Neubruck Dawn Scenario testing

[Jagger]

After several weeks, I have finally finished a new CMAK scenario. It is called Neubruck Dawn. I have designed quite a few scenarios which are available here. So hopefully this will be a good PBEM scenario.

I personally like the map which is primarily based on a satellite image of the Neubruck area just east of St. Vith. There are quite a number of terrain tactical choices which should make the scenario good for replay. I also think the Aug 44 force mix is interesting for both the English and Germans.

I am hoping to find some testers interested in trying the scenario and providing feedback. If interested, drop me an email (click my username for my email address) and I will send a copy of the scenario. If you are still interested in playtesting after reviewing the scenario, we can set up a playtest. I think the scenario is fairly closely balanced now but a few tests will show if any finetuning is necessary.

Here is some scenario backgound:
The scenario introduction:

Title: Neubruck Dawn
Type: Meeting Engagement
Date: August 1944
Location: Near Saint Vith, Belgium
Region: Western Europe
Weather: Dry and warm
Terrain: Valley surrounded by hill and plateaus
Wind: NW breeze
Turns: 35 turns fixed

Author: Jagger

Background: This is a hypothetical meeting engagement between a mobile mech German force and a mobile mech English force. The map is primarily based on a satellite photo of the Neubruck region just east of Saint Vith. The scenario is set in August 1944. Light forces initially probe with heavier reinforcements. Should be a wild and wooly fight.

Hypothetical Meeting Engagement: Germans: 5435 pts English: 5443 pts Victory Locations: 3900 points.

The scenario is specifically designed for PBEM play. Players will have a variety of tactical choices to maximize PBEM enjoyment. The scenario will not work with play against the AI due to the number and placement of Victory locations.

Study the terrain carefully. As in so many PBEM scenarios, using terrain properly leads to victory. Note there are thirteen 300 point victory locations which is almost equal to the total force points of either side. Which means holding and taking terrain victory locations can be worth the cost.

Here is an image of the map:

[Jagger]

OK, I need help!! I am trying to find the scenario file on my computer. The scenario is somewhere in there because I can open it using CMAK. Yet when I go to the CMAK scenario folder, it isn't listed.

I am using Vista and have the CM anthology. I did a search for the scenario which isn't finding the scenario but is finding a shortcut which points to CMaK/Scenarios/Neubruck. However the file is not showing up in the folder!!!

Any ideas what is the problem?

[Ratzki]

Do not have a clue what the problem would be. Maybe try saving it as a different name, see if you can fin the new one.

[Jagger]

While in the scenario folder, there was a selection in the toolbar above for "compatibility files". When I selected that button, all the normal scenario files which came with the game disappeared and were replaced by the newly created files of the new scenario. So I could switch back and forth between the displays to see the original files or the newly created files. I have Vista and have never run into this situation before. I was fortunate to find them because a search did not reveal the new scenario files.

Regardless I have found the files...thank goodness.

Do not have a clue what the problem would be. Maybe try saving it as a different name, see if you can fin the new one.

[Ratzki]

Are you going to put it in the H2H section for playtesting?

[Jagger]

Thanks Ratzki for pointing out the H2h section. I just submitted the scenario there.

I am curious about some of my older scenarios from back in 2001-2002. They already have substantial feedback. I just took a quick look at my PBEM CMBB scenarios located here. 4 scenarios have 8.6 ratings or higher with feedback based on 19 or more game feedback ratings. Would those be elgible for consideration for H2H ratings? How do you handle older scenarios which already have substantial feedback?

Are you going to put it in the H2H section for playtesting?

[Hedgehog]

I have looked at the Scenario Jagger and have entered it into the Scenario testing Area on the H2H, It look's pretty Good mate, I will be playing it my self shortly as soon as my opponent gives me the green light

[Der Kuenstler]

Thanks Ratzki for pointing out the H2h section. I just submitted the scenario there.

I am curious about some of my older scenarios from back in 2001-2002. They already have substantial feedback. I just took a quick look at my PBEM CMBB scenarios located here. 4 scenarios have 8.6 ratings or higher with feedback based on 19 or more game feedback ratings. Would those be elgible for consideration for H2H ratings? How do you handle older scenarios which already have substantial feedback?

You should send a PM or email to Foul about that...

[Jagger]

DK, I will send an email to Foul. Thanks!

Hedgehog, after your game, would you and your opponent let me know what are your thoughts about the proportions of artillery, infantry and armor? There is a lot of firepower in the scenario. A question I have is whether there is too little or too much artillery and armor vs the amount of infantry. I think it should be fine but it is something I am going to watch whenever I do my playtest. Your feedback on that issue would be appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks Ratzki for pointing out the H2h section. I just submitted the scenario there.

I am curious about some of my older scenarios from back in 2001-2002. They already have substantial feedback. I just took a quick look at my PBEM CMBB scenarios located here. 4 scenarios have 8.6 ratings or higher with feedback based on 19 or more game feedback ratings. Would those be elgible for consideration for H2H ratings? How do you handle older scenarios which already have substantial feedback?

You should send a PM or email to Foul about that...

[Mr Grumpy]

I am curious about some of my older scenarios from back in 2001-2002. They already have substantial feedback. I just took a quick look at my PBEM CMBB scenarios located here. 4 scenarios have 8.6 ratings or higher with feedback based on 19 or more game feedback ratings. Would those be elgible for consideration for H2H ratings? How do you handle older scenarios which already have substantial feedback?

The only way a scenario can be considered "H2H Approved" is to have been through the H2H testing system, if you have scenarios that you believe are well balanced get them uploaded to the H2H area (please not all at once) and it should prove easy to get the four reports with a 8 average that you need to get them through. :)

Sorry if that sounds strict, but there is no procedure for taking account of testing/ladder games outside the H2H framework provided within that area.