The Korean War Redux

[McMonkey]

Thanks Tech. The difficulty level is high. I would suggest screening off the North Koreans in the south-west and going hell for leather to take the northernmost North Korean cities. You don't have to hold onto them. The isolated NKPA units in the southwest can be mopped up later on.

Regarding the Migs and the Communist airforces. They are over strengthed historically but this was done for gameplay purposes. Historically most of the Mig combat was over the far north of the country, notably Mig Alley, but I wanted air to air combat in game so took some artistic liberties.

 

[techumseh]

Well, I'll just have to give it another go. I overlooked the part in the Readme that mentioned that many of the units were homed to northern cities and could be eliminated just by capturing their home city. The ongoing air battles are fun and challenging, if not historical. Still, that's a sh*t-load of Sturmoviks. I see that it's only RoK Mustangs that can't attack other air units, however I think the F-51s are underrated overall. They were effective, if somewhat vulnerable ground attack aircraft, and far superior to any PRK propeller-driven plane in the air.

For those who are interested, here's winterized "feature" terrain, taken from the winter mountains I modified for Tootall's "A House Divided".

 

[Konig15]

Thanks Tech. The difficulty level is high. I would suggest screening off the North Koreans in the south-west and going hell for leather to take the northernmost North Korean cities. You don't have to hold onto them. The isolated NKPA units in the southwest can be mopped up later on.

Regarding the Migs and the Communist airforces. They are over strengthed historically but this was done for gameplay purposes. Historically most of the Mig combat was over the far north of the country, notably Mig Alley, but I wanted air to air combat in game so took some artistic liberties.

First I want to thank you guys both for this scenario. The units are awesome, all the terrain except the urban is beautiful, I love the highways. Now, the criticism:

Wait, actually, the one listed on the Scenario League wiki is the one I downloaded. Is that current?

This scenario is NOT easy, but I am a perpetual save scummer. Something that I love is unit replacements, it makes me commit without with a great urge to reload. Mostly.

Documentation is poor. I don't need a fancy PDF with colors and watermarks, what I need to be told is to to get the most challenge out the scenario. Basically, I did my very best to not to read the events, so for maximum riding the (human) wave (attacks), which cities should I take and let the Chinese retake, and which ones should I leave to the North Koreans so they reequip in most spectacular fashion. Telling me if I want to play historically to early 1951, I need to know what battles to throw. I also need documentation on which units will NOT be replaced, like the Chafee. I like the Chafee. It moves like an armored car but hit a lot harder and they are invaluable once your Inchon begins.

US Occupation unit is a waste of unit space. Not strictly historically accurate, but you might have well have replaced them with ROK MPs

The first problem is that the scenario starts in June. I'd say if a scenario has to start on the 19th or later, start it the next month. A Barbarossa scenario should start in July, because even if the invasion started last month, the counter-attack can't happen until the next month. The case in point is here. It's still June and the American units in Pusan, and ready to and able to counterattack. Now, because I'm not fudging around I know from the documentation that many NK units are supported from certain cities. I counterattacked and retook Inchon IN JUNE. This means that South Korean Troops got driven back a week, then counterattacked into a tidal wave of offensive power and retook Inchon sometime before July 1. And it gets crazier. Because there's no lock on when you can get reinforcements, I basically took a suicide counterattack to blunt to the NK offensive on the Pusan Perimeter by forcing them to protect their frank. I had enough forces for a counter-attack through Inchon hopefully reaching Kimpo Airfield. It won't turn the tide, but it will blunt the offensive and give time for reinforcements. But low and beheld I was rewarded with every tear of the enemy's flesh and supplies. Huge, ungodly reinforcements at Inchon, enough to take Kimpo and Seoul, and because I husbanded my resources correctly, I was able to take Kaesong? The one north of Kimpo, Sariwon, Wonson and almost everything between. This is where the Chafees were so useful, they were lightning in the face of no opposition and that's not a backhanded compliment. Sometimes you just need to cover ground.

In one turn, before July 1st mind you, I Crushed the NK attack completely, liberated every city in South Korea but one. This could in theory work over the course of July, with some headcanon. The 7th Division is actually the overrun and hiding elements of the ROK 7th, and you're relieving and resupplying isolated pockets about to be overwhelmed, but gather them into a storm. Operational latitude goes from inside nine days to inside forty, which is disturbing but totally possible, cause the Israelis kinda did this in the Yom Kapur War.

