A Scenario Review

[groundpounder]

Being a quasi-scenario designer and having published a few scenarios, I keep a watch on the scenario ratings at CMHQ and comments made by players in the forums. The other day I happened to take notice of three scenarios posted at the CMHQ Scenario Depot that were "unrated". These scenarios were posted on or about November 12th 2000 and were still unrated? They also showed at least 40 downloads each. And still unrated?? Are these scenarios so bad that no one even feels compelled to vote for them? Having an inquiring mind and a penchant for alining myself with the under dog I had to see for myself.

Those three scenarios are:

1. "712th at Pfaffenheck" by Harry Yeide

2. "Ride of the Valkyries, act 1" by Tommy Nilsson

3. "Sandig's SS Counter-Attack at Poirer" by Stephen "Spook" Cleary

Having interests other than CM I don't get to play as often as I would like, so I have only played one of these scenarios to date. When I get time I'll play the other two and report on those. Or maybe someone else would like to give their impressions on these other scenarios.

Its hard to tell much about a scenario without spooling it for others, so I will limit my impressions to the following.

1. Map quality (is it believable) 1- 5

2. Game play (does the action flow or are there long periods of boredom) 1 -5

3. Pucker Factor (the most important as far as I am concerned. This is the degree to which you sphincter tightens up due to unexpected and life threatening events. Like when a King Tiger shows up on the flank of your platoon of Shermans at 250m!). 1-5

4. Briefings ( are there any, are they detailed, well researched (historical) any creative twists). 1-5

Here are my impressions of "712th at Pfaffenheck" by Harry Yeide.

Played as Allies against the 1.1b24 AI, default settings.

This is an American Infantry Company w armor attack against a company of SS Panzer Grenadiers.

1. Map Quality = 3

At first I was unimpressed my the map. Lots of wide open spaces with a small village, very few scattered trees and one whole side was "Tall Pines". The apparent approach was one paved road. On closer scrutiny (at camera level 1), the map offered some interesting approaches to the objectives. There were nice subtleties in the map also.

2. Game Play = 4.5

Never a dull moment and the action was non stop! Good Job! For the reckless player this could go to a 5!

3. Pucker Factor = 4.5

This one had me puckered up reeeeeeal tight! I kept getting it, but could not tell where it was coming from! Many surprises. Can't say more without spoiling it for you.

4.Briefings = 2

This was the only real drawback to the scenario. The briefings were very short with just the minimum of detail. Much more could have been done here to draw the player into the situation. But if you the kind of player that just wants to get right into the action and doesn't care about briefings then this is not a detractor. So if you disregard the briefings then the over all score would have been a 4.0

Over all score = 3.5

One other factor that I find meaningful about a scenario is the CPU loading. This scenario unit level and map size is such that it can be played on the slower CPU's. It would play well on a 300Mhz or there abouts I suppose.

This would also make for a good double blind PBEM/TCP.

But hey, who am I to judge??? Try it for yourself and VOTE at CMHQ!!!

Oh, and BTW, when you look at CMHQ Scenario you will see that "712th at Pfaffenheck" is no longer "unrated". Seems someone voted on it.

gp

"After you have secured the area, don't forget to tell the enemy."

[This message has been edited by groundpounder (edited 01-06-2001).]

[Manx]

If you ever fancy a "job" reviewing user-made scenarios, give me a shout.

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

COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK

[David Stone]

groundpunder,

I agree. And I am guilty. I think NOT NEARLY enough people voice their opinions on scenarios.

Yes, we are all caught in our little cirlces playing those we know, but taking a few seconds TO JUST VOTE would be nice.

I mean, at least this yields some "public" knowledge of a scenario's worth......

Stoner

PS- I'm guilty because I don't follow my own advice here.

[groundpounder]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone:

groundpunder,

I agree. And I am guilty. I think NOT NEARLY enough people voice their opinions on scenarios.

Yes, we are all caught in our little cirlces playing those we know, but taking a few seconds TO JUST VOTE would be nice.

I mean, at least this yields some "public" knowledge of a scenario's worth......

Stoner

PS- I'm guilty because I don't follow my own advice here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

It is easy to get caught up in playing CM. I does however take just a moment to vote when you get on the CMHQ Depot. On the other hand the Depot can be sloooooooooow sometimes (sorry MadMatt but it does drag sometimes). Its just that there are getting to be so many scenarios out there, we should help each other by at least highlighting the ones that we have found to be good.

