Atlas' scenario design discussion.

[Atlas_TH]

I've noticed on the player v. player message boards that the games are most often QBs, which got me to wondering: what are we doing wrong? I think players want more control that we can give them. They want their units, their time-line,...their game.

I think eventually most of us will be making maps, not scenarios, b/c this is what the players will need to plug in to their QBs. Already, some of you are designing with this in mind.

That said, I'd like to get a consensus on how we can compete with such a trend. How do we make our scenarios better?

I've hit some of the chat rooms, talked to some friends and considered my own opinion and here are a few design issues that may subtract from the scenario and frustrate the gamer.

*=I've done this before.

1) Reinforcement areas that are under enemy view. Uggh! There are more than a few scenarios on the CM:BB disk in which troops and equipment "show up" in the middle of the battle. Unless chaos is the intent (chaos=less player control), give reinforcements room to move.

2) Tanks (or bog prone units) that arrive as reinforcements in boggy terrain during wet weather when there are roads available. If I can't keep the tanks from bogging after 100m, how did they get in the middle of those shattered trees in the first place? (In one CMBB disk scenario, I gathered all my troops to protect a road access and the main battle tanks arrived on the other side of the board in wet scattered trees, which brings me to another pet peeve...)

3)* If reinforcement show up in strange places, make sure the briefing says such an arrival may be a possibility, otherwise the players will assume they show up on a road or staging area in the rear - an area that is usually not under enemy observation nor likely to make your vehicles bog - and plan accordingly.

4)* In attacks and, especially, assaults, why have reinforcements come piecemeal? From my research, attacks would wait for every available asset. I know everyone wants to include "reserves", but reserves can be held back by the players themselves on the map and do not need the designer's guiding hand. Unless there is good (historical or rational)reason, start the scenario with troops ready to rumble.

5)* Try to stay away from padlocking defensive units when making a Player v. Player scenario. Some of the best designers do this sometime and it diminishes player control and enjoyment! There is one scenario on the CD that padlocks a 88mm gun (the key to the whole scenario), but lets you move two others around. Why? Players want to be creative in defense. Let them.

6)* Timing! This is an issue that gets little play, but I gnaws at many players. Why does every battle have to be over in thirty five turns (minutes)? Some battles are pressed for time, I can understand, but too many want you to rush your troops around without proper recon. What is the rush, especially with Player v. Player scenarios? I just reviewed a scenaro ("Greyhounds...") where the author designated 50 turns in a not-too-big scenario. I did a double take, was going to say something, but then it dawned on me, "Why not?" Give more rather than less time, unless you need to balance things out, but really you should balance things out with the map and the troop allocation.

Any comments, contributions, flames? I'd like to read what you think and what you have heard from players.

-Atlas

[ October 13, 2002, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Atlas_TH ]

[Warlord69]

Agree with you on most points, except some special scenarios.

I think the new big thing should be operations. Even a short one like 2 15 turn battles would be pretty cool. Yes I do think we need a bunch of good QB maps we can use for head to head. But operations have been refined by BTS to the point where I think operations could become the dominate form of head to head battles.

[Peterk]

I think part of the problem with scenarios is the designer set up for both sides. When you load up a scanario and the pieces are all set-up already and it "looks" OK, a lot of times you won't bother seeing if you can do something better.

Contrast this with playing a scenario in ASL where the counters are dumped onto the table and players are forced to do their own set-ups. An ASL'er I used to play with once told me that the set up was often 50-80% of the game.

I often wish there was a way to load up a scenario in such a way that my pieces were not placed in the defualt locations and rather in a blob at the bottom of the screen - like they do in a quick battle.

[Andreas]

Well, it is thread's like this one that make me wonder why I should bother at all... Another issue is the lack of people reviewing scenarios on the depot - I still find it frustrating, and I have probably received more feedback than many other designers.

Having said that, I also agree that operations are the way to go in CMBB. They are the only real way to add value, I think. Unfortunately they also take a long time to produce, and the outcomes are much less assured than they are with scenarios. Which means that my output at least will be far less than it used to be.

