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 (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002056) 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, B) 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 (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002056) 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.

WWBwwb_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, B) 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>[/QUOTE]Von,
Good points. CMBB does require more time as the infantry can easily be disrupted by a lone MGer at 400m.
As far as the piecemeal reinforcements is concerned, I am not picking on you. I have it in almost all my scenarios (see CMBO:"Terror on the Rhone" for example) and I want to revisit whether is I should do this in the future. It doesn't effect your scenario that much b/c a) you give plenty of room to maneuver (may be too much :) if that is possible ) and b) enough time to wait for your assets.

[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!!! smile.gif

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. smile.gif

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(tm). 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.

[quote][qb]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.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 smile.gif

[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.

[Andreas]

Keth, I guess it is time to again link it in the sigs...

First of all - you are the brainy one, which is why you do the depot, and I just do random scenarios :D I have no idea how coding works, except that in the case of your site it is certainly very complex. I understand that a blank slate approach would not work due to the need to preserve the historic ratings.

Some ideas I had for a while:
- weigh the replayability score at '0', since most battles I come across (and all I do) are not designed with it in mind, and in some cases it is actually impossible to achieve that aim, because it will restrict the use of features in the scenario (how often are you going to be surprised by that 88 over there? Once FOW is gone, it is gone for good).
- Have an overall score (additional to the current average) that just shows what you thought about it. A bit like some reviewers do now in the written part of the review).

Just some thoughts - as I said, I think the Depot is a great service to the community and the designers, and you have gone far beyond the call of duty in setting it up and running it.

Regarding the idea that you force people who submit to review - I think it is unworkable, and undesirable. I only have a limited amount of time for CMBB. I use that on CMMC and for designing scenarios. I usually play little, and I could not fulfill that request at all, especially since many of my games are for testing other peoples work-in-progress, making reviews impossible.

I could see if I can get around drafting a rewiew guideline document, and I would put that up here for consultation. I certainly would not want to do it myself, because of my biases when it comes to design.

So, thanks again for all the help over the last year or so. Keep it up mate.

[Atlas_TH]

Keth,
Thanks for you efforts on our behalf. Any suggestions we make are not meant to detract from the excellent job you and yours have made in creating/upkeeping the SD. Your site is the best already.
Question: Can't you already zero-rate every category without hurting the overall?
Question: How many hours would it take to change the "overall" score to an independent variable?
Comment: The five star rating system could use s 1 to 5 scale and not literally "stars", per se. Not sure if that is useful enough to consider. Does that make it easier to program?
-Cheers

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Admiral Keth, for the last two days, I have been unable to review any of the CMBB operations. You may be well aware of this, but just thought I would mention it, in case.

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by Atlas_TH:
Keth,
Thanks for you efforts on our behalf. Any suggestions we make are not meant to detract from the excellent job you and yours have made in creating/upkeeping the SD. Your site is the best already.
Question: Can't you already zero-rate every category without hurting the overall?
Question: How many hours would it take to change the "overall" score to an independent variable?
Comment: The five star rating system could use s 1 to 5 scale and not literally "stars", per se. Not sure if that is useful enough to consider. Does that make it easier to program?
-CheersZero ratings are not included in the total ratings. If a reviewer does not have an opinion regarding a particular aspect, such as PBEM, he/she should use zero.

I opted to have the overall score calced each time, as there are occassions when reviewers ask me to go back and change an erroneous value in a review. This eliminates me having to go back through and manually calculate total values for a particular scenario. To answer your question...

CMBB Only:

1) 10+ hours to recode and test the pages.
2) 2-6 hours to hand calc and validate the values in the existing scenario reviews.

CMBO Only:

1) 10+ hours to recode and test the pages.
2) 50+ hours to hand calc and validate the values in the existing scenario reviews.

I'm padding the estimates a little, but they are fairly close.

Regarding the rating system - a 0, 1-10 system was opted for so that there was a much finer degree of differentiation between the hundreds of CMBO scenarios. Sort of like using a d20 for gaming instead of a d10.

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:
Admiral Keth, for the last two days, I have been unable to review any of the CMBB operations. You may be well aware of this, but just thought I would mention it, in case.Yep, one of the many things that need to be addressed, not to mention a brutal work schedule and real-life issues (had a close relative pass away recently).