Honestly, if you want me to play a certain way, I need you to explain why/ Why can I cross the 38h parallel and take Woson and even Pyongyang itself and not get Chinese intervention? Is it because you believe that it was the speed of the US advance that made the Chinese commit, at least in 1950? I mean I gamed the crap out of this After taking Pyongyang, n part because I figured that as long as I didn't take the cities on Yalu, that I maintained a bare minimal space from the Yalu, the Chinese would hesitate. McArthur had almost implacable reasons to think the Chinese would not intervene. It was a VERY controversial move in People's Republic, they were rightly scared of an army that was so much better equipped. Also, the notion that Americans will start a Great War for the Hell of it speaks volumes of the projection and narcissism of the Communists.

The next thing, is you give me a US Naval force with NO native attack ability and NO way to procure shells, and you want me to not use my transports and pretend that the US Navy's troop transport ability doesn't exist. You have a naval unit called am airlift, that's actually clever. Why in the heck did you make it have a movement of 4 instead of 40, or whatever the game would allow? It's an AIRLIFT. I respect the house rule on no tanks. cause that makes sense, but the movement of four? And I can't build more transport capacity? WHY?!

WHY can't I invade China? I'm not Truman, I don't believe in World Peace and I'm happy to throw down the nuclear gauntlet when Stalin has like four or six and I have 50-100. I HATE Communists and the ability to free anywhere from Communism is both duty and pleasure. I also hate Truman, I consider him worse than Buchanan, because Truman had realistic options. Buchannan was given the weakest hand any president has ever had, Truman had one of the strongest. Everything Truman touched turned to horsehocky: he lost China, he made is seem like Korea wasn't a part of America's Sphere of Influence, he let Stalin consolidate his hold on Eastern Europe and presided over the largest ethnic cleansing in European history of both Germans and Poles with explicit approval. Oh and he nuked Japan because the Japanese wanted a conditional surrender. Their condition? Don't touch the Emperor. So he killed 300,000 people to make them bend the knee and then didn't touch the Emperor. This dude loves kicking people when they're down but is afraid to throw down with the big boys, even when he has six inches and 50 pounds on them. And a gun. The man was a cowardly, craven bully, you know a predatory scumbag who left half the world to fall to Communism. Oh and the no compensation for Japanese internment, not even a "Thank you for your cooperation during the emergency and you have acquitted yourselves as loyal Americans and credit to your race" and whatever 40s term for we aren't sorry we did it because it was prudent, but we are sorry you suffered and we acknowledge that our fears were unfounded, if only in retrospect.

So while I get not bombing Manchuria with nukes, I don't see any problem with bombing the crap out of it with conventional bombers. Two can play that hame.

If you micromanage well, it's trivial to get one advance every turn AND get nearly every UN city to get we love the president day, wihch makes them grow like weeds. Not sure if this is intentional but I got a LOT strong as time went on, and the money got REAL good, even with minimal taxes.

Honestly, I gamed the system just until November 1950 and then poked the anthill for historical accuracy. Playing defense and excepting never to go off it, is really REALLY boring. I used the features, I used the engineers to build roads and fortresses on the Features and the Chinese cracked maybe two cities, which I swiftly retook. I played this way for four months and I started messing with the rules file. I built transports and naval shells, I built factories everywhere and city archives, I built engineers like crazy. Cause I'd won I made Korea more or less impregnable by playing RAW.

That said, I enjoyed the Hell out of this game. It's beautiful, detailed, at least inside Korea, units are gorgeous, improvement names and functions are very novel.

My biggest gripe is the documentation. You need to tell me what all the improvements are. Why does Kimpo have a MASH unit? And what does it do? And your naing scheme is beyond awful given how the civpedia works. UN and US and ROK forces are so numerous they should not be called first by their country but by their name. Because so many units start with the letter you, it's cumbersome to select U and then scrolls through entry after entry tp lookup unit stats.
Marine units, including planes, should start with Marine
UK Marine units should have Royal or Royal Navy as their first word of unit name
Vehicles should be sorted by nickname, Banchee, Pershing Medium Tank (US)
Fighters should have the term (fighter in their name) so the player knows at a glace is they are designed as bombers or not. It took me way too long to remember Sea Furies are fighters, Fireflies the bombers

Basically, even if you don't include Civpedia entries on all these wonderful units and what makes them unique, just make sure you name them with as many different first letters as possible to make looking up stats easy as possible.

