A little constructive criticism of the scenarios.

[Buck2005]

Hello!

I want to share a few thoughts about what I DO NOT LIKE in the scenarios of the 2nd Civilization. At once I will say, I respect and appreciate the work of people who create scripts. Therefore, please consider this text only as constructive criticism, without the desire to offend someone.
I treat myself to the fans of this game. I play in it since 1999 year. Nevertheless, for almost 20 years, I have not found a single scenario for which I would like to play. I have an almost complete collection of scenario from this site. I regularly download them when they go out. But it all ends by carefully considering next beautiful pictures, beautiful design of localities, units and other things, I close this scenario, without making a single move. You will say - you are not the target audience of scenarios, play the usual campaign. ) Perhaps it is. However, considering the age of the second civilization, I think the real "target audience" is very, very much limited. And, if you are interested in constructive criticism of scenarios from the point of view of an amateur of the usual campaign, and you would like to expand the "target audience" - read on. No - do not waste your time. )

This criticism concerns only scenarios on historical topics (modeling of real history). Scenarios of "SF" or "fantasy" are not interesting to me in principle, and I do not consider them. In addition, the criticism ONLY those aspects that really improve on the engine of the 2nd civilization. I am perfectly aware of his shortcomings and limitations. Therefore, please, there is no need for references like "you do not like our scenarios - go play other versions of Civilization, or in general to other games." There everything that you want is realized. " ) No. I'm writing exactly what I could do on the engine of this game. But for some reason - it's not done. Well, I apologize in advance for the suburban presentation. I do not speak English well. And relatively recently discovered this site. Probably, many things have been awakened here many times already.

1. Very high entry threshold in the scenario.

Any (well-made and thought out) scenario is essentially a new separate game, albeit on the usual engine of the 2nd civilization. And any new game requires an "entry" into it. The most good scenarios are usually equipped with all kinds of README, tree technology schemes, and other tips. You say - sit, read, everything is written ...) But that's not the point. You see, when I open the script, I want to see the GAME, entertainment. The usual original campaign of any version of Civilization usually does not require any training. She is learning by herself. I go into the game, having one settler, and a minimum of information. With each new move, the game progressively introduces me to the course. Little by little "slipping" me pieces of information: here we can open a new science, here - explore the terrain, here - to improve in the cities. When I go into the script, a huge information shaft collapses, complicated not always by a well-balanced graphic design. I immediately close this scenario.

Unfortunately, very few scenarios are done with the "sight" of the game from scratch. You will say: it is impossible to correctly model late historical epochs like the Napoleonic wars, the Second World War on large maps of Europe or the World without a huge number of starting cities and units.
I'll say - you just did not try. ) The creators of the scripts are magnificent masters of design, creating "historical events" and other things that very well model the given epoch. But almost always they think too stereotypically.

We want to model the Third Reich? Let's make Germany 150 cities, 20 variations of tanks and 30 variations of guns. Napoleon? Now France has 150 cities, 20 colored versions of units in French colors. Sit - read README or civilopedia - than these variations of tanks differ from each other. And manage from the first move countless number of cities and units. Boredom, this is the first. ) And secondly - what is the fundamental difference between the script of Napoleon, and the scenario of Germany, except in the colorful pictures, and slightly tweaked under the situation settings of the units? Nothing - these are two templating and boring scenarios, although very beautifully drawn.

2. Maps.

The maps on which the scenarios are made are the most painful and weak place. The old scenarios of the late 90s of the early 2000s were generally created on horrible maps. The authors did not attach any importance to at least a distant correspondence of real geography. For such an ancient game, it's forgivable. In modern scenarios, the authors have already learned how to draw plausible maps. They even developed a special method (as I read here) - to do a "flat-out on the squares" and carefully draw the cell behind the cage. Now the best scenarios are based on pretty good and believable maps.

