Korsun Relief Scenario

[rune]

Well, if you look in the scenario, it in fact says Mud. Now, why should I have to say "Watch out for Mud". I put the ground conditions into the main briefing for a reason.

Ditto for Dan's scenario... why would you assume a researched scenario wasn't setup a way on purpose? I said earlier, and will say again, play a scenario with the defaults the first time through unless specified not to.

Spoiled the fun because it was a historical setup? Because it was a realistic terrain and problem? Try playing it and learning from it. Ask the author if you think it is a mistake, I reply to my emails. I even put in the briefing web hits where you can read about the battle. I don't do that for my health.

My bottom line, I am not going to insult the intelligence of the average player by holding his hand. Mud is mud, night is night. Most players get the point...

Rune

[WWB]

****************SPOILERS**************************

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I should add that I have caught some flak on 2 of the historical battles I did on the CD:

1) Balkovzy Surprise: there have been several comments about how the map is boring. Well, tell that to the guy who hand-drew the map of Balkvozy (you can find it in The Chronicle of 7 Kompanie, I.SS LAH). In fact, I spiced it up a bit for CM.

In any case, the map works very well for the battle from most accounts.

2) A Morning at the Zoo: I have seen several comments saying that it does not look much like a zoo. Try to make a zoo in CMBB. Anyhow, I could make it look much more like a Zoo than I could make it look like 8 story apartment blocks in downtown Kharkov.

3) Katukov Strikes Back: There have been several gripes about the padlocked units. Well, to this I say, read the briefings. The tanks on the hill had just retreated, and the units at the bottom of the hill I am certain where they were sited based on written accounts and the very good map I had in my possession.

Regarding the Depots ratings, I think there needs to be a significant adjustment. That said I do like the atomized system we have now to some extent. There definitely needs to be a "fun factor" rating and the replayability rating should be dropped entirely. It really does not apply, and in any case should not be weighted the same as far more important factors like map designes or playability. As for the whole balance issue, why not add separate 3 separate balance ratings: axis vs AI, allies vs AI and multiplayer. In any case, the current system is not an accurate measure.

[rant]

One comment on balance: I am willing to admit that no scenario can be perfectly balanced. I shoot for winnable from both sides in a PBEM game myself. But oftentimes one side might be a bit easier. If you want perfectly balanced make a mirrored map and buy a whole bunch of T34s/captured T34s and rifle squads and have a go at it. If you want real flavor, go for scenarios.

[/rant]

Before I go I should say that I thank Kieth tremendously for what he has put together. But like most massive, multiuser IT projects it takes a first build before you realize what is actually needed.

WWB

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by rune:

Ditto for Dan's scenario... why would you assume a researched scenario wasn't setup a way on purpose? I said earlier, and will say again, play a scenario with the defaults the first time through unless specified not to.

Er... he has a point. I had intended to include that in the briefing, but forgot to. My bad

[Watson & Crick]

Rune,

I understand what your saying and getting at. The issue that most reviewers do not understand or do not take into account is that you are attempting to do a HISTORICAL scenario. Unfortunately, if your historical scenario has all armor bogging (historically accurate), it happens in the scenario, and the player gets beaten badly, well they are not going to be happy; especially when they cannot use an asset that they *thought* they could count on.

As I see it, certain historical scenarios will lend to complaints-no matter what you say in the briefings. I think that there is only one of two possible outcomes. Either don't make the scenario or make it and ignore the b*tching and moaning (take pride in it ). I for one hope that you do the latter and not the former

As for the ratings, maybe historical scenarios should be rated in a separate category or not rated at all???

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by rune:

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[/QB]

Since mine is the only feedback posted on Korsun Relief, I'm certainly the one you're ire is directed against here.

Let me say right up front that I've played a number of your scenarios and enjoyed them. I certainly don't have anything but appreciation for the work that you and the other scenario designers on the CD and the Web put into your products. In fact, I designed a number of CMBO scenarios, posted them-- and never got a word of feedback. Made me vow that the least I could do for the guys who go to the trouble of creating and posting these things was to give them the courtesy of some feedback.

