Huge difference in playstyle between random maps and scenarios

[JoeyB98]

Does anyone else play scenarios radically different from the way they play random maps? For me, in a scenario, I always keep my civ to at or just above its historical largest extent, and rename cities to historical, etc. whereas on a random map I just try to win. I am also satisfied in scenarios with an empire much smaller and cities much worse than in a random map, especially if they are historically relevant (for example, I just can't put Constantinople 1W in RFC, even though it's a better city site)

 

[Drakarska]

Depends on the scenario in question, but for the most part yes. RFC DOC is the biggy, especially if I'm playing one of the early civs.

BTW Joey, big fan of your Earth FOR map. It's really fun with the 50 civ DLL.

 

[Reg Pither]

There are scenarios?!?

 

[Manco Capac]

^Sarcasm alert level ???

 

[Drakarska]

^Sarcasm alert level ???

Mine's pegged at a healthy 10. Would be interesting to see if he is actually asking legit.

 

[Windsor]

Never played a scenario.

 

[rah]

The only ones I ever played were the barbarian and mongol ones from Warlords.

Which are the best in BTS? I prefer different concepts over historical.

 

[Drakarska]

Then your in for a treat Rah. May I humbly recommend you head over to the scenario thread and take a gander?

 

[Manco Capac]

Any map saved in WB is a scenario per essence. When reaching things like Barbarians!, it's a mod.

 

[ZeekLTK]

Does anyone else play scenarios radically different from the way they play random maps?

I do, although I think it's just a by-product of the way scenarios are set up I guess.

The few scenarios that I've played, the map is already set up. Cities are established, armies are already built, the objective is generally to fight the opponents rather than, in a normal game, where the objective is to build everything and then maybe go fight someone, or maybe not.

For example, two scenarios I've played recently are the American Revolution scenario and then North Africa WWII scenario. In both scenarios you start with a handful of cities and troops and basically you HAVE to spend most of the time simply building more units to go off and fight. These scenarios even limit the buildings that can be built, so you can't even try to call off the war and go for a space win or something instead, you basically have to fight or there isn't a point in playing.

While it's interesting for a little bit, eventually you win the battle(s) and it's over. It's not really as much fun as starting on a random piece of land in 4000 BC and having tons of different options going forward. So I like the "random" games better, since I'm much less interested in wars and more in exploring, building, and trading (I usually win a Diplo victory!)

 

[plastiqe]

If by "scenarios" you mean the official ones that come with the game then I've played a few. I like the graphics for Final Frontier but it's not that great of a mod. I think it's funny that when you look at the Civ4 BTS - Official Mods & Scenarios forum section the two biggest threads by far are about the problems with Final Frontiers design, and that is the guy they picked to make Civ 5.

I think there is a fan made mod for Final Frontier out there somewhere but I haven't tried it yet. Firaxis-made-mods are usually poor substitutes for the real thing.

 

[MensPulchra]

Final Frontier is problematic for two main reasons:
1)You have to build your improvement by yourself: Instead of the working independently improving the tiles (or planet here), the tile is purveying itself its improvement. It dimishes by a great deal the strategic aspect.
2)No early slavery. There is slavery, but at the very end of the tech tree.

Bonus reason: No chop power. Asteroids could have been used, but no!

Basically, the whole game is organic progression without peaks and thus starting a critical difficulty, the AI will overwhelm you.

 

[plastiqe]

Final Frontier is problematic for two main reasons:
1)You have to build your improvement by yourself: Instead of the working independently improving the tiles (or planet here), the tile is purveying itself its improvement. It dimishes by a great deal the strategic aspect.
2)No early slavery. There is slavery, but at the very end of the tech tree.

Bonus reason: No chop power. Asteroids could have been used, but no!

Basically, the whole game is organic progression without peaks and thus starting a critical difficulty, the AI will overwhelm you.

That, and many other things like the uninspired unit progression of Ship Level 1, Ship Level 2, Ship Level 3 which is lame. Firaxis just picked the wrong person; imagine what a good modder could have done with all the company resources behind them.

 

[MensPulchra]

im glad to see im not the sole to see that mod has some troublesome problems. so tomatoes on Jon Shafer. this dude just a chafer.

 

[Reg Pither]

^Sarcasm alert level ???

Well spotted.

I've never played any scenarios, and doubt I ever will.

There are just sooo many options still to play with on random.