However, Dear authors. ) Why are you (undoubtedly magnificent players in the 2nd Civilization, who know all its subtleties this game) REGULARLY ignore the basic game mechanics of this game ?! On maps of a small scale (world map), it is often possible to find an absurd situation: for example, Italy is drawn so finely (though of course and on the right scale), which is a "thickness" of 1-2 cells. The city of Rome is a port for both the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic seas. Absurd! You will say - this is a convention, "generalization". ) OK. Suppose for a world map this is really admissible generalization. But here for a map of a larger scale this is clearly not permissible. For example, on an ultra-large map of Europe in the same Itilia, it is easy to found cities in Bruttia and Puglia and even in Lucania, which will be "canals" in two seas. In Greece - almost all consists of such "channels-isthmuses" in one cage. You will say - but what about the Corinthian channel? OK. With a very great stretch we will accept. And then we'll look at Denmark in the era of the Punic Wars - one continuous "Kiel Channel". And this is modeling what ??...

Show me absolutely any, the best scenario in your opinion, and I will show you a minimum of ten such absurd isthmuses. A week ago, they posted a screenshot of the map of the Balkans and Greece. On Crete there was one or two places in 1 cage with such a "channel". Perhaps, for someone it's irrelevant trifles and "nit-picking." Indeed, in fact, for each specific case it is always possible to choose an "explanation". Here was the Korif Canal, here - Kilsky. Here the channel is still pharaoh dug in the 25 century BC, but here the Vikings dragged their dragons. Yes, everything is plausible ... But if the whole card consists of an infinite number of such frank stretches and "explanations" - for me this is unacceptable. I will close this scenario without starting.

3. "Cities through 1 cage." Cities that "ignore resources."

Why do you need to bilding the cities so close to each other? The area of the city in the 2nd Civilization is 21 cages. But in very many scenarios, even the largest cities like London, New York, Paris can easily handle only 5-8 cells, having a size of more than 20 inhabitants. Why are you doing this? Do you have a little space on the map? Especially I am surprised at the maps of a very large area, like the super-giant maps of the World and Europe. You will say - but we are striving for the most accurate modeling! In reality, Essen and Dusseldorf are very close to each other, are not they? Exactly. But this is in reality. And here we are dealing with an extremely imperfect and outdated engine of the 2nd civilization. So why should we ignore it, in favor of some remote imitation of reality? Another absurdity. In addition, I recall that in the case of Rome, which has access to the Adriatic, there was an "explanation" that it was "generalization." OK. And why in the case of cities there is not this notorious "generalization"? What's stopping you Essen and Dusseldorf to unite in one big city with a normal area of 21 cells. After all, it's worth it to call it something like "Ruhr Pool" - and here it is, the desired "generalization"! )

Absolutely in all scenarios, the authors also stubbornly ignore the resource grid. After all, to you, of course, the splendid connoisseurs of the 2 nd civilization, of course the sign and the template by which the resources are distributed over the map is obvious. Tell me honestly, when you play an ordinary campaign on a random card, do not you try to capture your maximum resources with your city? After all, it is rational and profitable to have 3 or 4 resources in the city. Probably, if possible, you do it all the same. In that case, why not in a script where its author is open and the whole map is visible and he knows in advance the location of all the resources - is it also rational to place cities? I want to "tear my eyes out" when I see the city of Carthage (one of the greatest cities of antiquity) which is only shifted to ONE cell from the place where it could capture 4 resources. Instead, it has 1 or 2. I understand the situation when it is impossible to fit the exact location of real historical cities to the resource grid (because the resources in this game can not be placed at will). But I do not understand at all when it is absolutely clear that here they are 4 resources, take and build a city there! But no - the author somehow decided to "miss" past them.