I realized that I was way behind in doing this for CMBB, had some down time last Sunday afternoon, and posted some reviews of scenarios that my main opponent and I had done double-blind PBEM. Speaking of assumptions... my main opponent and I have a combined total of ~70 years of wargaming, a like amount of time studying military history, and 50 years of "real world" experience between us. I'm not saying that we're any kind of experts, but at least we're "militarily mature" and not some kind of displaced twitch gamers.

I went back and looked at my comments. In hindsight, would I have worded things exactly the same way now? No, in part because yours was one of the last reviews I did in that catch-up session and I was probably rushing. But if you think I was so intemperate and ill-informed, I've got to tell you that my text was at least impartial enough that you didn't even guage my perspective correctly and instead chalked my whole commentary up to sour grapes. I was actually the Russian player in that game, didn't bog down in the mud, and won handily-- but that doesn't mean I can't call 'em like I see them, win, lose, or draw.

You did hit one of my hot buttons-- scenarios that are billed as "meeting engagements" but actually are straight up attack/defend situations (I don't see how you can describe this as anything but a German attack on a Russian Hasty Defense). I also stand by my comments about the pace of this particular scenario --20 turns of approach, a short and exciting climax,and an assymetry in force capabilities that definitively conditions game play. Did I ever say it was ahistorical? No, so I don't know where you got that rant from, nor the one about Teaching Scenarios.

For some of us a 30 turn scenario represents weeks to a month of real world game time commitment, depending on our schedules. We're not looking for perfect game balance or tactical nirvana (one of my rants is that "war isn't fair--get used to it!"), but OTOH if the first 20 turns (or two weeks worth of real life playing time for us) is so very slow as to amount to a protracted road march, that seems like a valid point to tell others up front. We're certainly not the only ones with constrained gaming time. Similarly if there seems to be only one viable approach for a given side to take, that seems valid to point out as well. You can disagree with my perspective, you can denigrate my opinion, you can dismiss me as uninformed or irrelevant. I don't really care. If you don't want feedback, far be it from me to give it to you. That's too much like what I have to do for a living, anyway.

It's ironic, though. Talk about the law of unintended consequences or "no good deed goes unpunished"... Despite my best intentions, guess I'll cross "give feedback to scenario designers" or "try to support Scenario Depot's reviews" off my 2003 New Year's resolution list. I've got better things to do.

Jim

[ASL Veteran]

I personally feel that replayability and balance are two of the most important factors. I want someone to say - wow, that rocked and I want to play it again. Kwazydog's old scenario from CMBO "All or Nothing" - now that was a great scenario. I played it at least six times PBEM and I never tired of it once.

I like the rating system at the depot as is. I think it accounts for all the factors that make a scenario successful. In my mind, you must strive to score well on all those marks - briefing included. A fun scenario with a weak briefing is exactly that - a fun scenario with a weak briefing and it should be scored accordingly. If replayability isn't a factor for a certain designer, then just ignore it when someone scores you low for it. However, to me replayability is the most important criteria since it tells you how much that gamer wants to play that scenario again. If he plays it once and decides to discard it - well that's a failure in my mind.

Admiral, don't change a thing!

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Iconoclast:

It's ironic, though. Talk about the law of unintended consequences or "no good deed goes unpunished"... Despite my best intentions, guess I'll cross "give feedback to scenario designers" or "try to support Scenario Depot's reviews" off my 2003 New Year's resolution list. I've got better things to do.

Jim

You don't have to stop giving reviews - just stick to positive ones or face a public blasting from the designer! :eek:

[laxx]

Hi,

These are my observations and comments on some of the CD games.

I have not played the scenarios by Rune which I am sure they are most excellent.

While I am not in favor of all balanced or fair games as these things doan happen in Real Life, I do appreciate making some of the fictional games easier to play for Newbies. Historical games should be as-is.

I sometimes think the creators create difficult scenarios to cater for the hardcore grognards. But forget about the many newbies that just started on CMBB.