Some folks will argue that the Depot ratings are not meaningful because you can vote more than once. But if a scenario designer votes his or her scenario as a 5 and a lot of people down load and play it and it sucks. They should be on the depot voting the sucker into the ground. Personally I want to be told if one of my scenarios sucks , but tell me WHY its sucks so I can fix it. So as far as constructive feedback, the CMHQ Depot is lacking. That is why I post my thoughts here.

Any kind of feedback is good, at least then the scenario designers know that someone is playing their scenarios.

BTW, I did notice that there is a more recent version of "Sandig's SS Counter-Attack at Poirer" by Stephen "Spook" Cleary that was voted as a 4 star.

gp

[Loki]

I don't understand why people don't vote on scenario's.I have designed a few that have been down loaded several hundred times, yet there are about 10 votes on them.

I never once had any feed back on one if someone thought a scenario was good or not.Hence I might make good ones, or I may make pieces of krap just because no one wants to give me feed back on what they like in a scenario.

I geuss the bottom line is, if you like ****ty scenario's then shut up.If you want good ones then speak up by rating them and giving input to the author.

[David Stone]

Loki & groundpounder,

I just enjoy tweaking scenarios until they feel right. I have whined about the LACK of feedback (a couple times) before. And got only "harpies."

Give me some scenario names, and where to find them, and I'll go "test" the waters to see their worth...

Yes, I've glanced at a coupple of groundpounders but don't know Lokis?

Stoner

[Loki]

Thank you Stone

You can find 2 of my old ones from last summer at The Combat Mission HQ at thegamers.net.

I'm sure you've been there hundreds of times just like the rest of us.The ones there are Once Across the Rhine, and Scouting a Crossing.

I also have 3 new ones that I haven't posted yet if your interested in trying those just e-mail me.

[groundpounder]

Loki,

I suppose it is up to use to give each other feedback. I have done this for many scenario designers in private by play testing for them. I'll give "Once across the Rhine" a try tonight and let you know if it is good or a piece of crap!

David,

I'll also run "Tanks in the Street" when the 1.1 clears at the Depot.

One of my scenarios that I have never gotten feedback on (except comments on the map by people that have just viewed it) is 'Hell on Horseshoe Hill". This was a very experimental map that attempted to solve the problem of the AI struggling with river crossings by using multiple spans. In my play testing it worked about 50% of the time. I think the huge size of the map scarred most players off. I would love to here any comments on this one, good or bad.

gp

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone:

Loki & groundpounder,

I just enjoy tweaking scenarios until they feel right. I have whined about the LACK of feedback (a couple times) before. And got only "harpies."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not a mystery why the scenarios are not rated as much.

First of all, users go to the depot with the goal of downloading, not rating. So the rating must be made easy and quick, which it is not.

The interface and time required make it very hard for the average user to rate a scenario.

There is no button that lets a user rate a given scenario. Once has to click on the stars to do so, which is not immediately clear.

Also, since the interface is so slow, the user --even the user on a T1, like me is not encouraged to search for an scenario and rate it.

A possible solution would be actually have a rate button on the site somewhere, instead of relying on then to read the small line of type. Another ideaL have users put their email address in when they download.

Then, a week after they dl the scenario, they get an automatic, one time email saying: Hi. you downloaded xyz scenario a week ago. Please click here to rate it, then they go to the page.

On that page would be a rate scenario interface, a place to email the designer, and a place to forward the scenario dl link to your buddies.

[groundpounder]

Terence,

Great suggestion! Let me know when you have the rating system up and running.

Just kidding.

gp

[David Stone]

Hey Loki,

I played 'Scouting a Crossing' and emailed you a critique... (?)

However, what is your email address? The one in your CM profile stuff may be wrong?

Stoner

PS-- somebody, please, tell me how bad "Tanks in the Street" sucks !!

[groundpounder]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone:

Hey Loki,

I played 'Scouting a Crossing' and emailed you a critique... (?)

However, what is your email address? The one in your CM profile stuff may be wrong?

Stoner

PS-- somebody, please, tell me how bad "Tanks in the Street" sucks !!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

I'm in the process of playing Loki's "Once Across the Rhine". Once I get throught that I'll give "Tanks in the Street" a try and let you know how much it sucks .

gp

[groundpounder]

Hey Loki,

I'm done playing "Once Across the Rhine". Do you want the feedback in private or do you want to take your chances in public??

gp

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by groundpounder:

Terence,

Great suggestion! Let me know when you have the rating system up and running.

Just kidding.

gp<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an IA, I work with designers and programmers to design web interfaces, website strategy and functionality.

If any of the guys at CMHQ wanted me to work on the interface or work up some documentation, I'd be happy to.

