In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.

[von Lucke]

I would like an honest, semi-coherent opinion: Does this scenario suck.

And if it does indeed suck --- I need to know the level of, and specific manner of, suckage involved.

[ January 19, 2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Treeburst155]

So many new battles, and so little time to play them. How many excellent scenarios are never even noticed due to the volume of scenarios produced? It's a shame really.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

I would like an honest, semi-coherent opinion:

I can PBEM either side against you, but I think it would make sense for me to take the (Allied) attacker.

I don't care to play against the AI.

I should be able to do one turn a day and double on weekends.

Sincerely,

Ken

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

So many new battles, and so little time to play them. How many excellent scenarios are never even noticed due to the volume of scenarios produced? It's a shame really.

Heh. Well, I suppose that's an honest opinion.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

I can PBEM either side against you, but I think it would make sense for me to take the (Allied) attacker.

I don't care to play against the AI.

I should be able to do one turn a day and double on weekends.

Sincerely,

Ken

Thanks for the offer, but since I designed it, I'd know exactly what and where everything was --- might give you a biased opinion about how the scenario plays out.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Thanks for the offer, but since I designed it, I'd know exactly what and where everything was --- might give you a biased opinion about how the scenario plays out.

Well... A biased opinion might be better than no opinion, (as long as you don't Nuke the attacker's set-up zone). Or... If you can find someone to take a side against me, I could play. I don't play against the AI too much anymore, especially larger scenarios. It's a waste of time.

Ken

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Thanks for the offer, but since I designed it, I'd know exactly what and where everything was --- might give you a biased opinion about how the scenario plays out.

Well... A biased opinion might be better than no opinion, (as long as you don't Nuke the attacker's set-up zone). Or... If you can find someone to take a side against me, I could play. I don't play against the AI too much anymore, especially larger scenarios. It's a waste of time.

Ken </font>

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:

I'll help out. E-mail me.

KC

E-mail with scenario attached sent to address in profile. Look it over and pick a side, if you want.

Ken

[von Lucke]

Thanks guys. I await yr recomendations.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Thanks guys. I await yr recomendations.

The first thing I did was add 10 turns before we started. Nice map, but how come the road dead-ends instead of continuing off into the distance?

The Allied 82mm on-board mortars could use a depression to fire from (out of LOS from the enemy), what with Borg Spotting and all.

You definitely have a talent for map making. Have you considered making an altered (fictional) battle map out of this, with a few roads/tracks and a village or two? I hope you continue in your good work.

We are on approx. turn 10? (just started).

Ken

Ken

[Krazy Canuck]

It truly is a remarkable map. How well it plays out it is to early to tell.

Already though, I feel there is a glaring oversight which I will mention after the game. I wouldn't want Ken to get too overconfidant.

Kudos on the map!

KC

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

The first thing I did was add 10 turns before we started.

50+ not enough? Well, I do tend to under-estimate scenario length a bit.

Nice map, but how come the road dead-ends instead of continuing off into the distance?

Because those wiley Italians blew a cliff down on to it. Took the Brits something like 3 weeks to clean it up.

The Allied 82mm on-board mortars could use a depression to fire from (out of LOS from the enemy), what with Borg Spotting and all.

Hmmm, thought they were far enough in the rear not to be bothered. The set-up zone does allow for them to be placed in the dry riverbed, or the creek that comes off of it, though.

You definitely have a talent for map making. Have you considered making an altered (fictional) battle map out of this, with a few roads/tracks and a village or two? I hope you continue in your good work.

Actually, I'm fairly anal about getting the maps just right --- prolly why I don't do that many scenarios; the stress of getting a rock or tree in exactly the right place drives me to drink. This one took a fair bit of research, I must admit.

We are on approx. turn 10? (just started).

Ken

So who is which side then?

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:

It truly is a remarkable map. How well it plays out it is to early to tell.

Already though, I feel there is a glaring oversight which I will mention after the game. I wouldn't want Ken to get too overconfidant.

Kudos on the map!

KC

Feel free to e-mail me with yr little secret --- I'd like to know where my oversight is glaring from.

[kenfedoroff]

I am the Allied attacker.

Is the reason for the road ending stated in the briefing? If it is, then I apologize.

The Allied 82mm (on-board) mortars are the key to the attack, but I'm afraid to use them because they may be spotted. They need a position where they are completely out of LOS of the enemy and can use an HQ for a spotter. I know it's tough to be creative playing with 8 meter elevation tiles, but with "Borg Spotting" they need a hiding place. I wasn't able to find a spot in their limited set-up area.

Ok. enough whining for now,

Ken

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:

It truly is a remarkable map. How well it plays out it is to early to tell.

Already though, I feel there is a glaring oversight which I will mention after the game. I wouldn't want Ken to get too overconfidant.

Kudos on the map!

KC

Feel free to e-mail me with yr little secret --- I'd like to know where my oversight is glaring from. </font>

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

I am the Allied attacker.

Is the reason for the road ending stated in the briefing? If it is, then I apologize.

Well, since the road has nothing to do with the attacker's objectives, I didn't bother to mention it in the briefing. Since the end of the road is covered in a big pile of rocks with the words "collapsed cliff" over it, I figured that would be enough.

The Allied 82mm (on-board) mortars are the key to the attack, but I'm afraid to use them because they may be spotted. They need a position where they are completely out of LOS of the enemy and can use an HQ for a spotter. I know it's tough to be creative playing with 8 meter elevation tiles, but with "Borg Spotting" they need a hiding place. I wasn't able to find a spot in their limited set-up area.