The quick battle function, combined with rarity and automated purchases gives you quite nice realistic games, and you do not deliver yourself into the hands of a designer for the outcome of a competitive game.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Atlas_TH:

4)* In attacks and, especially, assaults, why have reinforcements come piecemeal? From my research, attacks would wait for every available asset. I know everyone wants to include "reserves", but reserves can be held back by the players themselves on the map and do not need the designer's guiding hand. Unless there is good (historical or rational)reason, start the scenario with troops ready to rumble.

...

6)* Timing! This is an issue that gets little play, but I gnaws at many players. Why does every battle have to be over in thirty five turns (minutes)? Some battles are pressed for time, I can understand, but too many want you to rush your troops around without proper recon. What is the rush, especially with Player v. Player scenarios? I just reviewed a scenaro ("Greyhounds...") where the author designated 50 turns in a not-too-big scenario. I did a double take, was going to say something, but then it dawned on me, "Why not?" Give more rather than less time, unless you need to balance things out, but really you should balance things out with the map and the troop allocation.

You make some good points, and I tend to agree with most of them. Since 4. and (especially) 6. seem to reference me directly, I'll restrict my comments to those two areas:

4. There was really no reason I set half the German forces to enter as reinforcements (on turns 2 and 3), other than I felt like using that particular feature of the Editor. On the other hand, having them start on the map wouldn't really change the German player's set-up, so I went with it. IMHO, it adds a small element of tension to the scenario --- especially the random entry of the Tiger platoon.

6. I started out with 25+ turns and play-tested (thanks JonS!) my way up from there. Basically, I realized that, A) CMBB requires a much more cautious advance then CMBO did, the AI takes a lot more time to attack then a human does, and C) why the hell not? As you pointed out, most games go for the 30min-or-less rule. "Greyhounds..." is set on a long map, and I wanted to give players the time to not only advance, but to mop-up if they so desire.

PS: By the way, thanks for the review at the Scenario Depot!

[ October 13, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[WWB]

I pretty much agree with you here, but I do have some comments.

1) I agree with you here, but it is hard to avoid on smaller without creating artificial constructions. I do try and avoid this, but sometimes players do things that designers dont expect.

5) I think I did the battle in question. It was padlocked for very good reason: I knew exactly where that gun was deployed historically. And I had a 1:50k map of the area allowing me to recreate the terrain very accurately so it dovetailed nicely.

6) I did a little "market research" once. Players in general prefer battles in the 25-35 turn range of medium size. So I try and keep it within the preferred range.

Warlord: See Dergratshci Roadblock for that style of "quick" operation. Very good vs. a live opponent.

I second what andreas said. If people dont like something, or think something is awesome REVIEW THE BATTLE. It is the only way, aside from sending notes to the designer (all my battles have my email addy in the briefing) that we can know what we did right/wrong outside the optionions of our playtesters.

WWB

[Bigdog]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Well, it is thread's like this one that make me wonder why I should bother at all... Another issue is the lack of people reviewing scenarios on the depot - I still find it frustrating, and I have probably received more feedback than many other designers.

Having said that, I also agree that operations are the way to go in CMBB. They are the only real way to add value, I think. Unfortunately they also

take a long time to produce, and the outcomes are much less assured than they are with scenarios. Which means that my output at least will be far less than it used to be.

The quick battle function, combined with rarity and automated purchases gives you quite nice realistic games, and you do not deliver yourself into the hands of a designer for the outcome of a competitive game.

Ohh you met Jim, he sure has ideas of what he likes

[Atlas_TH]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I pretty much agree with you here, but I do have some comments.

5) I think I did the battle in question. It was padlocked for very good reason: I knew exactly where that gun was deployed historically. And I had a 1:50k map of the area allowing me to recreate the terrain very accurately so it dovetailed nicely.

6) I did a little "market research" once. Players in general prefer battles in the 25-35 turn range of medium size. So I try and keep it within the preferred range.

WWB

wwb_99:

5) Yes, that is the scenario I was writing about. You had good reason for the padlock, so yours was not the best example. Still, I've done the same thing in my designs, only to have players tell me THEY want control, not history. Oh well.

(BTW: I loved that scenario.)

6) I know there is very good reason people want games to be over in a certain period, I do. But in PVP games, which are the games that keep CM:BB addictive, do we really need time limitations, especially on attack/assault? Just a thought.

