Korsun Relief Scenario

[rune]

DO NOT READ LOWER, SPOILERS...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Reading a review of the scenario, the person bemoans the fact that the map turns into mud then a fight. [Trying not to give away too many spoilers here] The map should have been shorter so the tanks reach the flags.

Guys, assume the scenario authora know what they are doing. This is based on a true to life scenario, which stalled out due to mud. The battle develops EXACTLY the way it occured in real life. Why does everyone assume battles have to be fair and balanced? Very FEW real life fights were. A scenario can also TEACH. Von Lauchert will slap you silly if you don't use the Russian tactics of the time. Korsun Relief teaches you how to attack in mud, Tiger Tiger shows you how powerful the Tiger was when released, but it BETTER be supported. Etc.

I just shake my head over comments at the Scenario Depot. Admiral Keth and BigDog bust their butts to give us a place to put our scenarios...but if you aren't sure of something ask the author before posting a low score or comment you aren't sure of. I get more comments in email then anything else. Don't assume something, feel free to ask me about any of my scenarios.

That being said, I am going to talk to the B&T guys on suggestions on how to revamp the rating system. Maybe just one rating, an overall, from 1 star to 5 stars.

Rune

[Nidan1]

Rune, I agree wholeheartedly with you, too many CM players are looking for fairness and balance, rather than deal with the unfairness of reality.

An historical situation is just that, QBs can give one all the balance that is desired. It is unfair to designers such as yourself to receive crappy ratings for historical scenarios because the person rating it was looking for balance and fairness. I think most people playing this game have some understanding of what the real war was like, there are volumes of materials available for reading. It boggles my mind that some folks still complain about the situations in historical scenarios. My two cents.

[Master Dullard aka flyingcursor]

Absolutely. I agree with rune on all points.

If every scenario is balanced then we can throw historical battles out the window.

The rating system does seem to mislead in that respect.

My scenarios are usually designed for single player and best played from one side.

That's why I like to make up campaigns (sort of like Biltong but simpler). Since I mostly prefer playing Russians a campaign beginning in June '41 is going to have a LOT of scenarios where the Russians are getting stomped. That doesn't mean it isn't fun because I usually shorten the length. Where you will get slaughtered in 30 turns you might be able to hold out for 10.

Another thing I noticed on B&T. A particular scenario had a rating of 3.6. There was one review and it gave a rating of 6.5.

The designer made a big mistake because he replied to the reviewer with another review!!! He gave himself a rating of 0.0.

Never trash your own ratings. Use email or the forum.

[Charlie901]

Rune, Please keep up the realistic senarios/ operations your doing some excellent work!!!

I love the ability to play realistic senarios and apply proper tactics as you so clearly stated. I'm a WWII Eastern Front buff and have no desire to play any of the unrealistic senarios. Trying to recreate history is much more fun.

Don't worry about the critics I D/L and play all your stuff first.

BTW I only download the "Historic" and sometimes "Semi-Historic" senarios/operations.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Master Dullard aka flyingcursor:

Another thing I noticed on B&T. A particular scenario had a rating of 3.6. There was one review and it gave a rating of 6.5.

The designer made a big mistake because he replied to the reviewer with another review!!! He gave himself a rating of 0.0.

Never trash your own ratings. Use email or the forum.

Which reminds me of a classic reply from the author to a reviewer:

Tigers!??? There are NO tigers in this battle.

The least you could do is play the battle BEFORE you review it.

Also don't use this forum to flatter yourself

And I agree, historical scenarios suffer alot with Scenario Depot´s rating system.

[Le Tondu]

Playing the devil's advocate here.....

...I play CMBB for fun. If a scenario isn't fun and just bogs down into something distasteful, then it doesn't have much value in my opinion. One thing that I keep harping on here is that CMBB is a game. I do that because folks seem to forget it.

The entire point for a game is to have fun and if some scenario isn't fun, then I'll chuck it out like I would any other not-so-great scenario.