A suggestion to Andreas' on his great scenarios: give more turns in the game. In Cemetery Hill and Totenkopf, 20-25 turns are not enuff as Germans, and Russians respectively.

As suggested earlier, I agree on changing the ratings system. I remember one of the review site has a metric on "whether the game is balanced", this should not be in the final score of the reviews.

umm... possible to have "Warning Sticker" on some of the more unbalanced but historically correct games ?

laxx

[ December 11, 2002, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

[You don't have to stop giving reviews - just stick to positive ones or face a public blasting from the designer! :eek: [/QB]

You're right-- and if that's the choice, it's pretty easy, eh?

It's ironic-- I wasn't posting a "this sux, wher'z the powerups?" blast, merely trying to make some comments that might help folks decide whether this particular scenario was their cup of tea. I favor scenarios with multiple solutions, consistent pace (i.e., some advancing to contact but not 75% of the scenario)... and that's about it. OK, so historical plausibility (no elite SS Tiger bn vs. the Guards JS-3 regiment) and fun are kinda' nice, too, but I didn't say that either were lacking in this scenario.

Think about it-- whenever you finish a scenario you implicitly have some kind of judgment about it (was it fun, was it balanced, would you play it again)-- my opponent and I certainly discuss these in our post mortems. Now that I've been revealed as some kind of knuckle-walking ingrate who probably can't even spell "CMBB", I guess I'll keep these comments to just my opponent and myself. Caveat Emptor, eh?!

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by laxx:

Historical games should be as-is.

In Cemetery Hill and Totenkopf, 20-25 turns are not enuff as Germans, and Russians respectively.

laxx

Agreed laxx, but the key point is, *when* do you start the "as is"? You could begin the scenario with the commanders getting their orders at headquarters, organizing the troops, and having one last latrine call before embarking on their vehicles. It all comes down to how much is relevant to what you want to simulate. In this case, I felt that Rune included a fair bit of what could be considered the approach to the FEBA; he obviously disagrees, which is his perogative. Doesn't mean I have to say "yeah, you're right-- I should enjoy exchanging a dozen PBEM turns of road column movement before the action begins?!" Some may like their games paced this way, others may not; I think it's a valid point to mention in a review as a possible factor in whether this scenario is one the reader would enjoy.

You've got a very good point on time limits. Many scenarios have limits that seem exceptionally short given the task at hand. This is exacerbated by the tendency in many scenarios to pit an attacker against a dug-in defender with little more than even point odds--certainly short of the 3:1 ratio 'the book' calls for against even a hasty defensive position. (You've hit another one of my hot buttons here. :mad: ) It can be done, but requires concentrating your own forces so much that you probably can't clear an entire company or battalion defensive line in 30-45 minutes. (And Rune, before you launch another tirade in my direction, I'm NOT critiquing any of your scenarios with this comment. Down boy! )

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by laxx:

While I am not in favor of all balanced or fair games as these things doan happen in Real Life, I do appreciate making some of the fictional games easier to play for Newbies. Historical games should be as-is.

As suggested earlier, I agree on changing the ratings system. I remember one of the review site has a metric on "whether the game is balanced", this should not be in the final score of the reviews.

umm... possible to have "Warning Sticker" on some of the more unbalanced but historically correct games ?

laxx

The balance issue is important if it is your intention to have a scenario played multi player. Balance is irrelevant if you intend your scenario to be played vs the AI. If you are planning to play a scenario PBEM or TCP/IP then balance is a critical factor for an enjoyable game. I think that perhaps some have the impression that scenarios are exclusively for teaching or 100% historical accuracy and that balanced games are the domain of the Quick Battle. I disagree and feel that there is a place for balanced scenarios that target the multi player audience as a scenario and a Quick Battle are different animals on several different levels. Teaching and balance are not mutually exclusive!