In general, I agree that the lack of player reviews hurts our incentive to pump out good scenarios. It absolutely stinks when you invest 40, 50, 60 hours or more preparing a scenario, it is downloaded a trillion times and you only get one or two reviews (one of which is always from a novice player who got trounced and wants to blame you.)

Do we need a new review system? Should the Scenario Depot require that for every scenario a designers submits, he/(she?) must review 5 scenarios (non-friends, ones with fewer reviews...) What should we do?

[Atlas_TH]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

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

4)* In attacks and, especially, assaults, why have reinforcements come piecemeal? From my research, attacks would wait for every available asset. I know everyone wants to include "reserves", but reserves can be held back by the players themselves on the map and do not need the designer's guiding hand. Unless there is good (historical or rational)reason, start the scenario with troops ready to rumble.

...

6)* Timing! This is an issue that gets little play, but I gnaws at many players. Why does every battle have to be over in thirty five turns (minutes)? Some battles are pressed for time, I can understand, but too many want you to rush your troops around without proper recon. What is the rush, especially with Player v. Player scenarios? I just reviewed a scenaro ("Greyhounds...") where the author designated 50 turns in a not-too-big scenario. I did a double take, was going to say something, but then it dawned on me, "Why not?" Give more rather than less time, unless you need to balance things out, but really you should balance things out with the map and the troop allocation.

You make some good points, and I tend to agree with most of them. Since 4. and (especially) 6. seem to reference me directly, I'll restrict my comments to those two areas:

4. There was really no reason I set half the German forces to enter as reinforcements (on turns 2 and 3), other than I felt like using that particular feature of the Editor. On the other hand, having them start on the map wouldn't really change the German player's set-up, so I went with it. IMHO, it adds a small element of tension to the scenario --- especially the random entry of the Tiger platoon.

6. I started out with 25+ turns and play-tested (thanks JonS!) my way up from there. Basically, I realized that, A) CMBB requires a much more cautious advance then CMBO did, the AI takes a lot more time to attack then a human does, and C) why the hell not? As you pointed out, most games go for the 30min-or-less rule. "Greyhounds..." is set on a long map, and I wanted to give players the time to not only advance, but to mop-up if they so desire.

PS: By the way, thanks for the review at the Scenario Depot!</font>

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Atlas_TH:

In general, I agree that the lack of player reviews hurts our incentive to pump out good scenarios. It absolutely stinks when you invest 40, 50, 60 hours or more preparing a scenario[...]

OK OK OK OK!!!

You're talking to me! This is the fifth time I've seen someone lament the lack of reviews, so I guess I should speak up.

I've downloaded two scenarios, and I haven't reviewed either, but BEFORE I get all your fury karma let me tell you a couple things; it might help.

The other day I downloaded and played something like "SLb Hill 261" or some ridiculous name like that; you might recognize it. It was late at night, I shouldn't have started a game, but I was curious to try a scenario designed by someone. ANY scenario, you know. I saw a thread where this one was mentioned, and it was not too big looking, so... OK.

So I played. I died. Oops. It was fun, but I could have done better- a screw up here, a goof up there... OH Yeah- and a halftrack with a towed gun on it, that really threw me for a loop. I didn't know HOW to deliver that thing to an already ensuing battle; what, backup all the way there??? I think I might even have had some Arty which I completely failed to drop. Anywhow.

So afterwards I didn't review it, and y'all think it's because nobody loves you. But in my case, at least, neither laziness nor ingratitude is among the reasons I did not jot down a few sentences about this scenario. Rather:

#1) As a newbie, I don't really feel *qualified* to review this scenario.

Half of these units... ISBXS-2 (late), PanzerChickenWaffleWagen... I don't know what in the God's Earth these things *are*, do you know what I'm saying!?!? So I got my buttocks kicked in this scenario- what does THAT prove? Not much really. That said, how could you expect me to comment on the "balance" of the scenario? Extrapolate what I'm saying here, ok? Sure, I had fun, and I even liked the scenario *as such*, but a "review" is implicitly a critique which presents how one feels about that scenario when *compared* to others... At a minimum, my point #1 is that newbies will rightfully consider themselves handicapped in having something meaningful to say...