Who plays a scenario just to get his ass kicked? Who really likes that? I cannot believe that frustration is all that appealing to some people.

With all that said, there are so many scenarios out there that one ending up in the recycled bin is nothing. I will not forget the fact that Rune has made so many great scenarios that one not-so-great scenario is bound to creep in sometime. We as a community NEED to be a little kinder to each other. Just a little will go a long way.

Rune, you've done great man. Unfavorable remarks about any of your scenarios are something that you should ignore. You're above that. Sure, value constructive criticism, but focus on your art like a laser beam and continue to amaze us. Make yourself happy. Hey, you're gonna come up with a boner every once and a while. After all, you are human. Aren't you?

[rune]

Comments on my scenarios good and bad are always appreciated....and that is my point. Before you rate something bad, ASK why it was done that way! I always answer any decent email sent to me...and heck, if I can generate interest in a particular battle, then I have accomplished something. Actually I am surprised quite a bit when I think one of my scenarios which is so-so, turns out to be a crowd pleaser.

I actually ignore the scores, as they mean nothing to me. I do read the feedback from people. It is why I think the rating system should change. Like a movie review, 1 to 5 stars, tanks, whatevers. Replayability on the two tutorials I made was low...but umm..it is a tutorial. Supposed to teach you, not be played 100 times.

Heck, I got quite a few scenarios listed without any feedback. I still have a pile of CMBO ones also that never got rated.

Speaking of which, if you play one of my scenarios, play with the default setup at first. Often I have the real force deployment IF i could find it. I seldom lock units into place, so people can see how well they could do if the attack had gone differently. However, I do recommend playing it with the default setups first. Jaegermeister for example, is much more difficult with the default setup [which should be used for a tutorial] then moving the units about.

As for losing...any scenario I make can be won, however, you may have to use the proper tactics. von Lauchert will spank the Russian player hard if he sits back and tries to fight it out. Instead of saying the scenario is unbalanced, send an email and ask what tactic would work. The Russian players have won that battle about 40-45% of the time. Not easy...but possible.

Yes, it is a game, but it is also a tool to teach people. How many of you knew, or cared, that the T34 turret only supported 2 people? Now after you have played the game, how many care? See? You learned something! The same can be said about scenarios!

Rune

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by rune:

I actually ignore the scores, as they mean nothing to me. I do read the feedback from people. It is why I think the rating system should change. Like a movie review, 1 to 5 stars, tanks, whatevers.

I couldn't agree more. the individual score factored together doesn't really seem to work. For one thing, I see people weighting scores to produce a desired result. I honestly believe a 5 point single rating would work better. Put the details in the review.

Replayability on the two tutorials I made was low...but umm..it is a tutorial. Supposed to teach you, not be played 100 times.

Replayability is the biggest null value in the score. I have yet to talk to a designer that designs for replayability.

As for losing...any scenario I make can be won, however, you may have to use the proper tactics. von Lauchert will spank the Russian player hard if he sits back and tries to fight it out. Instead of saying the scenario is unbalanced, send an email and ask what tactic would work. The Russian players have won that battle about 40-45% of the time. Not easy...but possible.

Again, I agree fully. I've seen reviews of scenarios that claim that it can't be won from side X... even though I've won it from that same side. In some cases i've thought the exact opposite! I've also seen reviews where the reviews disagree about which side can't win!

[Uedel]

I was playing Korsun relief, and it anyoed me.

Yes i know it was historical, and it is not fair. But this doesnt mean that i will have fun with it.

There are Historical examples of single companys holding up enitre Divisions, but if u would port it to CMBB/CMBO it would be just a disastrus Scenario with no fun for everyone.

I think the key-word for Histrical sceanrios is --> is it playable and portable on the CMBB engine ? Tankbattles in muddy terrain are for me not playable, it is sily and boring (in MY eyes).