4. Not a realistic balance of combat units.

Up to the middle of the 20th century the main army was infantry (with the exception of small "surges" of the predominance of cavalry in the Bronze Age and in the early period of the Middle Ages). Moreover, not just infantry, and infantry very poor quality. Even the vaunted Roman legions are bad armed and badly organized rabble - the militia of the half-hearted peasants and the urban proletariat. Yes, after the reforms, the Mariy legions have already become a professional army, with regular supplies. But we must not forget all of the key enemies of Rome were defeated even before Mariy. And were defeated for one simple reason that the weapons and organization of these adversaries were again MORE worse than that of the Romans.The army of Napoleon in the campaign of 1796 was a gathering of the army of poverty, even the rifle were not at all.Of course, at all times, and at all times there were elite units well armed, but they were at best ONE percent of the total number of soldiers in the army.The overwhelming number of armies (with proper modeling) should make up such a meaningless mass of essentially useless units. And elite troops should be much more expensive in order to build.

In reality, the average static scenario is a set of a huge number of units that are not much different from each other. Yes, they are all equipped with beautiful pictures, all invented a believable "legend" and an "explanation", why exactly such indicators of attack, defense, hint points and so on put the author. In the details, everything is fine. But in general - the picture is more than depressing. Any player with a less "nametannym eye" instantly allocate from this crowd units 1 or 2 with the strongest indicators and will build only them.

I remember that in the early 2000s, I went through the scenario"Mongolia". I built only "siege towers." And with these "towers" I seized the whole map from China, to Paris. Siege towers, Karl! In the steppes and deserts! )) Yes, of course, everyone knows that the Mongols used siege weapons very actively in their wars. But the overwhelming part of their army was still cavalry, and of rather poor quality (from the conquered peoples in the main). 10% of the army accounted for the share of elite "thoroughbred" -mongolian cavalry. And only 1% of the army (at best) - was a park of siege weapons. In the case of my passage, my army of Mongols made 100% of the siege towers.

5. There is no principle of "siege of the city".

The history of all wars, right up to the Second World War, is the history of the sieges of cities, and even entire countries (of course, there were short-term exceptions, where maneuver tactics, like the Napolenes wars, predominated. But these are exceptions to the general rule.) Even the First World War is essentially a great mutual siege, only in the size of countries and continents. Or everyone knows the "Anaconda plan" in the Civil War in the United States. In none of the scenarios the authors even tried to simulate it at least somehow. You will say - this is impossible on the engine of the 2nd Civilization. I'll tell you - you just did not try.

I read in yesterday's discussion the general admiration for the new patch, which allows modeling long-range artillery and stuff. Nonsense, I say. I easily imagine that the authors are already starting to make a new scenario, where the Colossal cannon fires at Paris. Yes, of course, have such a gun on the engine of the 2nd civilization - it's very nice. But it's not the essence of it! Allies defeated Germany not by any super-powerful guns, tanks and other "units". And they won by simply strangling their opponent with an exhausting blockade-the "siege". Proper modeling of this situation should not concern the combat system, and the units. These are absolutely secondary things. And it should be aimed at changing the game balance of terrain types.

What is a siege? This deprivation of the enemy access to food, water, and other supplies. In the engine of the second civilization - this is the essence of "food" and "shields." It is the change in the balance of these entities that can simulate a siege. Why storm the city, when you can just put your strong defensive units on cells with "food". And wait for the city to "die of hunger." No inhabitants - there is no production of "shields". Therefore, all units assigned to this city will automatically be dissolved.

And so on.

I'll finish by saying this, otherwise it's possible to continue indefinitely. Thank you for your attention.

 

[JPetroski]

Well,

I actually read the whole thing. It was tempting not to after you admitted you look at most scenarios and don't even play a turn, but I did.

A few questions:

1. Have you ever made a scenario?
2. Have you ever made a map?
3. What is stopping you from sieging cities the way you describe if you'd like?

If you've made a scenario, by all means publish it so we can take a peek at excellence.

If you're good at making maps, by all means make some that we can use.

 

[Patine]

Hello!