[Harold]

ASL or Advanced Squad Leader has a website dedicated to rating the win/loss percentage of a scenario. Of course it requires a webmaster to put the scenario info in but simply requires the user to fill out the fields. Here is the website for anyone interested in attempting something for CM. http://www.netreach.net/~jrv/web/roar/Record.html

[groundpounder]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence:

As an IA, I work with designers and programmers to design web interfaces, website strategy and functionality.

If any of the guys at CMHQ wanted me to work on the interface or work up some documentation, I'd be happy to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey MadMatt,

You've got a volunteer here!

gp

[This message has been edited by groundpounder (edited 01-10-2001).]

[groundpounder]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone:

Hey Loki,

I played 'Scouting a Crossing' and emailed you a critique... (?)

However, what is your email address? The one in your CM profile stuff may be wrong?

Stoner

PS-- somebody, please, tell me how bad "Tanks in the Street" sucks !!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

I'm half way through "Tanks in the Street". It's playing out real well as the Allies. Good pucker factor. I'm sending you a pic of turn 9.

BTW, do realize what the first letter of each word in the title spells? I just realized it when saving the pic!

gp

[Loki]

David Stone and Groundpounder

Thanks for trying them guys. Feel free to post comments here. I can take the tomato's being thrown in my direction along with the boo's.

I downloaded "Tanks in the Street" and will be trying that and "Hell on Horseshoe Hill" soon. Would you guys like feed back here or through mail? As for my address, I check vidar2992 everyday, and loki_loki a few times a week, so feel free to use either.

[David Stone]

Loki,

Check your "vidar" email addy. I sent you a critique from work yesterday.

[groundpounder]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki:

David Stone and Groundpounder

I downloaded "Tanks in the Street" and will be trying that and "Hell on Horseshoe Hill" soon. Would you guys like feed back here or through mail? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Loki,

I would prefer you post feed back on my scenario here so everyone can benefit from my mistakes and learn what to do and not to do when constructing a scenario. Just try not to include spoilers as much as possible. Later today I'll try and post my comments on "Once Across the Rhine", gotta go to work now.

Thanks,

gp

[Loki]

I just finished Tanks In the Streets.

I played as the Axis and recieved a major victory. This looks like it may best be played as the Allies. Only 2 Americans were OK after the battle. I will try as the Allies and let you know how it goes. I am also going to e-mail you some details so I won't spoil it for others.

Overall I enjoyed it. I had to make some interesting tactical decisions in it. The map was well done and the scenario interesting. I voted 3 stars vs human and 4 vs computer.

I played on the 1.1 exe and the AI is inproved IMO. Buildings also seem to get leveled more often, that really helped in this battle.

[groundpounder]

Loki,

I played "Once Across the Rhine" as the Allies. Sorry for the delay in posting, I had an unexpected bussiness trip. I achieved an Allied total victory, but took a fair amount casualties. The map is a bit rough and steep in some areas, however it made for excellent game play and pucker factor! The Axis sometimes appeared at very close range unexpectedly. The Axis had a diverse mix of units that would have made for some interesting tactics had I played as the Germans. The 1.1 AI did pretty well IMHO. This scenario would be great as a double blind PBEM/TCP as it appears to be well balanced. I enjoyed playing this one a lot and will play it again as the Axis (on free to place, ofcourse). The only constructive critisism I would give is to smooth the map a little, but then again I am the most critical on maps. Thanks for a great scenario.

Well done!

gp

[groundpounder]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone:

PS-- somebody, please, tell me how bad "Tanks in the Street" sucks !!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

I am half way through "Tanks in the Street" as the Allies, so far I would not change a thing, except to recommend that the scenario only be played as Allies. This is one of the highest pucker factor scenarios when played as the Americans! I'll email you with the final results (provided I live through it). God, I wish I had some Arty!

gp

[Loki]

Just finished "Tanks in the Street" as the Allies. I think it is a better game with the Allies. I scored a major victory, but it was a closer game than as the Germans.

The map made for some close fighting.The only thing I might change would be to add a few turns to see if the Americans could hold out longer. Other than that its pretty good.

Like groundpounder said, it does have a good pucker factor involved. I wish I had played as the Allies 1st, but thats hind site.

Thanks for the feedback groundpounder. Once Across the Rhine was designed to be a good 2 player game. I had to make the map rough in a few area's to keep the LOS down and provide those suprise encounters in it.I found that AI played aggressively in this one and didn't want to change a thing.

[David Stone]

Loki & Groundpounder,

Thanks for the comments! I need to work on map a little, and try to get play balance against the AI "acceptable."

Time to tweak it some more.