Rating scenarios without any self reflection

[Hobbes]

"I was trying, with a little levity, to point out that the scenario rating system is for the "players" of the scenarios.
I really can't see allowing the designers to come in and rank on the people who are answering the questions openly and honestly giving opinions."

Ranking on players wasn't my idea for this. I just hoped that designers could put a point of view if they would like to respond. They may agree and learn from
constructive critisism. I also say this with some levity - but that doesn't always seem to come out well on boards. If we were all down the local pub I'm
sure we could have a much easier discussion about this! (In fact I bet it would be a great night - message boards are fine things but it would be wonderful to
all meet up together if the logistical problems were not so large).

As an example I have had several email conversations with Huib in the past couple of days about his critic of 'Cross of Lorraine' :-

"It is obvious the designer put a lot of work in this one. The engagement and the scale of it are well chosen. The scenario itself needs work. The main shortcomings at the moment are. -Low objective values and some of them seem irrationally placed on irrelevant hexes or on top of bunkers. -Mines in trenches and trenches in roads, the latter hampering movement severely. The main issue however seems to me that the scenario was not made with topographical map sources. Consequence of that is that the placement of the hedgerows seems guesswork, giving the scn a somewhat 'constructed' feel. A touch up of the map with topo sources might change all that and together with different use of objective hexes and values can make this scn a potential 4 or 5 stars. It is my experience that it is usually the map that makes the scenario."

I won't go into detail about the objective values - that would make a good pub conversation. What did make me want to respond was the "not made with topographical map sources" comment.
It was made with topographical map sources. I used both accurate maps from the time and aerial photographs. However an argument could be made about how many hedgerows should
be put into a 250 meter hex. The scale of the game does make this sort of desicion fairly abstract and up to the designer. Mines in trenches and trenches in roads (there were not many) were
there to give a feel for German trenches left with booby traps and mines and the few trenches on roads to slow down the game to give a feel for the actual speed of advance.

I just give this as an example as to how a designer might like to respond. We spend months on some of these scenarios and it would be nice to be able to give the reasons
for certain aspects of the design.

I appreciate Huib taking the time to post detailed comments. Huib knows what he is doing and is a very experienced designer. He has helped me a lot in the last few years in various ways
and I take no offence from his comments. I do think it would make us designers happier though if we could post our views. If we could I think Huib could post a counter to a comment
and we would all be happy people! :)

Cheers, Chris