Non-the-nonce, work progresses every day at The Scenario Depot. Suggestions, ideas, comments, and criticisms always taken in the light that they are given.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

AK, hope that didn't sound like a complaint, :( because it wasn't. Just trying to be helpful.

I am totally in awe of what you do at the Depot.

[Warlord69]

Thanks again Keith for your wonderful service you provide the entire community.

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:
AK, hope that didn't sound like a complaint, :( because it wasn't. Just trying to be helpful.

I am totally in awe of what you do at the Depot.I didn't take it as a complaint, but I am genuinely interested in what aspects of The Scenario Depot works/doesn't work for people. How else can I make it better?

Originally posted by Warlord69:
Thanks again Keith for your wonderful service you provide the entire community.It's just my way of giving back to the CM community. I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't believe in it. Instead I'd probably be brewing up another batch of my famous "Ole T-34 Motor Oil" Russian Imperial Stout. I suppose CM is doing it's part in keeping me from being a drunken layabout.

[Potvin]

Does anyone design CM:BO scenarios anymore? :confused:

[xerxes]

One part of the depot's rating system that I don't like is the use of "0" for "not applicable". Raters have given "5's" instead of "0's" because they dont' want to mess up a rating. Just changing the first pulldown option from "0" to "no rating" or "not applicable" would help.

As always, thanks Keith, the Depot is a great resource.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SurlyBen:
Eden, this is the idea behind The Scenario Depot:Yes it is, yes it is... But you realize, of course, that the relevant point which that fact doesn't change is that you had to tell me that personally!
It might not be the easiest site to useIt might not be the best site to advance your collective agenda, therefore.
(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)Yes, me too.
Haunted Hill is listed, for example (and unreviewed)Well it's reviewed now, but don't worry, your hint is not lost and I've long ago promised my superego to go out there and review all the non-CD ones for which I don't have a completely dismal experience.

I've posted sorta kinda one so far- Red Parachutes. Halfway through I realized that the "Replayability" totally depends in that scenario, on whether the scouts that come will come from the same exact place each time... If they do, it's only truly great once; if they can come from completely different points on the map, then it's a truly replayable one.

I haven't found a way to edit that review, it raises the question of what happens if I review it again- will it wipe out the first one, (good), or add a second one? Either way, I guess it means I should hold off on a review until I have complete facts, which would usually mean playing it twice, which means more delay and forget, which means... Anyhow,

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Atlas_TH:
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.Pshaw.

I guess I can't say we're all adults here (someone claimed to be 17 the other day), but how's this- we're not dense. Sure, we can see understand that vested interest situation there... so what? So if a designer wants to review another designer's scenario, he could just begin the review with, "the following review is by a fellow designer".

Good enough! If its so difficult to get reviews from Joe citizen then why be so strict with the whole thing? The numbers ratings are kind of silly anyhow, it's what the person says that is of value, imho.

I could have reviewed a scenario the other day which I would have given a 10 briefing, but was otherwise unplayable. So it has an overall rating of... 10?!? Ridiculous, right?

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

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 contributed a +2 "downloads" which are in fact completely bogus. I liked the look of scenario "X", and clicked on the download. It went to Tom's HQ, the front page, asking me whether I preferred English or did I want to try my chances with German for once.

I said "Aw, heck- where is it now? I know he's got them categorized by year... what year was it...?" ( Then, for some reason, the same exact thing happened again. ) It was late, I said to heck with it and went and got another one.
putting reinforcements in plain view of the enemy.Bad. Don't like. How does that reflect on my ability as a commander?? It doesn't- it's just *there*. Maybe they get toasted, maybe they don't.

Even worse is when reinf pop up already under fire, *sitting* on a road! Aargh!

In a similar vein, for me, my forces should not be in contact on the first turn- the presumption is that the meeting begins... well, before contact, right?!?

Now to all those designers who are thinking, "My scenario doesn't do that", I would like to say, "Have you tried your scenario with the AI *free to place units*? (ahaaaaa!)"

One more thing which I felt didn't really reflect on my abilities in a scenario- that enemy *plane*. I was playing a scenario, I have no anti air ability, my tanks are kicking butt... then all of a sudden some plane comes by and takes out a tank.