But I'd love documentation. Why is it important each division gets it's own unit? The foreign Brigades make sense, but why not just US infantry in one slot. The stats are all the same except for paratroopers and Marines. There's probably a good reason. and I really want to learn why to hear what made these units so different from each other you went out of your way to create custom sprites for them all.

Still, I'd recommend, it is loads of fun, at least the first six turns. WIth rule modifications, it can be a hoot throughout.

Moderator Action: Please use appropriate language, swearing is not allowed. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[techumseh]

Who gives a fig if you hate Communists or Truman? That's no reason to make radical changes to a perfectly good scenario. The protagonist's role is the commander in Korea, NOT fascist dictator of the United States. You may remember that MacArthur was fired by Truman, and rightly so. You have plenty of "advice". I suggest you try creating your own scenario. That way you will be able to play one that fits your exacting demands.

 

[Konig15]

Who gives a fig if you hate Communists or Truman? That's no reason to make radical changes to a perfectly good scenario. The protagonist's role is the commander in Korea, NOT fascist dictator of the United States. You may remember that MacArthur was fired by Truman, and rightly so. You have plenty of "advice". I suggest you try creating your own scenario. That way you will be able to play one that fits your exacting demands.

Actually, this is a great chance for me to learn to learn something, so bear with me. Why should anyone care? Because emotional investment is important. Why play historical scenarios? I don't play Midgard very often and have little interest in playing the sci fi scenario cause there's no emotional weight. I play historical scenarios because I believe there was something important at stake, something I believe in or leads to something positive.

For me, roleplaying and lateral play to show a better course of events in important. Take at the Age of Constantine, I've got a fair share of criticism, but I deeply love the scenario. But I'm kind of upset that without the cheat bug, I'm more or less forced to sack temples and burn villages, INSIDE THE ROMAN EMPIRE, certainly without the option to rebuild them later. Age of Constantine for me has importance not just in putting Constantine on the throne,but doing everything I can to revive the Roman economy so that it's strong enough to endure the barbarians to come after Constantine's death.

I care deeply about the scenario's depiction of Rome, where Rome is this industrial and trade juggernaut, which is the beating heart of the entire Western Roman world, instead of most depictions of Rome from late Republic as a giant resource sink that was a parasite on the entire empire and most of it's labor pool was wanted on high unemployment and constant bread and circuses.

I care about creating a more just version of Constantine's rule, I wish there were ways to negotiate with the Dontanists, less of a hard line at Nicea, a way to prevent the murder of Crispus, a better reason than historical accuracy to wait so very very long before attacking Licinius. What were relations between them like, what are the causes bellis could have been used before 324.

Beating the AI, no matter how challenging, bears no weight for me. I need a point to fight. Something I can make better, wrongs I can put right. I can't play your Red October, cause you're right, this game, unlike the MGE counterpart, is designed around the Bolsheviks. And there's a lot of good design in that scenario, Iove the sudden appearance of Poland, I love the surrender to Friekorps chain for the Central Powers, I'm intrigued by the railroad as terrain an perhaps realistically frustrated at the expense of the engineer units, But....let's be real, I know very well what happens if Lenin wins. It mean the deaths of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people, it makes the Axis inevitable it more or less makes the rise of Adolf Hitler possible. I can't do it .

I want to play Red Front, and I believe it's a morally important point in history because Hitler was gonna more or less wipe out the Slavs if he won. Even if there was a Nazi Kruschev as early as 1946, that's millions of people, possibly tens of millions, but I can't put Eastern Europe under the Communist bootheel. There are things you shouldn't do even in the land of Make Beleive.

If this is just a game, then it would be Tetris, and I haven't played in forever, because while I have no rancor towards the game, it's a pointless waste of time. Playing historical scenarios is the closest thing I can do to Quantum Leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong.