I see what yr saying --- I have them more set up for direct fire. Increasing the set-up zone shouldn't be a problem.

Ok. enough whining for now,

Ken

Not whining --- feedback. That's what I "hired" you for!

[kenfedoroff]

There is actually a good spot for the 82mm on-board mortars in the original (current) set-up zone. The "problem" with this spot is that they are hidden from only two of the three Axis VLs.

If you could modify the terrain so that the direct LOS from this depression hides the mortars from all three Axis held heights, then that would be great. Changing the map might make it un-historical, but it could simulate a good base to fire from (using an HQ as spotter).

My fears about exposing my mortars were confirmed when my assault troops started taking fire from "my" side of the Gorge. Whoever is firing from "my" side could well spot my mortars. (None of this would be a problem, if not for "Borg" spotting).

I apologize for the "collapsed cliff" question. It seems "Captain Unconscious" (Commander of the Allied attack) must have his Landmarks turned off... Duh.

Some might complain about adding such trivia in the briefing, but I enjoy reading them for the info and sources. I can usually find the (used) books used for historical reference at affordable prices on the internet.

Is there a mention of a possible enemy presence on "my" side of the Gorge in the briefing? I could have made better use of my battalion/regt. security team with such info.

While I appreciate the Allied air support, the incredible spotting abilities of these aircraft borders on the ridiculous (they appear to be targeting individual squads that are hidden in foxholes). Again, this is just my personal prefs, but I would tone down the CAS or give the Axis the appropriate tools (and a chance) to reduce or nullify the Allied CAS. (Then again, we are playing blind, and my opponent may very well have his possible AAA on "Hide" or mis-placed).

Von Lucke (You sorry bastich). You made the mistake of allowing/asking for opinions, not realising I would stumble in here and scribble like mad.

Ken

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

There is actually a good spot for the 82mm on-board mortars in the original (current) set-up zone. The "problem" with this spot is that they are hidden from only two of the three Axis VLs.

If you could modify the terrain so that the direct LOS from this depression hides the mortars from all three Axis held heights, then that would be great. Changing the map might make it un-historical, but it could simulate a good base to fire from (using an HQ as spotter).

At present, they are positioned for direct-fire, so I wanted them to be able to see all three VL's. Initially, I'd simply had a 3in. FO, but later thought that being able to split fire at individual targets at a moments notice was more useful.

My fears about exposing my mortars were confirmed when my assault troops started taking fire from "my" side of the Gorge. Whoever is firing from "my" side could well spot my mortars. (None of this would be a problem, if not for "Borg" spotting).

Not to give it away, but I'm fairly sure that yr 3in. are far enough away not to make very good targets --- though I could be wrong: That's for you to find out, eh?

I apologize for the "collapsed cliff" question. It seems "Captain Unconscious" (Commander of the Allied attack) must have his Landmarks turned off... Duh.

Some might complain about adding such trivia in the briefing, but I enjoy reading them for the info and sources. I can usually find the (used) books used for historical reference at affordable prices on the internet.

"Ummm, I say Brigadier, but you need to take the lens covers off first...". Actually, I usually write up a few pages for the Briefing, then end up editing out most of it. I try not to go over 2 or 3, and try to stick to the major focus of the battle.

Is there a mention of a possible enemy presence on "my" side of the Gorge in the briefing? I could have made better use of my battalion/regt. security team with such info.

I mention it in the "Historical Outcome" portion of the main briefing, and then again in the Allied briefing. Maybe I need to emphasize it more though, because yr not the first one to say something about it.

While I appreciate the Allied air support, the incredible spotting abilities of these aircraft borders on the ridiculous (they appear to be targeting individual squads that are hidden in foxholes). Again, this is just my personal prefs, but I would tone down the CAS or give the Axis the appropriate tools (and a chance) to reduce or nullify the Allied CAS. (Then again, we are playing blind, and my opponent may very well have his possible AAA on "Hide" or mis-placed).

The RAF was a last-minute addition that, from comments and viewing a few turns, I think will be removed in the final version.

Von Lucke (You sorry bastich). You made the mistake of allowing/asking for opinions, not realising I would stumble in here and scribble like mad.

Ken

I prefer this to the typical, "I lost, so you're scenario sucks!" type opinion.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

At present, they (82mm) are positioned for direct-fire, so I wanted them to be able to see all three VL's. Initially, I'd simply had a 3in. FO, but later thought that being able to split fire at individual targets at a moments notice was more useful.

Agreed. I like your idea of the on-board mortars over the FO.

Not to give it away, but I'm fairly sure that yr 3in. are far enough away not to make very good targets --- though I could be wrong: That's for you to find out, eh?

Well... It's my fault for not hiding them in the depression. At least they would have been hidden from 2 out 3 of the Axis held heights. My bad. My attack would be doing just fine if I felt safe in using them right now.

Ken

[kenfedoroff]

We stopped after turn 25.

I had a whole battalion of reinforcements beam down half way to the objective.

This should be reduced to a Company and enter back at Regt. HQ (along with the FO) on, or about, turn 10. They should have to negotiate the same difficulties the original assault force did.

If something can't be done to make it fun for the Italians, then the scenario should be listed as "Allied (human) attack vs Axis (AI). It's not much fun for the Italian player to sit there and get pounded.

Nice map.

Ken