I want to share a few thoughts about what I DO NOT LIKE in the scenarios of the 2nd Civilization. At once I will say, I respect and appreciate the work of people who create scripts. Therefore, please consider this text only as constructive criticism, without the desire to offend someone.
I treat myself to the fans of this game. I play in it since 1999 year. Nevertheless, for almost 20 years, I have not found a single scenario for which I would like to play. I have an almost complete collection of scenario from this site. I regularly download them when they go out. But it all ends by carefully considering next beautiful pictures, beautiful design of localities, units and other things, I close this scenario, without making a single move. You will say - you are not the target audience of scenarios, play the usual campaign. ) Perhaps it is. However, considering the age of the second civilization, I think the real "target audience" is very, very much limited. And, if you are interested in constructive criticism of scenarios from the point of view of an amateur of the usual campaign, and you would like to expand the "target audience" - read on. No - do not waste your time. )

This criticism concerns only scenarios on historical topics (modeling of real history). Scenarios of "SF" or "fantasy" are not interesting to me in principle, and I do not consider them. In addition, the criticism ONLY those aspects that really improve on the engine of the 2nd civilization. I am perfectly aware of his shortcomings and limitations. Therefore, please, there is no need for references like "you do not like our scenarios - go play other versions of Civilization, or in general to other games." There everything that you want is realized. " ) No. I'm writing exactly what I could do on the engine of this game. But for some reason - it's not done. Well, I apologize in advance for the suburban presentation. I do not speak English well. And relatively recently discovered this site. Probably, many things have been awakened here many times already.

1. Very high entry threshold in the scenario.

Any (well-made and thought out) scenario is essentially a new separate game, albeit on the usual engine of the 2nd civilization. And any new game requires an "entry" into it. The most good scenarios are usually equipped with all kinds of README, tree technology schemes, and other tips. You say - sit, read, everything is written ...) But that's not the point. You see, when I open the script, I want to see the GAME, entertainment. The usual original campaign of any version of Civilization usually does not require any training. She is learning by herself. I go into the game, having one settler, and a minimum of information. With each new move, the game progressively introduces me to the course. Little by little "slipping" me pieces of information: here we can open a new science, here - explore the terrain, here - to improve in the cities. When I go into the script, a huge information shaft collapses, complicated not always by a well-balanced graphic design. I immediately close this scenario.

Unfortunately, very few scenarios are done with the "sight" of the game from scratch. You will say: it is impossible to correctly model late historical epochs like the Napoleonic wars, the Second World War on large maps of Europe or the World without a huge number of starting cities and units.
I'll say - you just did not try. ) The creators of the scripts are magnificent masters of design, creating "historical events" and other things that very well model the given epoch. But almost always they think too stereotypically.

We want to model the Third Reich? Let's make Germany 150 cities, 20 variations of tanks and 30 variations of guns. Napoleon? Now France has 150 cities, 20 colored versions of units in French colors. Sit - read README or civilopedia - than these variations of tanks differ from each other. And manage from the first move countless number of cities and units. Boredom, this is the first. ) And secondly - what is the fundamental difference between the script of Napoleon, and the scenario of Germany, except in the colorful pictures, and slightly tweaked under the situation settings of the units? Nothing - these are two templating and boring scenarios, although very beautifully drawn.

2. Maps.

The maps on which the scenarios are made are the most painful and weak place. The old scenarios of the late 90s of the early 2000s were generally created on horrible maps. The authors did not attach any importance to at least a distant correspondence of real geography. For such an ancient game, it's forgivable. In modern scenarios, the authors have already learned how to draw plausible maps. They even developed a special method (as I read here) - to do a "flat-out on the squares" and carefully draw the cell behind the cage. Now the best scenarios are based on pretty good and believable maps.