The thing is I' annoyed you by this critique, and I annoy people a lot when I suggest changes. But this isn't TTRP, you don't have to play with me, and my vision must override yours. If my critiques were implemented, there would be the following changes:

1. Units would be renamed so that they are easier to look up on Civpedia
2. The game would have one less turn
3. Maybe you could build Chafees in Japan? That's not gonna change a lot after the first four or five turns as targets of opportunity become very rare after that.
4. Using TOTPP framework, naval units have VASTLY increased movement range, balanced by limits on how many attacks they can do
5. Players would have THE OPTION, not requirement, to play laterally and be rewarded or punished for it. No player would be forced to do this and
6. The documentation would be thorough enough you can play historically to any point you choose. You can play the historical timetable as much or as little as you desire.
7. Certain units, could be built would need rebalance. Say, 150 shields for a Chaffee, maybe 60 for combat engineers BUT have them eat three or four food and ouse rule these are not t be put in a combat zone. Say five spaces from any known enemy forces.

These are not truly radical changes to the scenario. They are mostly quality of life improvements. Even if I weren't emotionally invested in games after the Chinese come in if you play historically, you are playing zombie horde mode in the most boring way possible ,and I hate Horde modes anyway.

I don't understand why you play a game with seeming disinterest to its context and moral implications, not why you seem incensed at my suggestions for lateral play. This second thing is the big thing because I'm in it for the possibilities, not the victory. I DO NOT care for Crusader Kings 2, but I love the ideas of Monks and Mystics whereas a hermetic you can invent eyeglasses as early as the 8th century. You can build a proof of concept handgun,. and though not in Monks and Mystics, you can send embassies to China and get cool bling, a quest for holy artifacts commission art, discover heliocentrism, again as early as the 8th century an even buy the frickin Necronomicon. You can write Magnum Opuses. None of this has ANYTHING to do with being a Crusader King and conquering castles. But as far as stories go, they inspire.

Thing is, even in not great scenarios like Colonies I there are such cool ideas in the play it's not even funny. I was playing the French, in 1492. I could invade North Africa, I could hire Berber mercenaries and send them to the Americas to explore. Before 1519, instead of Christopher Columbusing the natives, I was trading with them. My merchants were exploring the Jungles, making treaties, doing anthropology on the Maya and Aztecs. and trying to get to the Inca lands. That is such a compelling AH it takes my breath away, and certainly, it's within the realm of possibility given a 1492 POD.

It's those outside the box moments I live for.

Why do you play? I don't mean that disrespectfully. you just seem annoyed by my motivations.

 

[JPetroski]

even in not great scenarios like Colonies

You really need to stop saying things like this. It's very insulting and frankly doesn't even make sense. Are you referring to John Ellis' classic scenarios that went on to inspire multiple others and were visionary and unique for their time? How long have you been at all of this anyway? I don't think you have the historical perspective to declare the greatness of a scenario made 15 or 20 years ago.

 

[Patine]

Actually, this is a great chance for me to learn to learn something, so bear with me. Why should anyone care? Because emotional investment is important. Why play historical scenarios? I don't play Midgard very often and have little interest in playing the sci fi scenario cause there's no emotional weight. I play historical scenarios because I believe there was something important at stake, something I believe in or leads to something positive.

For me, roleplaying and lateral play to show a better course of events in important. Take at the Age of Constantine, I've got a fair share of criticism, but I deeply love the scenario. But I'm kind of upset that without the cheat bug, I'm more or less forced to sack temples and burn villages, INSIDE THE ROMAN EMPIRE, certainly without the option to rebuild them later. Age of Constantine for me has importance not just in putting Constantine on the throne,but doing everything I can to revive the Roman economy so that it's strong enough to endure the barbarians to come after Constantine's death.

I care deeply about the scenario's depiction of Rome, where Rome is this industrial and trade juggernaut, which is the beating heart of the entire Western Roman world, instead of most depictions of Rome from late Republic as a giant resource sink that was a parasite on the entire empire and most of it's labor pool was wanted on high unemployment and constant bread and circuses.

I care about creating a more just version of Constantine's rule, I wish there were ways to negotiate with the Dontanists, less of a hard line at Nicea, a way to prevent the murder of Crispus, a better reason than historical accuracy to wait so very very long before attacking Licinius. What were relations between them like, what are the causes bellis could have been used before 324.

Beating the AI, no matter how challenging, bears no weight for me. I need a point to fight. Something I can make better, wrongs I can put right. I can't play your Red October, cause you're right, this game, unlike the MGE counterpart, is designed around the Bolsheviks. And there's a lot of good design in that scenario, Iove the sudden appearance of Poland, I love the surrender to Friekorps chain for the Central Powers, I'm intrigued by the railroad as terrain an perhaps realistically frustrated at the expense of the engineer units, But....let's be real, I know very well what happens if Lenin wins. It mean the deaths of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people, it makes the Axis inevitable it more or less makes the rise of Adolf Hitler possible. I can't do it .