I didnt scored this scenario on any depot, but if i would do it the score sould be not high for sure. And for all other Scenarios delivered with the CD i got to say that most of them are "non-fun Scenarios" at least the ones i tryed to play vs a human opponent they are vastly disbalanced or with other strong hooks that make em frustrating and boring to play vs Human opponents.

[rune]

Well gee, thanks for that helpful comment. War isn't fair...it ius about doing what you can with what you got. If you want balanced games, just play quick battle meeting engagements. If you want to see if you could do as good or better then what really happened, then the option should also be there.

For each player that only wants equal battles, there is another that would like to see what happened in the real battle. If you don't know how to attack in mud with tanks, something that happened quite a bit, then use a scenario and LEARN. The game is just as much about using proper tactics in different situations as it is to just beat another player.

Rune

[rune]

With the above in mind, ;ets talk about the scenarios on the CD. There were to be 50 and 10 operations, but I convinced the gang to up it to 60. Remember, there are 5 years to cover. I wanted a mix of years, battles, operations, styles, and sizes. Saying the mjority aren't fun for two player is total crap to say. If you think all the scenarios aren't balanced...then look at yourself and your tactics. There are scenarios that are harder for one side then for another...but each game was won as either side during testing. An example is Andreas' Cemetary Hill, where people say you cannot win with the default setup. First time I played it, I got a Major victory as the Germans. I actually thought it was too easy as the Germans.

So 1 out of 60 scenarios shows you what fighting in the mud was like. Another one shows you why the Russians developed the tactics they did. Not every scenario is made to be a 2 player ME, nor should they be. For each player that likes a certain type of battle, someone will like something else. There was a thread here recently about scenario sizes, some liked small, some medium, and some liked the HUGE battles I have made. If we have that much variance on JUST the size, imagine years, types of battles, etc. I tried to get something on the CD for everyone, but thinking all the scenarios should be one way is wrong thinking.

Which is why I think the reviews need to be over-hauled. If the above poster had rated the scenario, it would have been done with a lot of BIAS. An opinion formed cause he didn't know how to handle tanks in the mud. It makes the ratings useless, and I see more and more scenario authors feeling the same way. So, I know Admiral Keth and Bigdog are open to suggestions. This isn't their fault, they are doing this community a service. However, I think we should get together, talk about what we think woukld be more helpful, and approach them on it. Hey, they will listen, even if the answer is no.

Bottom Line people, the scenarios are varied on the CD, and this was done most decidedly on purpose. Have fun with the scenarios, LEARN from the scenarios, ask questions of the scenario authors. I already have had people who complained about a scenario do a 180 after finding out why something was done a certain way and LEARNED something about the Eastern Front from it...all while having FUN! Isn't this what this is supposed to be about?

Rune

[Watson & Crick]

Rune, I understand your frustration. I have played many of your scenarios and I have always enjoyed them. Just to clarify a few things first as I don't have the CD with me. Did you say anything about the mud and tank attack in your briefing? Unless you emphasized this in the briefing, I can sort of see why the reviewer made his comments as he does not sound very "enlightened" to me (see below for more comments).

Here is a what happend to me and how I now look at reviewers and ratings. I have designed one scenario so far and it is at the Depot. It is a fictional scenario against the AI. I purposely did not say too much in the briefing about what and where the attacking AI force was coming from as I wanted it to be a surprise (no surprise there). After over 100 downloads, I have one review. He rated the briefing a three, because it was "only one paragraph". This "3" really dragged the overall rating down (6.4). However, he did rate it an 8 as playability against the AI and seemed to enjoy it.

At first I was upset about this "3". But then I came to realize a couple of things. First, that you cannot look at the overall rating as a guide to how good a scenario is unless a lot of people have rated it. Although I look at all the ratings and comments before I download a scenario, most of the time they are contradictory. If there is a common complaint, then I will not download it. This is a rather a rare occurrence as a scenario has a ratings/download percentage of around 1%. It would be nice if more "enlightend" people would rate things. That way, overall ratings "might" be an indicator of how "good" a scenario is.