#2) Spoiling

Among the few things I *could* say about this scenario, (maybe most others), about which I might have some confidence that others would find my opinion interesting, I think most if not all of them would be spoiling to the scenario. Well...

The expression, "What can I say?" comes to mind.

So far, putting #1 and #2 together, that leaves me with a review which could be summed up "It was fun". Seriously now, it would take a brave man or a dumbass to post a review which says only "It was fun".

Let's move on to the next one. I downloaded something called "Haunted Hill", I think. Big ol' cemetery held by Soviet Inf. Ah yes, now that was a really tasty little snack. If I may say so, (try and stop me), I executed the most deliciously sweet and sour textbook example of, well, of how to take a cemetery held by Soviet Inf.

In the other forum, we have the topic about CMBB Inf being too Pinnable or Routable... Well, for the majority of the battle, I was duly quite cautious and advanced with heavy cover and very slowly. Right towards the end though, when a human opponent would probably accuse me of flag-rushing, I decided some rushing was in order.

But instead of being blown to bits, as I almost expected, it really *was* the right time to rush, and the enemy was crumbling. So, if you follow me, it was a very satisfying victory- the kind where you fight fight fight and it's not clear how it's going to turn out, then just barely you manage to snatch victory from the gaping maw of defeat. Anyhow.

CMBB, as usual, decided the battle was over when I needed almost exactly 90 more seconds to completely sanitize the entire flag region. But because CMBB is perverse that way, I know that I timed myself exactly correctly.

So. Finally, point being that I could certainly say, well, what I just said above, mostly. And certainly that I found it exquisitely balanced, yadda yadda. But I didn't review this one either:

#3) Wherever the heck I got this one from...

#4) ...it didn't seem to want a review, at least nowhere that I noticed.

As to #3, I don't have my newly acquired CMBB http bookmarks organized yet, but I know they represent a good half dozen or more of CM sites, CMBB sites, just wargame in general sites which have *some* CMBB scenarios tucked deep in a hierarchy... I can honestly tell you I haven't the SLIGHTEST d*mn clue where I got this particular scenario. It might even be from one of the plethora of links on the CMBB forum for which I don't *have* a bookmark. Who knows?!?

As to #4, well I guess that's self-explanatory, n'est-ce pas?

For 1 and 2, I'm not sure what I can tell ya. For 3 and 4, maybe I can help... in just a second.

Should the Scenario Depot require that for every scenario a designers submits, he/(she?) must review 5 scenarios (non-friends, ones with fewer reviews...)

Even just from the perspective of game theory, (no pun), that is an absolutely dreadful idea.

What should we do?

Now you're *really* asking for it!!

These might be tough to implement, but maybe they would help. The bomb is in your court.

For #3 and #4, maybe you guys could all get together and make one official central link website database thingie for all these scenarios. Even if they're hosted in a bazillion different places, at least have one d*mn site which points to them all, is well organized, has a nice little review thingie, let's the user view them in different arrangements, (by newest, by medium, by Allied vs AI, you know). Well dang that would help I think. The way it is now... Yuk.

One more toughie: pressure BTS to provide programmer "hooks" in the scenarios. The one relevant for this topic would be the "review link"- if some particular string is present as a resource in the file, (sorry, I'm sorta speaking from a Macintosh standpoint now), then the "Review This Scenario" button appears and is active in the briefing window. User clicks button, user goes to review form based on whatever link was stored as a resource string. That really would require very very little in the way of coding, but, you know, BTS might have other things they want to do...

Hth,

Eden

[ October 14, 2002, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

[SurlyBen]

For #3 and #4, maybe you guys could all get together and make one official central link website database thingie for all these scenarios. Even if they're hosted in a bazillion different places, at least have one d*mn site which points to them all, is well organized, has a nice little review thingie, let's the user view them in different arrangements, (by newest, by medium, by Allied vs AI, you know). Well dang that would help I think. The way it is now... Yuk.

