Warrior
Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000 From: West Palm Beach, FL USA Status: offline
|
First and foremost, I look for technical glitches: hidden buildings, vehicle "traps" not noted on the map, unattainable victory hexes (perhaps set on a cliff or some such where it's impossible to get to them), unit anomalies (an ammo dump with ATG's, weird weapons, etc.), and so on. I also look at the text for spelling and grammar errors.
Then I try to determine if the scenario is historically accurate. I'm not as "up to speed" on this as I could be, so I generally trust the designer. I get a "feel" for the play - is it too easy, too hard, does it leave me with a feeling of identification with the units involved, etc. Did I like the scenario, did it make me crazy, would it be possible to win, was it crap? If the designer has asked for my opinion, I give it, otherwise I stick to the technical stuff.
I give a brief AAR so the designer will know how I approached the tactical problems presented by the scenario, i.e., did I attack from the north or south, did I split my forces, was maneuver a big part of it, etc.
There are other "intangible" factors, of course, but this is generally what I report. If a designer has follow-up questions or needs clarification, I address those.
Oh, and if it's one of Sapper Don's scenarios... I naturally tell him it sucked no matter what.
:D :D
[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: Warrior ]
_____________________________
Retreat is NOT an option.
|