Secondly, even if you EXPLICITELY say why you designed something the way you did, there is no guarantee that they will put that in the proper perspective. Some people can only have "fun" if a scenario is designed a certain way e.g. summer, dry, no wind etc. Unfortunately, these people will rate scenarios poorly that don't fit their rather narrow criteria of "fun". As a result, your ratings suffer. Your only hope is that none of these type of people rate your scenario. If more "worldly" or "enlightened" people would rate scenarios, this would not be a problem.

Rune, I have always found your scenarios fun and I hope that you will continue to designing more.

[-E]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

One thing that I keep harping on here is that CMBB is a game. I do that because folks seem to forget it.

I beg to differ. I think CMBB is a wargame, which is a bird of a much different feather.

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

The entire point for a game is to have fun...

Your comments are all valid if one accepts your premise that CMBB is indeed a (mere) game. Where they lose validity is when they are applied to a wargame.

(If I hadn't been up all night, I'd dig out an out of print book called "sorcerers and soldiers" which gives a nice overview of the history of wargaming... essentially it was developed to simulate, rather than to entertain)

(edited for a typo... told you I'd been up all night *grin*)

[ December 10, 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: -E ]

[mattman2000]

I guess fun is relative.

For me at least, winning battles which are perfectly balanced isn't nearly as rewarding as beating the odds and defeating your opponent in a scenario where everything's stacked against you. That shows you might know what you're doing. Case in point -- the Vistula Bridgehead OP. I've talked to a few folks who've thought that operation is a push over for the player controlling the Germans (do you want to pit a T-34 against a Jagpanther on the open steppes?). Those same players have found it a lot more exhilirating to win the battle while playing as the Russians. Complaining that a scenario isn't balanced just sounds awfully whiny. I wonder if the Germans would have provided the Russians with a "do over" during the opening weeks of the war because the Soviet units weren't ready and it just wasn't fair.

[rune]

Guys,

Uedel isn't wrong for him. That is the type of game he enjoys, which is totally fine. However, understand that others like to play against the odds or historical scenarios or a real situation and see if they could do better. We all have different styles of play. I give him credit for not posting a score, knowing that he likes only a certain style of play.

Watson & Crick,

That is why I don't sweat the numbers. I read what is posted in the review. However, what exactly does a 7.6 do less then a 9.2? The numbers mean nothing....replayability for a scenario I think is a mistake. Why should a FICTIONAL battle be marked down for non-historical forces? There is just too much open for interpretation. An overall rating of a scenario does away with this. Either overall you liked it or didn't like it. 1-5 tanks or whatevers.

Don't worry...two more rune scenarios being worked on. Both small, so will be released soon...as soon as the testers are done with them.

Rune

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Master Dullard aka flyingcursor:

The designer made a big mistake because he replied to the reviewer with another review!!! He gave himself a rating of 0.0.

Zero ratings aren't counted- they don't affect anything.

Eden

[rune]

At one point they did, Admiral Keth fixed it.

Rune

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by -E:

I beg to differ. I think CMBB is a wargame, which is a bird of a much different feather.

Your comments are all valid if one accepts your premise that CMBB is indeed a (mere) game. Where they lose validity is when they are applied to a wargame.

(If I hadn't been up all night, I'd dig out an out of print book called "sorcerers and soldiers" which gives a nice overview of the history of wargaming... essentially it was developed to simulate, rather than to entertain)

Ah, but you'll never take the game out of wargame.

I really don't care what scenario one plays. I've been wargaming for three decades now and I know the value of exercises where we can learn from past military mistakes. A historical simulation is a great way to do it and my buddy in the Army does it all of the time.

As to a really-hard-to-win scenario, some folks like pain and frustration. To each their own, I guess.

I game to have fun. I have found that it is the only worthwhile reason. --Otherwise one can get too serious and things like arguments and fights happen as the gaming spills over into your regular life.