Eden, this is the idea behind The Scenario Depot:

http://ns9.super-hosts.com/~dragonlair.net/combatmission/

It might not be the easiest site to use (I find the new buttons baffling... It took me forever to realize that the text for each button is in the headline, and changes on mouseover... Alt text would be helpful), and it pretty much just lists the scenarios alphabetically, but it does attempt to list all the scenarios out there. Haunted Hill is listed, for example (and unreviewed)

Ben

[Atlas_TH]

Eden,

SurlyBen is right, the Scenario Depot is your place. I have to admit, though, you make some very good points about reviewing a scenario (vis-a-vis "expertise" and "spoiling") and damn funny post.

I agree that designer's reviewing other designer's scenarios can be problematic, if not downright incestuous. Designers - especially ones in the same group - may choose to grade upward to ensure others do likewise for them. A good reason to only grade designs of people you do not know, which is tough in such a small community.

[WWB]

1) There is a new, well hidden search in the depot. Click on the battles selection and there are 2 links--list all buttons and search battles.

2) We at B&T have a policy of NOT reviewing B&T battles. There is an AAR section if one wants to post something.

3) To answer your length quesiton, the group I asked (Band of Brothers, I will try and pull up links to the polls) was basically concerned with multiplayer battles. The pitfall with making 60 turn battles is you end up with 20+ turns of boredom before the shooting starts. I know I dont like to sit there for 20 turns waiting for something to happen. I try and setup scenarios such that there will be shooting by turn 3, but that is me.

With the editor, one can give away the recon game, as well as start some parts of the force close enough to avoid approach marches in most cases.

Also, I would like to point out that the CD battles are up at the depot, so please go review them.

WWB

[Dook]

As someone who recently posted his first scenario at the Depot and has received only one review despite 200+ downloads (and that from a beta tester!), I have read this thread with interest.

I agree with most of Atlas TH's initial points, especially putting reinforcements in plain view of the enemy. I have less of a problem with piece-mealing reinforcements on a limited basis. Sometimes, it is meant to simulate reinforcements from different areas that simply arrive at different times. If the designer goes overboard, however, I agree that it can be like Chinese water torture-very annoying. Like the respondents to WWB's market research, I prefer battles that are 25-35 turns long, so that is what I try to make, although I do try to make sure the time alloted suits the battle. If players want total control, however, they can play Quick Battles or, better yet, design their own scenarios. I play scenarios because, when done right, they increase the historical immersion and are more challenging than quick battles.

Eden's explanation of why so few scenarios are reviewed was particularly interesting. The Depot is obviously not getting enough publicity. The idea of putting a link to the scenario reviews into the actual game is a great idea, but I have no idea whether it is easy, hard, or impossible. Even without such programming, could BFC and the major CM sites do more to promote the Depot and reviews? Some sites, like B&T and Der Kessel, already promote it heavily, but you can never have too much publicity. Increasing the visibility of the Depot would help solve his problem #3.

No real solution for problem #4, although most designers who want feedback put their e-mail in the opening briefing.

Problems #1 (what to say as a Newbie) and #2 (desire to avoid spoiling) are more difficult. One suggestion might be the posting of some illustrative reviews at the Depot, or here. A revision of the reviewer options might also help. Sometimes when I write a review I feel that none of the categories quite captures the key idea, which is just was it an enjoyable scenario? One broad "enjoyment" score might help.

[Pzman]

I think that part of the problem we face is the number of people playing the game, just to play; now I will explain what I just said. Many of us got CMBB so we could play the Historical battles, which I myself enjoy. But there is the majority, at least I believe so, that just got the game to play the good old balanced fare fight, they think the tanks etc are cool, but could care less about what really happened in combat.

That said, I think we need to work as scenario designers to do better battles with the ideas above, and working together. Also one other reason I believe that many people play QBs is because of time, most of them don't have lots of it, and want something short and simple. That is something else we may need to try; rather then covering an entire battle, maybe just a very small part of one. Having a bit of spare time myself I like battles with 30-40 turns but many don't. Well thats just my ten cents.

[russellmz]

people want quick battles because it guarantees an ok quality map with balance.

most people like to finish a scenario in one sitting hence the 30 turn common limit.

as for lack of reviews: i think a scenario designer should offer to test another designers scenario in exchange. that way they get as many reviews as they can take (given time limits of playing the other guys' scenarios)

many good points made above: if you get your butt kicked it may affect scoring the balance. you may think it is you and not the scenario or vice versa.

and most of the people have a different opinion on what an "average score" is. i consider a score of 7 to be average, while some may think a 5 is.