However, Dear authors. ) Why are you (undoubtedly magnificent players in the 2nd Civilization, who know all its subtleties this game) REGULARLY ignore the basic game mechanics of this game ?! On maps of a small scale (world map), it is often possible to find an absurd situation: for example, Italy is drawn so finely (though of course and on the right scale), which is a "thickness" of 1-2 cells. The city of Rome is a port for both the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic seas. Absurd! You will say - this is a convention, "generalization". ) OK. Suppose for a world map this is really admissible generalization. But here for a map of a larger scale this is clearly not permissible. For example, on an ultra-large map of Europe in the same Itilia, it is easy to found cities in Bruttia and Puglia and even in Lucania, which will be "canals" in two seas. In Greece - almost all consists of such "channels-isthmuses" in one cage. You will say - but what about the Corinthian channel? OK. With a very great stretch we will accept. And then we'll look at Denmark in the era of the Punic Wars - one continuous "Kiel Channel". And this is modeling what ??...

Show me absolutely any, the best scenario in your opinion, and I will show you a minimum of ten such absurd isthmuses. A week ago, they posted a screenshot of the map of the Balkans and Greece. On Crete there was one or two places in 1 cage with such a "channel". Perhaps, for someone it's irrelevant trifles and "nit-picking." Indeed, in fact, for each specific case it is always possible to choose an "explanation". Here was the Korif Canal, here - Kilsky. Here the channel is still pharaoh dug in the 25 century BC, but here the Vikings dragged their dragons. Yes, everything is plausible ... But if the whole card consists of an infinite number of such frank stretches and "explanations" - for me this is unacceptable. I will close this scenario without starting.

3. "Cities through 1 cage." Cities that "ignore resources."

Why do you need to bilding the cities so close to each other? The area of the city in the 2nd Civilization is 21 cages. But in very many scenarios, even the largest cities like London, New York, Paris can easily handle only 5-8 cells, having a size of more than 20 inhabitants. Why are you doing this? Do you have a little space on the map? Especially I am surprised at the maps of a very large area, like the super-giant maps of the World and Europe. You will say - but we are striving for the most accurate modeling! In reality, Essen and Dusseldorf are very close to each other, are not they? Exactly. But this is in reality. And here we are dealing with an extremely imperfect and outdated engine of the 2nd civilization. So why should we ignore it, in favor of some remote imitation of reality? Another absurdity. In addition, I recall that in the case of Rome, which has access to the Adriatic, there was an "explanation" that it was "generalization." OK. And why in the case of cities there is not this notorious "generalization"? What's stopping you Essen and Dusseldorf to unite in one big city with a normal area of 21 cells. After all, it's worth it to call it something like "Ruhr Pool" - and here it is, the desired "generalization"! )

Absolutely in all scenarios, the authors also stubbornly ignore the resource grid. After all, to you, of course, the splendid connoisseurs of the 2 nd civilization, of course the sign and the template by which the resources are distributed over the map is obvious. Tell me honestly, when you play an ordinary campaign on a random card, do not you try to capture your maximum resources with your city? After all, it is rational and profitable to have 3 or 4 resources in the city. Probably, if possible, you do it all the same. In that case, why not in a script where its author is open and the whole map is visible and he knows in advance the location of all the resources - is it also rational to place cities? I want to "tear my eyes out" when I see the city of Carthage (one of the greatest cities of antiquity) which is only shifted to ONE cell from the place where it could capture 4 resources. Instead, it has 1 or 2. I understand the situation when it is impossible to fit the exact location of real historical cities to the resource grid (because the resources in this game can not be placed at will). But I do not understand at all when it is absolutely clear that here they are 4 resources, take and build a city there! But no - the author somehow decided to "miss" past them.

4. Not a realistic balance of combat units.

Up to the middle of the 20th century the main army was infantry (with the exception of small "surges" of the predominance of cavalry in the Bronze Age and in the early period of the Middle Ages). Moreover, not just infantry, and infantry very poor quality. Even the vaunted Roman legions are bad armed and badly organized rabble - the militia of the half-hearted peasants and the urban proletariat. Yes, after the reforms, the Mariy legions have already become a professional army, with regular supplies. But we must not forget all of the key enemies of Rome were defeated even before Mariy. And were defeated for one simple reason that the weapons and organization of these adversaries were again MORE worse than that of the Romans.The army of Napoleon in the campaign of 1796 was a gathering of the army of poverty, even the rifle were not at all.Of course, at all times, and at all times there were elite units well armed, but they were at best ONE percent of the total number of soldiers in the army.The overwhelming number of armies (with proper modeling) should make up such a meaningless mass of essentially useless units. And elite troops should be much more expensive in order to build.