I want to play Red Front, and I believe it's a morally important point in history because Hitler was gonna more or less wipe out the Slavs if he won. Even if there was a Nazi Kruschev as early as 1946, that's millions of people, possibly tens of millions, but I can't put Eastern Europe under the Communist bootheel. There are things you shouldn't do even in the land of Make Beleive.

If this is just a game, then it would be Tetris, and I haven't played in forever, because while I have no rancor towards the game, it's a pointless waste of time. Playing historical scenarios is the closest thing I can do to Quantum Leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong.

The thing is I' annoyed you by this critique, and I annoy people a lot when I suggest changes. But this isn't TTRP, you don't have to play with me, and my vision must override yours. If my critiques were implemented, there would be the following changes:

1. Units would be renamed so that they are easier to look up on Civpedia
2. The game would have one less turn
3. Maybe you could build Chafees in Japan? That's not gonna change a lot after the first four or five turns as targets of opportunity become very rare after that.
4. Using TOTPP framework, naval units have VASTLY increased movement range, balanced by limits on how many attacks they can do
5. Players would have THE OPTION, not requirement, to play laterally and be rewarded or punished for it. No player would be forced to do this and
6. The documentation would be thorough enough you can play historically to any point you choose. You can play the historical timetable as much or as little as you desire.
7. Certain units, could be built would need rebalance. Say, 150 shields for a Chaffee, maybe 60 for combat engineers BUT have them eat three or four food and ouse rule these are not t be put in a combat zone. Say five spaces from any known enemy forces.

These are not truly radical changes to the scenario. They are mostly quality of life improvements. Even if I weren't emotionally invested in games after the Chinese come in if you play historically, you are playing zombie horde mode in the most boring way possible ,and I hate Horde modes anyway.

I don't understand why you play a game with seeming disinterest to its context and moral implications, not why you seem incensed at my suggestions for lateral play. This second thing is the big thing because I'm in it for the possibilities, not the victory. I DO NOT care for Crusader Kings 2, but I love the ideas of Monks and Mystics whereas a hermetic you can invent eyeglasses as early as the 8th century. You can build a proof of concept handgun,. and though not in Monks and Mystics, you can send embassies to China and get cool bling, a quest for holy artifacts commission art, discover heliocentrism, again as early as the 8th century an even buy the frickin Necronomicon. You can write Magnum Opuses. None of this has ANYTHING to do with being a Crusader King and conquering castles. But as far as stories go, they inspire.

Thing is, even in not great scenarios like Colonies I there are such cool ideas in the play it's not even funny. I was playing the French, in 1492. I could invade North Africa, I could hire Berber mercenaries and send them to the Americas to explore. Before 1519, instead of Christopher Columbusing the natives, I was trading with them. My merchants were exploring the Jungles, making treaties, doing anthropology on the Maya and Aztecs. and trying to get to the Inca lands. That is such a compelling AH it takes my breath away, and certainly, it's within the realm of possibility given a 1492 POD.

It's those outside the box moments I live for.

Why do you play? I don't mean that disrespectfully. you just seem annoyed by my motivations.

It may interest you to note that, early in this scenario's development, there was an "Atomic Release," option possible near the middle part of the game, around MacArthur's dismissal historically. I canned the idea because a scenario on a map of the Korean Peninsula with small surrounding chunks of Japan, China, and Siberia would quickly become irrelevated by the World War that would ensue, and bombing a few Chinese cities prior to that would be inconsequential.

 

[Knighttime]

you just seem annoyed by my motivations.

No one is annoyed by your motivations for playing. But if you imply that my motivations, because they're different, are therefore inferior, then I do have a problem with that.

Mostly I'm unclear on your motivation for posting lengthy diatribes against multiple well-done and highly regarded scenarios, many of which have been around for years. If a scenario isn't to your liking, don't play it -- simple as that. The designer's vision didn't align with your vision? Ah well, guess this one wasn't for you, try the next one.

I care deeply about the scenario's depiction of Rome, where Rome is this industrial and trade juggernaut, which is the beating heart of the entire Western Roman world, instead of most depictions of Rome from late Republic as a giant resource sink that was a parasite on the entire empire and most of it's labor pool was wanted on high unemployment and constant bread and circuses.