I have a PBEM partner who downloads scenarios from the web regularly .. I let him pick the scenario of his choice but I pick the side. Well he picked two CMBO scenarios once - "Hell's Highway" and another by Franko that I don't recall what the title was. Well, when he picked them I told him I wasn't sure I wanted to play those because I would crush him like an egg in both of them if I played as side x (German in Hell's Highway and American in the other). He insisted and I duly crushed him like an egg in both. Afterwards he would say "wow, I really didn't have a chance in that one did I?" and all I could do was say "Told ya so." I don't know what he got out of it, but I sure didn't get anything out of it (regardless of how historically accurate the scenario was).

[rune]

ASL Leader,

Bull****, I didn't publically blast anyone. I said if you aren't sure why something is a certain way, ASK before posting a review. It was suggested shortening the map and have the last 10 minutes. That would change the scenario dramtically. Would it show how units had to deal with the mud? Would it show the long range fight that did happen? Did anyone ask me why it was setup that way? Nope. I have had others who didn't like a scenario, fine, I am the first one to say people play different styles. I am saying replayability in a scenario is pure crap. People like Andreas, Berli, myself, wwb, Scott_b and other designers say the same. You are right, we are all wrong. Also no where did I say all scenarios have to teach, and you imply i think they should. Reading what I said, 1 of 60 battles teaches about mud. I have made near 100 battles, and many of them used in tourneys and for ip play. I make all sorts of battles, as there are multiple player types.

Jim R.,

No, the point is instead of assuming things, ASK. Did you think to send an email asking why the long approach, or did you just rate low without understanding why? Look at the quote. I have two sentences about the review. No where did I insult you. Not anywhere did I insult your opinion, I quite clearly say if you aren't sure about something ASK. My point is the rating system is not fair. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to ask you to ask before posting anything. Doesn't mean you have to, but I ask when I test someone's scenarios. As for your pet peeve about MEs, and it isn't...it was necessary to get the AI to act a certain way. Defensive and the units would have hung back and the fight would never develop. ME, and the AI is more aggressive, and against the AI is a necessity. Since that is the parameter, i put it in the briefing. Instead of getting peeved over it, asked and answered. Jim, keep rating the scenarios, i appreciate them. Go back and read what I posted...you read into them way too much.

Both,

You both assume the ahistorical and teaching comments were aimed at you. No where did i say that. "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" Pretty much speaks for itself.

Everyone else,

Apologies for being side tracked. I still feel, as do others, that the rating system needs an overhaul. Berli, wwb, myself have posted to that effect. ASL disagrees. It is the reason the thread was started, to get opinions from all sides. Let's try to get back on that subject.

Rune

[Iconoclast]

Rune and I continued this in a very civil discussion off-line; I'm posting some of my comments here. For the record, I know now that I was coming down with the flu last night, so I'm certain I wasn't as diplomatic in my posts as I might have been.

I've had some graduate training in statistics and have had to rate people's performance on the job for most of my career, so I absolutely agree with Rune that virtually any rating/scoring system is imperfect, especially when it involves assigning objective numbers to subjective value judgments. I'll also freely admit that I tend to "low ball" in assigning numbers (my goal is to make a real bell curve, not a Lake Woebegone-style one). I told Rune to be glad this was only a game scenario rather than an annual fitness-for-duty report with real money at stake.

Rune and I may perhaps have one remaining philosophical difference remaining, and hopefully this is one where we can just agree to disagree. On his request to ASK questions before REVIEWING, I'll note that I have corresponded with various scenario designers in my CMBO gaming days, and have done so on some CMBB ones as well, especially when I have issues I don't understand or think I see something to improve in that particular scenario.