Well... ok- I know it's supposed to be historically accurate and all that. But look- the net effect of that plane was just like rolling the dice- maybe you lose a tank, maybe you don't. I dunno, but it just seemed kind of... arbitrary.
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.Well I do have an idea, and it would be extremely easy, or else the programmers have arranged themselves in a completely terrible way, which I can't believe given their accomplishments. Ciao,

Eden

[Stoffel]

I think Andreas is right on the review issue.
I have created a few battles for CMBO.
Several have about 200 to 400 downloads.
Some have a few reviews but except for one they are all praising the battles.
That one review told me more about the scenario to improve it and make it better than all the others,this is all what we are asking.

Not a lot of your time or a huge commitment but a simple I like it or even better I dont like this or that but with a good reason why.

Critics can make a designer better in creating battles ,and it doesnt take long to write your opinion.
And if a designer gets better ,you get more fun in playing.

As I always have reviewed scenarios I have played,so do I think others can do that too.

Henk

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by wwb_99:
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.Well I'll try to remember that for scenarios by that wwb_99 guy, but I won't assume that for anyone else.

I played a scenario which I couldn't possibly in my wildest dreams imagine winning; it makes Jaegermeister look like a cakewalk. Directive #3 I could at least *imagine* winning... somehow.

But I see reviews of that scenario posted later, like "Hey- cool scenario dude. Nice little fight. Sweet aftertaste, with a fruity bouquet and good balance." What am I going to say then?!? Ha! smile.gif

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Admiral Keth: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me:
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.</font>[/QUOTE]Well... if you'll notice, the above doesn't refer to your site. I'm talking about the existance of many different sites, all over, some with cr*ppy bandwidth, all of which have *some* scenarios, some different than others, and the impact that has on expecting someone to remember where they got a scenario, go back, and review it.

I think you have tipped your hand, Admiral, in regards to being sensitive about your site. Not a good quality for a webmaster, really. Your site is a great thing for CM, and it's the only place I use at this point in time.
How is this different than what The Scenario Depot offers now?Echoing a post you probably didn't see in regards this same issue over in the other forum, but discussing Mod sites. I suggest that:

A) The site be beautiful. Not good, not good enough, but beautiful.

B) Through collective effort, sites other than SD can be induced and provided incentive to *hook* their downloads *through* the specific page for downloading that particular scenario from SD. The renegade site still hosts, still blabs about their own scenarios, yadda yadda. But when it comes time to click on the "download" button, they are presented with a new window in their browser displaying THE page on SD to download it. This promotes standarization, ease of use, and could further engender the belief that reviewing scenarios is easy, fun, and normal human behaviour.

The incentives provided to renegade sites, (other than just helping the CM community in general), which themselves host scenarios they assumedly would like reviewed are:

1) The "bookmark" option
When on the page to download the scenario _Tanks, Man_, the user is presented with that SAME OLD BEAUTIFUL DOWNLOAD PAGE at SD. At the bottom, is a checkbox, saying "The designer of _T,M_ would like to add a Bookmark to your browser, so that when you have played it you can easily review it. Just click on the Bookmark called "Review _T,M_" and you will come directly to the form, (the Beautiful form) here on SD"

2) The "email" option
Same as above, another checkbox (could) say, "The designer of this scenario requests that, if you have not come back here to review this in one months time, you will be sent a courtesy reminder, with a link to the review page. You will receive only one reminder, and the designer will not have your address directly. Izzat ok?"

3) Same as above, a checkbox saying "If it's ok, this review will be automagically posted to the 'CMBB Scenario Reviews Forum" hosted at Battlefront.com Other players enjoy reading them, you know." Note that this option is ONLY available to the SD, in collusion with BFC. Family, you know.

How can The Scenario Depot be better organized?Are you sure you want to know?

The comments I made previously, about the kind of site which is truly excellent in design and appearance, the kind of site which would engender a feeling of faith in all those noobies visiting it that "Yes, indeed- this must be the true home of CM scenarios", those comments stand as they are. If you want to be a great service to the CM community, then you already are. If you desire opinions on how to have a truly excellent site *as a website*, the kind which would give the user the feeling that SD is *THE* place, then you must not be sensitive to criticism.

PS, in the big graphic at the top, (which is wasted space, btw), you are aware, aren't you, that it says "COMBAT MISSON" ?