Do you want to be the "good" Rome to this community? Then like Techumseh said, you ought to focus on buckling down and creating something of your own that you can release and share. Yes, I know that takes hard work and plenty of time. But if you only intend to contribute criticism, I'm sorry to say that you're being far more like the "other" kind of Rome.

You seem intent on playing scenarios that allow you to "make the world a better place". So, in real life: if you want to make this community a better place, please try building it up instead of expending so much energy tearing down what's been done before.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

You can count me among those whose patience is wearing thin.

Generally speaking, you don't play the scenario as designed and then suggest changes that are outside the scope of the scenario. This reads like you expected the scenario to be made for you personally, or that the preferences you personally have are the obvious things to design for. If you want your suggestions to be considered and not viewed as annoying or insulting, then try to figure out if the scenario designer is meeting his goals with the scenario, not your goals. If you think you have a way to better achieve the designer's goal, then that can be useful to share. If your goal is different from the designer's goal, then don't say anything, and find a scenario that is closer to what you want. As I've suggested before, if you have particular preferences, then ask if someone knows of a scenario that meets those preferences.

 

[Konig15]

You can count me among those whose patience is wearing thin.

Generally speaking, you don't play the scenario as designed and then suggest changes that are outside the scope of the scenario. This reads like you expected the scenario to be made for you personally, or that the preferences you personally have are the obvious things to design for. If you want your suggestions to be considered and not viewed as annoying or insulting, then try to figure out if the scenario designer is meeting his goals with the scenario, not your goals. If you think you have a way to better achieve the designer's goal, then that can be useful to share. If your goal is different from the designer's goal, then don't say anything, and find a scenario that is closer to what you want. As I've suggested before, if you have particular preferences, then ask if someone knows of a scenario that meets those preferences.

OK duly noted.
Thing is this wasn't meant as a diatribe but as feedback.

I can see, and respect that not only do I have abnormal play designs, I might have abnormal design philosophy and what people consider a wild impertinence.

I hold art, including scenarios, and this is a work of art, even if I think it could be better, is for the audience, not the creator. And that when not laborious to do so, the game or scenario should be built to be easily modifiable, and any house rules should be well justified by historical constraints with some thought given to counter-arguments. I don't mind being told: don't do this, it breaks the game and it breaks the game for this reason. I personally would be honored if someone wanted to mod a scenario of mine because it means there's enough for them to like to think it's worth tweaking but not necessary to remake the scenario from scratch. But......clearly this view isn't shared and people tend to be Anne Rice lite about their work.

But I'm not insisting on changes, I'm only giving me feedback on what I felt was unsatisfactory, but also easy to fix. The documentation problems, and the need to rename units so they are easy to find in Civpedia I consider very valid feedback, but if it's not, I'd like to know why. But since critique seems unwelcome, I won't critique anything here on in, at least in terms of Civ 2 scenarios. I was trying to give helpful feedback, and it's not bein received that way.

Just know if there wasn't something I really REALLY liked about this scenario, I wouldn't have bothered to comment at all. Call my comments an faux pas compliment. But it was meant as a compliment.

 

[Patine]

OK duly noted.
Thing is this wasn't meant as a diatribe but as feedback.

I can see, and respect that not only do I have abnormal play designs, I might have abnormal design philosophy and what people consider a wild impertinence.

I hold art, including scenarios, and this is a work of art, even if I think it could be better, is for the audience, not the creator. And that when not laborious to do so, the game or scenario should be built to be easily modifiable, and any house rules should be well justified by historical constraints with some thought given to counter-arguments. I don't mind being told: don't do this, it breaks the game and it breaks the game for this reason. I personally would be honored if someone wanted to mod a scenario of mine because it means there's enough for them to like to think it's worth tweaking but not necessary to remake the scenario from scratch. But......clearly this view isn't shared and people tend to be Anne Rice lite about their work.

But I'm not insisting on changes, I'm only giving me feedback on what I felt was unsatisfactory, but also easy to fix. The documentation problems, and the need to rename units so they are easy to find in Civpedia I consider very valid feedback, but if it's not, I'd like to know why. But since critique seems unwelcome, I won't critique anything here on in, at least in terms of Civ 2 scenarios. I was trying to give helpful feedback, and it's not bein received that way.