In reality, the average static scenario is a set of a huge number of units that are not much different from each other. Yes, they are all equipped with beautiful pictures, all invented a believable "legend" and an "explanation", why exactly such indicators of attack, defense, hint points and so on put the author. In the details, everything is fine. But in general - the picture is more than depressing. Any player with a less "nametannym eye" instantly allocate from this crowd units 1 or 2 with the strongest indicators and will build only them.

I remember that in the early 2000s, I went through the scenario"Mongolia". I built only "siege towers." And with these "towers" I seized the whole map from China, to Paris. Siege towers, Karl! In the steppes and deserts! )) Yes, of course, everyone knows that the Mongols used siege weapons very actively in their wars. But the overwhelming part of their army was still cavalry, and of rather poor quality (from the conquered peoples in the main). 10% of the army accounted for the share of elite "thoroughbred" -mongolian cavalry. And only 1% of the army (at best) - was a park of siege weapons. In the case of my passage, my army of Mongols made 100% of the siege towers.

5. There is no principle of "siege of the city".

The history of all wars, right up to the Second World War, is the history of the sieges of cities, and even entire countries (of course, there were short-term exceptions, where maneuver tactics, like the Napolenes wars, predominated. But these are exceptions to the general rule.) Even the First World War is essentially a great mutual siege, only in the size of countries and continents. Or everyone knows the "Anaconda plan" in the Civil War in the United States. In none of the scenarios the authors even tried to simulate it at least somehow. You will say - this is impossible on the engine of the 2nd Civilization. I'll tell you - you just did not try.

I read in yesterday's discussion the general admiration for the new patch, which allows modeling long-range artillery and stuff. Nonsense, I say. I easily imagine that the authors are already starting to make a new scenario, where the Colossal cannon fires at Paris. Yes, of course, have such a gun on the engine of the 2nd civilization - it's very nice. But it's not the essence of it! Allies defeated Germany not by any super-powerful guns, tanks and other "units". And they won by simply strangling their opponent with an exhausting blockade-the "siege". Proper modeling of this situation should not concern the combat system, and the units. These are absolutely secondary things. And it should be aimed at changing the game balance of terrain types.

What is a siege? This deprivation of the enemy access to food, water, and other supplies. In the engine of the second civilization - this is the essence of "food" and "shields." It is the change in the balance of these entities that can simulate a siege. Why storm the city, when you can just put your strong defensive units on cells with "food". And wait for the city to "die of hunger." No inhabitants - there is no production of "shields". Therefore, all units assigned to this city will automatically be dissolved.

And so on.

I'll finish by saying this, otherwise it's possible to continue indefinitely. Thank you for your attention.

I'm not sure how to respond to this without sounding inadvertently flippant, dismissive, or harsh, so I will wait until I've had a night's sleep to make a full response. But, I will say, a tirade of constructive criticism does come across as a tad disrespectful when you already claim to have scripted most of the main responses of those you're criticising in advance.

 

[Buck2005]

1. Yes I tried to do the script. But my knowledge is not enough to make A good script. Therefore, I have long abandoned this idea. ) 2. Creation of maps for the 2nd civilization - it's my hobby. I am currently almost done with the adaptation of the ultra-gigantic map of Europe. I've redrawn it almost from scratch again. I implemented everything here criticizes as shortcomings, so what you think is right. 3. I didn't quite understand what you meant in the third paragraph. What bothers me to conduct the siege of the city in any of the scenarios described by me the method? At least it doesn't make any sense. 1). It is easier to capture the city by strong attacking units, as in any scenario - they are in excess. 2). By itself, the siege is meaningless, as the city with the current game balance food doesn't "die" ever. At least due to the presence of the 21st "zero" cells, which is the city itself. And kotoroya why something, too, produces "food."