A review for me is a qualitatively different kettle of fish, though -- I write it for the person coming at the scenario cold, who probably wants to know what to expect (in broad terms-- no real spoilers) in terms of big issues like pace and balance. If there are issues that require an individual dialogue with the scenario designer to understand, then you're venturing into an area that may be too subtle to expect your average player to fully appreciate without this extra context. By analogy, a movie critic may have gone to the UCLA film school and actually understand in a very sophisticated sense what the director was aiming for in terms of the cinematographer's art, but he's probably better off leaving this out of his review for Joe Popcorn moviegoer, who only wants to gauge whether he's likely to enjoy the two hours he'll spend in the theater. In this case, having spent time in military vehicles during Bosnian winters, I actually *knew* what Rune was trying to simulate in this scenario with the German setup. I just wanted to point out how it played out for us-- two very seasoned gamers/military grogs-- andy why it might or might not be what others are looking for, depending on their tastes. I then tried to capture the flavor of the scenario in my description without revealing spoilers. (The mud, after all, *was* mentioned in the scenario description, so I wasn't giving away state secrets by commenting on its impact.) Reading it again, my tone in the review may have sounded more contentious than I intended (and could even be mis-construed as whiny), but again, I was trying to crank out a string of capsule reviews before I lost the window of opportunity. (Unless I'm missing something, there's no way for a reviewer to edit his own posts on the Depot ratings-- once you start one you have to finish it or abort, even if the Real World is standing there tapping her foot and looking at her watch. )

I was in fact being facetious in suggesting that only the last 10 turns of Korsun Relief were relevant, but the bottom line is that two very

experienced gamers/military wonks both came away frustrated by separate issues in the scenario, and I felt that was worth noting. I think it occurred largely because Rune intended it as a teaching scenario, which wasn't what we were looking for. Would my have corresponding with Rune about this have changed our reaction to the scenario? No-- we'd already played it (and understood the lessons); I simply wanted to impart one guy's impression of it so others could take that into account in weighing whether it is what they're looking for in a scenario.

If you've stuck with me this long in the post, I'll throw out two quick ideas on how CM3 could address this issue. Give me a sanity check, guys!

One idea would be to segregate the scenarios further on the CM3 CD by some extra notation in the scenario listing about the emphasis of that particular scenario, with categories including "historical" (you may be facing a

massacre, but that's what happened), tutorial (I'd put Korsun Pocket in this category, BTW), balanced for AI/human play (OK, this is a loaded one-- we'd like to think virtually *all* of the scenarios are such, but through beta testing

the CM crew probably has a sense which fly particularly well as competitive games).

Sure, it's not going to be absolutely cut-and-dried to put a particular scenario in one bin, but at least you'd have a general idea of what *type* of scenario you were dealing with beyond the current parameters of size/type/combatants. If BFC went to a typology like that on the CD, I suspect it would be mirrored on the scenario web sites, and folks might be able to find the category of scenario they hanker for without needing to use any kind of pseudo-precise rating system which both Rune and I agree is imperfect and prone to specious precision.

The second idea would be to tweak CM3's scenario engine to allow for a fourth text file that would provide scope for an after-action commentary from the designer. This screen would display after the end-of-game summary. This would be a place for the scenario designer to say anything from "this is why I did X in the design" to "the Germans underestimated the force opposing them by over 100 percent, and while they took the secondary objective, the panzergrenadier battalion lost 400 men and most of its AFVs

in the ensuing bloodbath." I'm sure every designer has had times when he'd like to tell the players something, but didn't want to impart a spoiler by including it in the scenario description or Op Orders. To maximize replay, you could even have separate files for each side (to at least facilitate playing the scenario a second time from the other side without having received scenario design spoilers.)

Whaddya' think?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

However, to me replayability is the most important criteria since it tells you how much that gamer wants to play that scenario again. If he plays it once and decides to discard it - well that's a failure in my mind.

You are welcome to your opinion, but how would you design a scenario in which e.g. a very weak force holds off a strong force so that it can be replayed?

Or a scenario in which the timing and surprise of reinforcements entering has a serious effect on the battle?

Or a scenario in which both sides are roughly equal, but one side starts the fight very disorganised and needs a breathing space to organise itself?

Or a scenario in which a weak force has to attack a strong force?

I am sure I could think of more, but that is not that relevant. The point is that in any of these, once you have played it once, you can not play it again, because you know what is going to happen and you will plan for it. So to tell me that scenarios that I have designed to take some or all of the above into account, and create surprise for the players, are failures in your view is an interesting statement.