Just know if there wasn't something I really REALLY liked about this scenario, I wouldn't have bothered to comment at all. Call my comments an faux pas compliment. But it was meant as a compliment.

Somehow, Anne Rice got into this diatribe. But, you are incorrect. I'm not just creator of a few Civ2 scenarios, I'm also an aspiring author and table-top RPG world designer. And creative pursuits like this are not just some selfless (or profiteering) work only for the audience and not for the creator at all. You've got that completely wrong...

 

[Konig15]

Somehow, Anne Rice got into this diatribe. But, you are incorrect. I'm not just creator of a few Civ2 scenarios, I'm also an aspiring author and table-top RPG world designer. And creative pursuits like this are not just some selfless (or profiteering) work only for the audience and not for the creator at all. You've got that completely wrong...

Can we continue this conversation in PMs? Not exactly what I said but while I want to understand, I don't want to court controversy any more than I already have. I want things to be cordial between me and this board, and not just out of convenience.

 

[techumseh]

PMs? Maybe not. Until the snide Anne Rice reference, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's clear you don't get it. Every few years, some arrogant newbie rolls in here and tells us everything we're doing wrong. Having contributed nothing, they proceed to denigrate out work, ignoring the thousands and thousands of hours spent trying to create something enjoyable - at least for ourselves, and hopefully for a few others as well. It's not only arrogant, it's extremely disrespectful.

Did you really expect Patine and McMonkey to jump up and remake their scenario to suit your whims and your fascistic politics? McMonkey's revised scenario has been posted for over two years. It's done. You're too late, and you haven't paid your dues. Here's an idea: Make the changes you want yourself, and post them. The community will give you feedback, you can be sure of it.

As we are being compared to Anne Rice, here is a quote from her when she responded to criticism of her work: "Your stupid, arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander," she wrote. "You have used the site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies." Nice, eh?

 

[JPetroski]

@Konig15 , as I mentioned in our PM, you have done nothing irreparable at this stage, and you and I will be good. I will chalk up your tone (which does need rapid adjustment) simply to the excitedness of someone who has rediscovered this game after many absent years, so the flood of observations is expected. With that said, I mentioned I'd give you some public feedback.

On several occasions your choice of words has been questionable. There was the Ellis comment, which you've explained later (but could have prefaced); there was a comment about McMonkey's Fortress Europe where you insinuated he made some questionable decision to have grassland require 2 movement points, etc. I get the Ellis comment now that you've explained it (for others: he referenced how John himself called the scenario "not great" in his readme because of some issues with the AI), but the McMonkey one comes across as the "arrogant newbie" Techumseh mentioned.

You seem to think you are owed an explanation for the reasons behind every house rule. Let me be clear: you are not. With that said, here is the explanation anyway: they're designed to balance or script the scenario as the designer intended. Sometimes they are there due to AI limitations, other times they are there due to game limitations. Occasionally, it's simply to limit the scope of the scenario, because adding in "what ifs" takes a lot of event space, and there's a limited heap size you can use with macro (not to mention, designers might want to limit their scope so they have a chance of completing the game). When you start designing your own scenarios and being frustrated by AI stupidity, many of these house rules will make more sense.

One great thing about lua is we don't have a need for many house rules because we can simply enforce actual game mechanics. For example, in Over the Reich, if you decide that Prof. Garfield and I are "crazy" for not allowing you to strafe industry with fighters, too bad. Go ahead and try it (with the latest version I posted). It won't work. There's only one house rule currently in Over the Reich and if Prof. Garfield and I really wanted to, we could probably remove that one too with lua, but there's other more pressing concerns.

In any event, every single playtest a designer did has respected these. Every playtest a true playtester completed has respected these. Violate them and throw all your feedback directly out the window as it is completely irrelevant. It's like when you gave me feedback on Over the Reich despite admitting you were playing it single player against the AI. Why would I listen to any of that? Why would they?

As others have mentioned, many of these scenarios are years old so you've missed the boat for feedback. Find one that is in development and ask if you can playtest (or play it really early) and offer concise, constructive criticism or perhaps ask for questions on things that aren't clear and you'll get a better response. I recently drafted up some single player (though hotseat) rules for Over the Reich in the creation thread and when the current tweaks we are working on are complete, I'd love to have your help, for example. You'll have a chance to influence things, but don't expect massive, game-altering changes 9 years into the development.