Ever not take your "game face" off after a game? Being married helps one to learn the foolishness about that sort of thing real fast.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by rune:

Don't worry...two more rune scenarios being worked on. Both small, so will be released soon...as soon as the testers are done with them.

Rune

rune was actually going to release a third scenario, but I talked him out of it. It was waaaaay too unbalanced. Besides, who wants to play a scenario based on the army-navy game...

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by rune:

Which is why I think the reviews need to be over-hauled. If the above poster had rated the scenario, it would have been done with a lot of BIAS. An opinion formed cause he didn't know how to handle tanks in the mud. It makes the ratings useless, and I see more and more scenario authors feeling the same way. So, I know Admiral Keth and Bigdog are open to suggestions. This isn't their fault, they are doing this community a service. However, I think we should get together, talk about what we think woukld be more helpful, and approach them on it. Hey, they will listen, even if the answer is no.

There will be bias one way or the other... and there should be to some extent. The advantage of a single score is that the reviewer can give his overall impression. That way, if a reviewer thinks a scenario really sucks he can give it a one... if he thinks it is really good, he can give it a 5. Currently, I see inflation or deflation of individual scores to achieve the desired overall score. This defeats the utility of the scoring system from a designer's point of view

What would be a really nice feature would be the ability to search for scenarios review by a specific reviewer. That way, If I find a reviewer that I usually agree with, I would be able to find the scenarios that he thought were good... thus increasing the probability that I would find a scenario I like.

[rune]

Any of us ex-Navy types perhaps?

Rune

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Uedel:

I didnt scored this scenario on any depot, but if i would do it the score sould be not high for sure. And for all other Scenarios delivered with the CD i got to say that most of them are "non-fun Scenarios" at least the ones i tryed to play vs a human opponent they are vastly disbalanced or with other strong hooks that make em frustrating and boring to play vs Human opponents.

And how would a single overall rating system stop that?

[Watson & Crick]

Rune,

I agree with you regarding limiting the reviewing categories. I know that a zero does not count towards the overall rating but I think a fair number of reviewers do not. I think a fair number of reviewers actually try to rate something they have not tried (eg. they played a scenario once against a human and then try to rate it against the AI). I seriously doubt that very many people play a scenario twice (unless they get there @SS kicked) as there are so many ones to choose from.

I am by no means knocking Admiral Keth et al. The Depot is a wonderful resource and I really admire all the work that goes into that site. I visit it often My personal opinion is there should be the following "categories" that have their own separate ratings and thus DO NOT get combined into an overall rating.

1) PBEM playability

2) AI playabilty

3) Fun

As before, a zero rating for a category is not counted. Alternatively, maybe there could be a "checkoff" for either PBEM or AI playability and then the rating would ONLY be applied to what was checked. There could be a separate comment field for each of these categories or just one.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by rune:

Any of us ex-Navy types perhaps?

Rune

shaddup squid

[PeterX]

Unless you emphasized this in the briefing, I can sort of see why the reviewer made his comments as he does not sound very "enlightened" to me (see below for more comments).

He's right, Rune. You would have saved yourself a lot of angst if you had signaled in he briefing that bogging *might* be a factor due to mud. It would have lessened the subsequent frustration factor.

Additionally, as several threads have attested, the bogging/flotation model in CMBB is a bit on the quirky side to put it mildly. Playing the scenario one wasn't certain whether one's problems were due to the designer, the game engine, or one's own mistakes. Also, if this is Mud, what in G*d's name is the effect of Heavy Mud? Definetly an area that BFC should revisit for 1.02.

A similiar omission spoiled the fun- for me, at any rate- of Dan Brown's 'Defense of Verkhne-Golubaye'; the German player was unable to bring his heavy weapons to bear in this battle due to setup niggles. Dan later clarified in a post that this simulated the actual dilemma facing the commander. Well, OK. Now you tell us.