Well, I guess if your view is formed by ASL, it would explain why I think all ASL conversions I have played are ****e and a waste of my time. I usually thought they were badly converted, but it may just be that they are actually bad scenarios by design. Just shows how different tastes can be.

[Andreas]

While I am here, I am also of the opinion that a single rating on the depot, to be manually entered and not based on any average, would increase the usefulness of the feedback. YMMV.

With that said, it is really of no great concern to me at the moment, since I do not see myself designing any scenarios for public use in the foreseeable future. I have other, and more rewarding things to keep me busy, namely CMMC2.

I have been positively surprised by the amount of feedback on CD scenarios on the depot, which is probably a sign of how low my expectations are by now. I also think that in general the reviews are useful, and positive, which is nice. There is the occasional idiot, but I guess there is nothing that can be done about it.

Like Rune, I have always, and often at length responded to anyone sending me an email about my scenarios. I prefer that as a way of feedback, because it allows a dialogue that the Depot at the moment does not allow for CMBB scenarios. I guess that missing feature makes life a bit more difficult for us designers.

[rune]

Jim,

I won't be able to read your email reply til I get home, so apologies for not responding there first.

Without going into all the decisions on why things are like they are on the CD scenarios [and there are reasons], it would have been too much to bite off at one time. Heck, even the one line briefing on the main screen was a hot topic. With what we had we did what we could...but to me, tutorial means I am being walked through something. While the scenario is meant to teach a point, it would not be a tutorial under that definition. Let us say I had to work with that definition in mind.

As for point system, that still is a concern for new authors. Hey, mine are on the CD, but can anyone feel more low then getting a pan on the review of a scenario then a new author? I want to encourage new authors, BUT I still want players to have feedback and avoid the true dog scenario. However, everyone should remember what a dog is to you, will NOT be to another player. Oh, and by the way, where I work they DO review on a bell curve system, a system DROPPED by companies like Ford and others...but that is a subject for debate another time.

As I said, I respect other's opinions...I just wanted to point out here, that everyone has a natural bias. ASL stated two player scenarios have to be balanced. I disagree, and there is even a tourney where the scenarios are not balanced. However, they rate the scenarios by having each player play each side then comparing the scores against others in the same scenario. Does this mean ASL or the ladder doing this are wrong? Of course not! It just means each person looks at scenarios their own way...and hopefully if they didn't realize it, they do now.

As for asking about my purpose...that way it came across it never appeared that way. The point of the scenario was to use the road, and the problems that go with it. Yes, you can group fire, but that is the only way to do it without bogging down. The Russians can and should take potshots using their equipment and doing shoot and scoots. Other AT assets can stall the advance long enough to have artillery drop on the column, so the germans can't just lay back and plink. All tactical problems I hope some learned from..which you recognized. So, I still feel if you aren't sure on something on a scenario...ASK. It doesn't hurt...I learn and sometimes the other person learns. Bruno asked to do another pocket scenario with me, and we are comparing notes now...if he doesn't mind doing a scenario with an evil designer.

As for changes...for the CMII engine, I have already talked with the guys on some changes I would love to see for the scenario designer. The briefings in html so I could INCLUDE a map in the general briefing or maybe a screen shot of the map I created. Suggestions on terrain types which Charles already gave his OK to. [No, I won't say...rather keep you in suspense on what is next. ] The post AAR briefing I already asked for...as right now I have to put the historical outcome in the main screen briefing...and I do NOT include information like you said since I do not want to spoil it for the players. Another suggestion was reinforcement markers...for reinforcement #1, I can select 3 flags where they come in and give a % to each flag. 50% chance they show there, or 25% at the other two. Makes the games a little more random, and hopefully in CMII [which is the engine rewrite].

Just cause I have thought of some of these already, does not mean I know everything. So as not to flood the BFC crew, please feel free to send me suggestions for change. I can approach the guys when the time is right. Dont worry, i give credit where credit is due!