[WWB]

Originally posted by russellmz:

as for lack of reviews: i think a scenario designer should offer to test another designers scenario in exchange. that way they get as many reviews as they can take (given time limits of playing the other guys' scenarios){/qb]{/quote]

Reviewing scenarios you tested is a big no no IMHO. AARs are cool, but testing reports should be from the general public. If I helped to test something, I definitely have a vested intrest hence a biased opinion. A fair review is out of the question.

This is a big issue that needs some discussion. I do think scores are a bit inflated (nearly everything at the depot averages above six aside from some truly atrocious examples).

Eden: you might be a noob, but you did play the battle and are hence quite qualified to comment on it. A bad review is better than no review IMHO, presuming you dont just say it sucks without saying why.

WWB

[Atlas_TH]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

Many of us got CMBB so we could play the Historical battles, which I myself enjoy. But there is the majority, at least I believe so, that just got the game to play the good old balanced fare fight, they think the tanks etc are cool, but could care less about what really happened in combat.

Man o man, do I agree with this. My cellar is stuffed with $60 books on the East Front, every two-bit half-assed chronicle. When I hear of one I don't have, I go out and buy it. CM:BO was a blast, but my interest in the Russo-German War (which boggles the mind in both its scope and relative lack of documentation) makes CM:BB an addiction.

Anyway, to get back to your point, I agree creating a "fair fight" is important, but, DANG, I want the players to FEEL the history too!

[Atlas_TH]

Should the rating scale for scenarios at the SD be adjusted?

Two ideas, one stolen from Big Dog.

1. Use a 1-5 star rating (ala Big Dog). From movies reviews, people can more easily identify *=poor, **=fair, ***=average, ****=good, and *****=outstanding.

2. Use the same measures (map, briefing, force balance, replayability, v. AI, PBEM) AND add a last category, "Overall", that is not an average of the other measures, but is independent and determined by the reviewer.

That is to say, is the "briefing" really as important as whether it is a good PBEM? And there is an overlap in some of the categories. Aren't v. AI, PBEM, and replayability endogenous to "briefing" and, especially, "force balance"? (e.g. How can you have good replayability if either the map, briefing or force balance stink?)

Another issue: I reviewed a game where I first played the AI (weak) and then played TCIP (good). When I put in my review (AI=4, PBEM=8) the scenario took a ratings beating. What I really wanted to write is overall, this scenario is recommended (****=four stars). The players can read to see if it is a good PBEM or AI game. (Or do a search using "PBEM" or "AI".)

Let the reviewer make the overall call on whether the scenario was enjoyable. He can make comments on why he thinks so. (Really, how many times have you bumbed or lowered a "briefing" so the average would fit your overall perception?)

These are only ideas, probably old to most of you, but just need to vent.

[Atlas_TH]

Originally posted by Dook:

As someone who recently posted his first scenario at the Depot and has received only one review despite 200+ downloads (and that from a beta tester!), I have read this thread with interest.

Dook,

I checked out your three churches scenario over at SD. Looks like fun, but I threw my CM:BO disk away about a year ago so I can't play and can't review. Sorry.

-Atlas

p.s. I once posted a CM:BO "fictional" scenario and did not use my usual handle "Steven Kleary". It is called "Bottom of the Barrel" and it never got over 80 downloads. Not one review.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

3) To answer your length quesiton, the group I asked (Band of Brothers, I will try and pull up links to the polls) was basically concerned with multiplayer battles. The pitfall with making 60 turn battles is you end up with 20+ turns of boredom before the shooting starts. I know I dont like to sit there for 20 turns waiting for something to happen. I try and setup scenarios such that there will be shooting by turn 3, but that is me.

Heh, I like a quickee as much as the next guy! On the other hand, sometimes I just like to take my time, feeling out the lay of the land...

Lately I've played way too many 30min games where my opponent and I had the forces and the will to keep going, but the (dare I say it?) unrealistic time limitation forced us to stop in mid-battle.

[JonS]

You guys have shamed me. I trotted over to the depot and reviewed all the CMBB scens I've played and could remember enough to write about.