Eden

[Potvin]

For those designers who have an interest, may I suggest you pick up an old copy of the computer game, "East Front II."
More of a divisional-sized representation, it has a few good battles that may inspire you.
-Atlas_TH

[rune]

While i think the job admiral keth and big dog do is above and beyond the call of duty, i have never rated a scenario there, and take rating numbers with a grain of salt.

I do not post reviews, since as a designer, i know what I like, may not be what another designer likes. Matter of fact, seldom are tastes the same.

Which brings about the scores. Let's look at jaegermeister, the briefing is a 3 or it is a 8 or 9. OK. The format is the same as all the other briefings on the CD [done for a specific reason], yet is marked worse?

Another scenario was a tutorial, but marked down because it isn't replayable. The scenario is pretty much historical, but I marked it semi-historical. I am told to add more anti-tank guns to the Russian side. Ummm...that would destroy the whole point of the tutorial/scenario, as well as destroy the historical battle.

I use the feedback as a guide, and that is all. People bring their own thoughts and prejudices to a review, if they realize it or not. How many of us have gotten a "I lost, so the scenario is unbalanced" when the next review says balance is fine?

Replayability...well the engine does NOT allow for vsrious starting points, just random times the forces can show. Replayability is limited in EVERY scenario.

All that being said, I love reading the comments and feedback I get. I just take it with a grain of salt. I actually get more feedback via email then I do on the depot. However, I THANK Admiral Keth and Big Dog for what they do, because I know a lot of people got my scenarios that would not have gotten them any other way. Most people don't bother reviewing....a shame really, but understandable.

Last point: I differ from a lot of opinions here. I think the scenario should be played with default locations the first time through. I know I place my units historically if I can, or for a reason if not... I don't lock them however, so the next time the scenario is played, some randomness comes into play.

I was lucky enough to learn from some of the best, and I got to work with some of the best for CMBB. It was a pleasure working with the lot of you, and seeing different styles, different feedback, etc. Yep, you can blame me for what went on the CD, it was basically my call. I did ask, fought for, and finally got on more scenarios then was originally planned for. I thank each and every scenario designer that worked on the scenarios for the CD, as well as thanking those others that just keep the game going by making new scenarios/operations.

Rune

[Potvin]

Rune,
I hear ya! LOL.
Very true re: no two reviewers are alike in their preferences.
A few examples:
1. I hate urban fighting. Anything that happens in a factory makes me drool with boredom. I tried to review your "...Factory" scenario, but my bias got in the way.
2. I like big, big maps. The whole idea behind German tactical, operational and strategic planning was "freedom of movement." Even if it takes five or ten turns for the action to start, I like the control to attack or defended in a greater area. (From what I read, MOST people like the action to start right away.)
3. I prefer PBEM and head-to-head. AI scenarios have ZERO replayability for me. In fact, if CM:BO and BB had no pvp capability I would never have bought the games in the first place.
4. ...etc...way too many preferences to list here, which is the point, I think.

Anyway, I think the "DISK" scenario designers did a fairly good job. IMO, there are some truly mediocre scenarios, there are some great ones and there are a few lousy, lousy ones that I cannot believe made the grade. (Rushed into production?) There are many new scenarios at the SD that are much better.

That said, I think the disk "designers" did a good job presenting a diversity of battles.

Ask someone else, they'll disagree...

[rune]

Exactly my point. Look at my tractor works. The map got 5s from two reviewers. However, the buildings were researched, and are the EXACT layout they were in real life. Berli and I got maps and aerial photos, and i actually measured the size of the buildings. If you look, my scenario is a small version of Berli's to the volga operation which is huge. However, the map is average? Sorry, those damn Russians should have made a better factory. smile.gif

The scenarios were not rushed. But for each scenario you think is lousy, someone else will like it. That is my point...scenario reviews are subjective. However, I still thank Admiral Keth and Bigdog. One of my scenarios was downloaded 501 times with 1 review. At least i know 500 people got the scenario. Without the two of them, a lot of scenario would go un-noticed. So, I thank them and all the hard work they put in.

Rune

[Stoffel]

Rune you made a good point here.
I have that problem too,2 scenarios downloaded 476 and 200 times and 1 review.

I dont care for the grades given,I only want feedback and-or good ideas that can make a scenario better.

[xerxes]

Reviews are by their nature very subjective. There were scenarios in CMBO that most people thought were great that I didn't care for. I also think some scenarios are very underappreciated. A lot of it depends on what the player looks for in a scenario that makes it fun for them. Some people prefer scenarios that play like QB MEs, personally, I don't care for this style at all. It's really a matter of taste.