Finally, just for my own edification... What on earth are you talking about with the civilopedia? I just went through the whole first AI turn to check on things, and it is very much alphabetized already.

 

[Civinator]

Finally, just for my own edification... What on earth are you talking about with the civilopedia?

May be to visualize the civilopedia entries more clearly, it could be better, not to use the original Civ2 ToT civilopedia background graphics ? The very rough background makes it more difficult to identify the graphics of the units as when using a 'smooth' background. Even in the screenshot I have attached here, the background colour seems to be a little bit too dark.

 

[CurtSibling]

@Konig15
Your review of a scenario is acceptable, and very welcome. Historical rants, less so.
What is definitely not going to work is taking an aggressive tone in your posts.

None of us here are into the internet hardman nonsense.
Just talk here in a way you would in real life.

This advice is not open for debate.

 

[CurtSibling]

You have plenty of "advice". I suggest you try creating your own scenario. That way you will be able to play one that fits your exacting demands.

I second this. Making a new scenario on the subject would address Konig's design goals, and also provide us a new CIV2 creation, which is always very welcome.

 

[JPetroski]

May be to visualize the civilopedia entries more clearly, it could be better, not to use the original Civ2 ToT civilopedia background graphics ? The very rough background makes it more difficult to identify the graphics of the units as when using a 'smooth' background.

I dont think I've ever tried to fix this, so I'll have to play around with it a bit.

 

[Civinator]

I dont think I've ever tried to fix this, so I'll have to play around with it a bit.

I did that change in the civilopedia background graphics by renaming the dialog graphic in the Civ 2 ToT Original folder to dialog-original and pasting into the Original folder of Civ 2 ToT a masterly done dialog graphic created by a modder with the nickname Skulb (or something like that). Unfortunately I haven´t found the thread with that graphics again, so I was not able to draw a link to his thread and have to attache a copy of his file to this post.

The background colours can be changed easily by changing the colours in the big boxes at the top of that file.

May be here are a lot of modders with a much better knowledge about changing the background colours, but this was the way I have done it, based on a knowledge about 20 years ago.

 

[McMonkey]

@Konig15
I'm glad you enjoyed the scenario, despite its imperfections. Between us, Patine & I spent many hours (hundreds) working on this scenario over the years. I'm pleased with the result of my mod of Pat's excellent original. At the time of working on it, I thought I saw the potential to take the original in some new directions that suited my sensibilities. For example, I'm a fan of having historical formations represented. I know others prefer generic units (IE US Infantry instead of individual divisional units). This is just my personal preference, so that's how I designed the mod. I'm very familiar with the history & unit types/characteristics so I may have overlooked some elements when it came to the documentation. It's difficult to anticipate everything that a new player may require & as the community is generally made up of old hands who tend to be history buffs, I thought the Read Me was adequate, though everything can be improved.

This is very much a historical scenario with boundaries. I was not attempting to create an alternative history as such. Of course, you can lose the war or improve on the historical outcome but it was intentionally designed within the historical constraints of the time. For example, the Inchon landings were intended as a one-time event. A human player with unrestrained naval power could easily pick off the AI on a peninsular map, landing at will behind the AI lines to wreak havoc.

My suggestion would be, with Patine's permission, to make your own mod of the scenario to expand on the alternative history element & fix the issues you highlighted. Be warned though, creating a scenario is no easy feat. Small changes can have unintended consequences down the road. A LOT of testing goes into finalizing these scenarios. In fact, that seems to be the hardest part. Events need to be tested, play balance tweaked, errors fixed. The list of TO DO items continually grows. Starting with a sound foundation (existing scenario) and making alterations is a little easier than starting from scratch as an awful lot of the tedious groundwork has already been done & you can concentrate more on making alterations. Give it a go

I'm afraid I can't answer every point you raised in detail. It's been a long time since I worked on this scenario & I just don't have the enthusiasm right now to get back into scenario design. Perhaps that may change in the future. I really would encourage you to be the change you want to see & have a crack at improving on our work. I'm sure a more open-ended Korean War would be appealing to players. I'd probably have a bash at it myself.

@Scenario League community
Happy new year guys. Apologies for my recent absence. I think I burned out somewhat with scenario creation & got distracted with other hobbies. Hopefully, I'll rediscover my Civ2 mojo at some point in this new year/decade. I did help Techumseh playtest his Burma campaign, which I would highly recommend if you've not already played it! Take it easy my dudes