after the T-34 and was just a bad a shot. Anyway good luck on the QB airsupport it's going to be spotty at best.
Steve
I officially hate cover arcs
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
Panther Commander