It would be interesting to see a list of all scenarios rated by a reviewer. It's like a food critic, some critics have your taste, others don't.

[Tarquelne]

First, AK, thanks for for the Scenario Depot - great site!


Zero ratings are not included in the total ratings. If a reviewer does not have an opinion regarding a particular aspect, such as PBEM, he/she should use zero.I suggest that be put in VERY LARGE PRINT somewhere. ;)


feedbackThat word's come up several times in the last few posts, and it was one I was thinking since ES's first post on the topic: I second ES's points on why players often don't write reviews. Luckily, it sounds like what many designers really want is just some feedback. Hopefully a compliment, but constructive criticism is always welcome, correct?

What if, in addition to "Review this scenario" you could simply "Leave feedback for author" No ratings asked, just a small text box. Or, probably eaiser - change "Review this scenario" to something like "Give feedback NOW, sucker!", "Review or be damned!" or "As if we cared, what's your opinion, noobie?"... or something like that.

And make the link bigger, why not?

And, while I'm on the subject of potentially offensive technical fixes, why not have the site track what scenarios you download, and then ask for reviews when you go back for more?

Because it's a lot of work, it's irritating and it's intrusive you say?

Well, yeah, I can see that. ;) But I don't know just how much work it'd be for AK, and maybe he could "soft sell it." SD is awefully well put together, I wouldn't be suprised if AK could pull it off... perhaps a fairly narrow frame off to the right titled "Review me?" with a list of unreviewed scnearios? That area's empty when I'm at the SD. I don't think that'd feel much like an EA registration reminder.

Oh yeah... I, too, will be better about at least leaving some feedback, if not an actual "review".

[Ken Talley]

Very interesting thread.

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.
QB's are OK but the maps just don't compare to a well done, hand made map. I do believe/hope we will see more demand for QB's with custom maps.

I think scenarios can be designed with plenty of replayability for head-to-head matches through the proper use of terrain and setup zones. A good hand designed scenario should be far more enjoyable than a QB. The one drawback is both players have to have the same scenario. It is a little thing but is a drawback for TCP/IP games. Although I suspect a lot of people do like creating their own task forces in QB's. I think that is the major advantage of QB's vs scenarios.

As to ratings, I noticed that of my scenarios, two of the three ratings seem to focus on the quality of the game vs the AI. I never design my scenarios specifically for play against the AI. The strat AI just simply can't put up a good battle. It has great difficulty with using reinforcements and exit zones or dealing with more than one flag. My scenarios can be played against the AI, of course. However a rating based on an AI game is not going to accurately portray the quality or deficiencies of the scenario as intended to be played.

PS: One thing that is funny. I have received probably 10-12 email comments on my scenarios vs the 3 official reviews. Getting the emails is always nice.

[ November 02, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Ken Talley ]

[Ken Talley]

I just took a quick look at the scenario depot.

When I choose a scenario to play, I use several criteria more than others-the date, the number of turns, and the quantity of troops(huge, small, medium).

That information is not available from the selection screen. We do get the troops types and reveiw ratings which is very useful. But to get turns, size and date, we have to open each scenario and dig for the info.

I don't know how difficult it would be to add that type of information on the scenario selection screen but it would be a nice additional filter.

[tracer]

To Rune and Andras, and all the other people who are making scenarios, my say probably does'nt count for much but, I think you guys do a great job on the scenarios. Heck, rune, I really liked the clash of titans, and I do review the scenarios at the depot. I think it is a matter of taste on what kind of battle or OP each person likes, and if some one does'nt like the work you guys do FOR FREE, heck there's a editor that comes with the game let em make thier own. And one more thing, people seem to forget that a lot of you guys including modders are doing this in your spare time and it is FREE, so won't people give constructive critism that can help people make this a even better game then what it already is, and stop down grading so much. I'm not saying that there is many that do, most people on this forum don't but to the ones that do remember this, these mod sites and scenario sites are FREE.

