Pegasus Bridge *NOT a spoiler, I promise!*

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I will be making another version of this scenario in the near future. If anyone has any tidbits of information or any sources that they would like to share please send feel free to speak up. The last thing I want to do is duplicate another grogs efforts.

I have many issues with the historical accuracy of this scenario but suffice it to say this engagement did NOT take place during the day...

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Dick Reece]

Hi Scott,

I'd be interested in hearing exactly what it is you think is wrong with the pegasus bridge scenario?Seems kind of odd to me,that you'd badmouth the work on a public forum, and then in the same breath ask for sources,etc? Since you've already passed judgement on it,apparently you're an expert. How then,and why would you, ask for input from others?

There is no way you can do another Pegasus bridge scenario,without duplicating some of my work.I'm truly interested in finding out exactly what you seem to think is wrong with it? If it's a bunch of nit picking little grognard things,just keep it to yourself, I don't want to hear a bunch of miniscule details I may have missed.The number of piats is incorrect of course,but there is no way to make the scenario fun and balanced without them.If you check the formations you'll see I reduced the number of them,and also the ammo for each.Historically no engineers showed up,and only two tanks,one of which retired after the other was torched.There was a company of German engineers nearby,who could have easily reacted and counterattacked.The time was a mistake,I honestly don't know how it happened,I distinctly remember setting it for night.But,I am getting older, so I could have left it by accident.You see,if you'll play with the editor,you'll soon find that it's easier to work with the map parameters set at day,working in the editor with a night setting makes it harder to see,at least if you're getting older and grayheaded,and require reading glasses when using the PC,like I do.Perhaps I forgot to change it back? Please forgive a tiring middle aged man for a small mistake.There's an easy fix,load it in the editor and change it in parameters to night.

As far as the locations of each leader and there troops,they are historically accurate,I went to great pains to make sure of that.In all,I spent six weeks making and refining this scenario.

Since CM is based on one minute per turn, I was faced with compressing time a little, but still making a fun scenario.Most of the action took place in a very short time.Thus the smallness of the scenario.

I suggest you do a bit of research yourself,instead of criticizing someone's work, and then asking the public for help.The way you've posted makes you appear as though you really have no idea what you're talking about,which is probably much closer to the truth.

If this scenario had been done strictly "by the book" historical, it would be a dry,dull scenario,and a complete walkover for the British.I tried to keep it as historical as possible,but still fun [obviously a foreign concept to some who call themselves grognards] scenario.

Lastly, I don't understand the little red smiley face,apparently representing anger or some other infantile emotion? Why should you or anyone else be upset with me or any other scenario designer, for doing the best we could with the job at hand? I worked my butt off for over a year on CM,churning out 8 scenarios and 2 operations in that time,hoping they'd make it to CD.I got real lucky,2 made it.It was a blast for me:^),and I intend to do it again. The last thing anyone of us needs to hear from any of you is a bunch of barbed,non-constructive,infantile criticism,especially when it's so obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Next time do us, the scenario authors,the common courtesy of at least writing us in private by e-mail, to correct what you may see as an obvious mistake,but may be a simple oversight,or even ignorance.Contrary to your apparent belief,we are just as human as you.I suggest you grumble to us in private next time,instead of cheapening our long hard hours of work by complaining in public,and making yourself a complete fool in the bargain.

Sincerely,

Dick Reece,the author of Ham and Jam

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK,

Rule number one is that everybody is entitled to their opinions. CM scenarios are almost always going to be nothing more than an interpretation of reality, not a cut and dried exact representation. If it is someone's opinion that a battle should be covered differently, that is fair. Both the scenario designer and the person looking at the scenario need to understand this. Variety is the spice of life and everybody should revel in it, not attack it.

I'm closing this one up.

Steve