Last... I will fight for your ideas if I think them good. If I don't, then I will say so and you are free to push the point yourself. There is an internal joke on how stubborn and insistant I can be...ask the guys about German Rifle Grenades or the Spanich Blue Division. [These last comments are aimed for everyone, I just realized it wasn't clear]

Rune

[Cpt Kernow]

I think perhaps there is some over sensitivity here.

I was on my way to post a "bad" review for korsun relief but stopped off here first.

The reason why I was going to post a bad review is quite simple.

At the depot the scenario the scenario is recommended as first play Allies v AI.

Playing this scenario this way can not be the best waySpoilers.

The AI's armour got bogged down in the intial stages and only one panther had the mobility to make it to the main road flag.This was promptly dispatched and the game dragged out to close.

Having played this against the AI, I would not for several reasons allready pointed out above choose to play it PBEM.

Whatever the scenario designer had in mind when desiging this scenario dosnt change my opinion about that, it wont suddenly make me want to play it.

As far as I am concerned the scenario depot system works just fine. Imagine I had no prior experience of this game. I go to the scenario depot, I read the review, I choose not to play it PBEM. Result. I make an informed choice that mirrors my choice with prior knowledge of the game.However you cut it, that is proof of a system working.

I and I imagine the majority of my peers goto the scenario depot to choose what scenarios we want to play. Each person will have there own criteria about what scenarios they want to play. As long as the review help someone make an assesment about whether a given scenario meets these criteria everything is fine. The vast majority of games I have downloaded from the depot have met my criteria and the reviews have been fundamental to this process.

My review would go something like this. I dont want to post it as it may seem aggresive and I am only trying to engage in dialogue.

"Having seen what the designer had in mind when creating this scenario, I think this scenario achieves what he set out to do. The tactical lesson learned is important, principaly how to manouvre armour in mud, however I would not choose to play an PBEM game over severall months just to have this demonstrated to me."

[ December 11, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am sure I could think of more, but that is not that relevant. The point is that in any of these, once you have played it once, you can not play it again, because you know what is going to happen and you will plan for it. So to tell me that scenarios that I have designed to take some or all of the above into account, and create surprise for the players, are failures in your view is an interesting statement.

Obviously we have a 'difference of opinion' on the subject.

Well, I guess if your view is formed by ASL, it would explain why I think all ASL conversions I have played are ****e and a waste of my time. I usually thought they were badly converted, but it may just be that they are actually bad scenarios by design. Just shows how different tastes can be.

You're pathetic.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Andreas:

With that said, it is really of no great concern to me at the moment, since I do not see myself designing any scenarios for public use in the foreseeable future. I have other, and more rewarding things to keep me busy, namely CMMC2.

[rune]

Cpt,

I have no idea why that is posted on the depot...will have to send Admiral Keth a line about it. I never noticed that. The AI should usually be the defender. At no place anywhere have I ever stated it should be played as the Allies against the AI. So, my point, it would have been panned for an error, and my feedback would have helped.

Also, a 5 star system would still serve the same purpose. An overall rating at a glance is a lot more helpful and accurate then ratings getting 5s when they didn't test it that way. That would not have been changed.

And I like the idea of being able to review reviews by authors. If you find someone with your tastes, then you can read their reviews.

Rune

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

You're pathetic.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

With that said, it is really of no great concern to me at the moment, since I do not see myself designing any scenarios for public use in the foreseeable future. I have other, and more rewarding things to keep me busy, namely CMMC2.

</font>

[rune]

Wait...wasn't it just aimed at me that ok say good things unless you want to be panned by the designer...then someone doesn't like that design, and they are pathetic?

So Andreas doesn't like ASL conversions, not his style. Didn't I just say that players bring their opinions and bias' to reviews? He is just as entitled to his opinion, as Cpt and Jim are entitled to theirs.

Unbelievable...

Rune

[Andreas]

Obviously there is one rule for Mr. ASL Chap, and one rule for everybody else Rune. I would not bother too much about him or his opinions.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Andreas:

It's not that ASL scenarios are poor scenarios to begin with... they were never intended for play with FOW. Many were very well designed... for playing ASL