[PeterX]

Potvin posted a propos of Rune's 'Factory' scenario:
I hate urban fighting. Anything that happens in a factory makes me drool with boredom. I tried to review your "...Factory" scenario, but my bias got in the way.
One thing to remember in CMBO&BB: urban comabt is heavily abstracted. Intelligently and creatively abstracted, but abstracted nonetheless. In CM's defense, they'd need a whole new complimentary engine do really do justice to the intracacies of street fighting. It's beyond the cope of the game. Basically, I'm pretty satsified with the current depiction.

That said, I did play that scenario in question and was surpised how much it kept me entertained. I rate it a '9'.

[SuperSulo]

Somehow the thought of reviewing the scenarios I play had never crossed my mind... Maybe I'm a selfish bastard, I don't know. But to my defense, I've yet to download a scenario for cmbb, I'm still on the cd ones. I play them by date, and am up to 42-10-20_Pavlov's House.cme so far. I promise I will review them all on this Scenario Depot (I didn't even have the link before I read this thread...).

Some thoughts about the rating system:
"Replayability" means nothing to me, I would never play a scenario twice. "Force Balance" is a bit tricky... If I get beaten (by the AI, never played against a human yet), is it unbalanced or do I suck? If I win, does the AI suck? The most important (or maybe the only important?) field is the Playable vs. AI (or PBEM/LAN Playablility).

I just realized what I said above is just what's important to me, as a player, of course the designer wants to know if his Briefing was nicely typed and what not. Sorry.

Some points on design:
I think I agree with all of Atlas' points. I esp. dont like when the two sides start in shooting range/full view of eachother. Meeting Engagement isn't called Met Engagement. smile.gif Same thing with reinforcement that pops up right smack in the middle of things (unless it's Airborne smile.gif ).

Time: I prefer longer (not neccesary bigger!) scenarios. I want to have time to do what I like, esp. as the attacker. If the battle comes to a stalemate, I usually press "cease fire", thinking that's what should have happened in RL.

I think that's it for now, I'll put the rest in the reviews. I got some 28 to write so far. I hope length isn't a requierment. smile.gif

I apologies for all spelling/grammar/thought process errors, it's Sunday night 03:33 (AM for the non-metric people?) AND I got the flu. So there.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:
The one drawback is both players have to have the same scenario. It is a little thing but is a drawback for TCP/IP games.I don't know about TCP, but if you are playing PBEM both players don't even need to have the scenario. The player initiating the game sends the file to his opponent and you're off and running because the scenario plays off that initial file. I imagine that TCP would be a little different though? I don't know - never played TCP before.

[Andreas]

You don't need to have the scenario on both machines for TCP. Only on the hosting machine.

[Franko]

reading all your input with great interest..

F

[Ken Talley]

Thanks for the clarification. It is good to hear only one side needs the scenario.

[Potvin]

Is this the solution?

1. Five star rating system (*=poor, **=fair, ***=average (as one reviewer wrote, "as good [enjoyable] as a QB"), ****=good, *****=excellent).

2. Block off irrelevant ratings (e.g. rating a PBEM scenario after playing vs. the computer.)

3. Make the final overall rating independent (not an average) of the other ratings. Boring maps are often historically accurate maps.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:
If I get beaten (by the AI, never played against a human yet), is it unbalanced or do I suck? If I win, does the AI suck?Well it depends of course- were you really in top form? Or getting lucky as OJ? I agree that answering the Balance question can be tough, or iffy, but still it's your impression and best estimation of it which is being asked for- just do your best, otherwise the designer is still without a clue.
I esp. dont like when the two sides start in shooting range/full view of eachother. Meeting Engagement isn't called Met Engagement. smile.gif YES! Thank you- Good one. I've seen an occasional defense of that for unusual reasons, but I'm not buying any of them. I hate it, I loathe it, I despise it, and I don't like it too much, neither. smile.gif Same thing with reinforcement that pops up right smack in the middle of things (unless it's Airborne smile.gif )YES, even if they show up on the back row, sometimes they're in full sight, but sitting there on the road. It shouldn't be too tough to give us some small out of LOS place where they appear.

I've suggested recently that scenarios which have reinforcements simply use a map with a long back section, so the reinf could start way back there, at an earlier time, which seems to me more realistic anyhow. Why not?
Time: I prefer longer (not neccesary bigger!) scenarios. I want to have time to do what I like, esp. as the attacker.YES! I keep hammering on this one too. I think people are starting to hear it. The default turns for QBs is going up from 30 to 40 in 1.02 exampli gratia.

Eden