(maybe that's part of the problem ... I don't mind reviewing them, but for some the details are now so hazy that any review would be half-arsed at best. Stopping to remeber to review a scen straight after playing it usually isn't high on my to-do list.)

BTW - thanks to all the designers. I've been sort-of meaning to get into it myself. However the quality of the scenarios that were being released for CMBO made me realise that my time would be better spent playing your fine work

[Andreas]

I agree that the averaging of sometimes incompatible ratings in different sections is not helping the review process, because people tend to rate a scenario highly in them, in order to not trash the score. Maybe now with the switch to CMBB this should be looked at - once there are hundreds of reviews of CMBB scenarios, it will be impossible to switch to a better system.

[Dook]

Originally posted by Atlas_TH:

Dook,

I checked out your three churches scenario over at SD. Looks like fun, but I threw my CM:BO disk away about a year ago so I can't play and can't review. Sorry.

-Atlas

Thanks for at least checking it out. You threw away your CMBO disk? I'm not going to ask...

Originally posted by Von Lucke:

Lately I've played way too many 30min games where my opponent and I had the forces and the will to keep going, but the (dare I say it?) unrealistic time limitation forced us to stop in mid-battle.

This I agree is a bit of a problem. Ideally, your ammo should be quite low and your forces should be reasonably beat up in the last few turns of the battle if it is well-balanced and timed.

Originally posted by Andreas:

once there are hundreds of reviews of CMBB scenarios,

It's good to see that all this war has not completely extinguished optimism.

[Admiral Keth]

All,

I am reading all of this with extreme interest.

Andreas - I would be interested in any ideas you had with regards to revision of the raating system. Keep in mind that radical changes involve between 48 and 96 solid hours of coding and testing, double that if the CMBO sections are to be revised.

At this point, however, the rating system for battles and operations is unlikely to change without a major revision to the site. Code is simply too interlinked everywhere to begin changing how scenarios are reviewed. Although I daily work on various aspects of the site, these primarily involve minor code tweaks and field additions.

As the builder of The Scenario Depot, I am perpetually dismayed at the ratio of downloads to reviews. However, I also understand that 95% of the CM community simply wants to play scenarios without any additional commitment.

I believe it is up to everyone who enjoys Combat Mission to actively support and advertise The Scenario Depot. This, to me, is a reasonable request. The Scenario Depot generates no income for me, and I personally get no compensation from it, other than my good feeling of giving something back to the CM community.

Should the Scenario Depot require that for every scenario a designers submits, he/(she?) must review 5 scenarios (non-friends, ones with fewer reviews...)

Yikes! I'm not even sure how I could enforce that code-wise. Ideas?

For #3 and #4, maybe you guys could all get together and make one official central link website database thingie for all these scenarios. Even if they're hosted in a bazillion different places, at least have one d*mn site which points to them all, is well organized, has a nice little review thingie, let's the user view them in different arrangements, (by newest, by medium, by Allied vs AI, you know). Well dang that would help I think. The way it is now... Yuk.

How is this different than what The Scenario Depot offers now? Designers can host their own scenarios on their own sites, if they wish, or send them to me to host. How can The Scenario Depot be better organized? You can sort alphbetically, by Newest, or perform a search on just about any field in the Synopsis. I'd appreciate a better idea of what you mean by Yuk.

It might not be the easiest site to use (I find the new buttons baffling... It took me forever to realize that the text for each button is in the headline, and changes on mouseover... Alt text would be helpful)

SurlyBen, I'm already looking into a somewhat different menuing system, but there are tasks which have precedence at the moment.

There is a new, well hidden search in the depot. Click on the battles selection and there are 2 links--list all buttons and search battles.

With the advent of a new menuing system I'm intending to make the Review links/buttons more apparent and closer to the main pages.

This is a big issue that needs some discussion. I do think scores are a bit inflated

I, too, believe that folks simply don't rate scenarios the same way, hence my previously unresponded to request for someone to write a tutorial on "How To Review". I'm still looking for any takers. Send me an email.

1. Use a 1-5 star rating (ala Big Dog). From movies reviews, people can more easily identify *=poor, **=fair, ***=average, ****=good, and *****=outstanding.

This would be really painful, but not impossible, to code.