 

[Buck2005]

I'm not sure how to respond to this without sounding inadvertently flippant, dismissive, or harsh, so I will wait until I've had a night's sleep to make a full response. But, I will say, a tirade of constructive criticism does come across as a tad disrespectful when you already claim to have scripted most of the main responses of those you're criticising in advance.

Ummmm. I think the tone of your post suggests that you took my criticism as disrespect for the writers of the scripts. It is in any case wrong. Yeah, I don't play them, I don't like them. But nevertheless, I perfectly understand, what enormous labor invested in their the creation. I appreciate this work. About what I supposedly attribute to you (or someone else) those thoughts "opponents that I "deny. ) This is also wrong. I in any case don't think you think so, thinks a "pseudo-opponent" with whom I argue... Have you read Plato's Dialogues? The structure of this work is that it lead the conversation of two certain characters. One says something. The other one denies it. Please take my text this way. )))

 

[McMonkey]

Somehow your comments are simultaneously vague & but strangely specific. Scenarios attempting to recreate a historical, era or campaign are too detailed, but at the same time maps, city placement & sieges are not detailed enough. I find it bizarre that you would download scenarios, take one look & then reject them because they are too complicated & Cologne is not positioned to your liking. There are many excellent scenarios that are both works of art & challenging. I find your comments insulting to the members who have spent countless hours of hard work to produce. Sometimes even years to complete. Perhaps things have got lost in translation, but I find your post rather galling!

You start your 'constructive criticism' saying you do not have the 'desire to offend someone' & then go on to dismiss almost every piece of work as not up to your standard. That standard appears to be the original Civ2 vanilla game. That's fine, we all loved the original, but that's not the purpose of the Scenario League.

The general idea of the SCENARIO League is to recreate specific historical situations as accurately as the game engine will allow and then find a way to make that scenario fun & challenging to play. Most members have been playing Civ2 for decades & have an innate understanding of how things work. We know the different unit classes (settlers, warriors, traders, ships...) and can quickly recognize them in a scenario. Many of us are also keen historians & have a good grasp of the strategic situation and how combat worked in that period. Personally, I don't focus too much the units stats. I get a feel for what each unit's strengths & weaknesses are (which are militia & which are elite) and use them accordingly.

I accept that not all maps ever produced were perfect. Some of the early scenarios look pretty crude by today's standards, but there are also many high-quality maps which faithfully represent real geography. When it comes to world scale maps there is a maximum size so compromises have to be made. Often in these world scenarios, Europe is simply a base & the focus is on colonization & dominating world trade. Other scenarios focus on a far narrower area. For example, Operation Market Garden is focused on Holland & the major bridges leading to the Rhineland. This scenario is a great example of a detailed model of a historical situation, which is both fun & extremely challenging.

The current crop of innovations ToTPP allows will revolutionize how history is recreated. We're working on ideas to represent strategic bombing, lines of supplies, entire nations surrendering and new ways of representing siege warfare. Finally, we're able to create ranged artillery units & archers to more accurately represent these units purpose.

I apologize if my response appears hostile, but I think there's a difference between constructive criticism & just trashing an entire communities collective work due to a few aspects you don't like.

 

[McMonkey]

Ummmm. I think the tone of your post suggests that you took my criticism as disrespect for the writers of the scripts. It is in any case wrong. Yeah, I don't play them, I don't like them. But nevertheless, I perfectly understand, what enormous labor invested in their the creation. I appreciate this work. About what I supposedly attribute to you (or someone else) those thoughts "opponents that I "deny. ) This is also wrong. I in any case don't think you think so, thinks a "pseudo-opponent" with whom I argue... Have you read Plato's Dialogues? The structure of this work is that it lead the conversation of two certain characters. One says something. The other one denies it. Please take my text this way. )))

This is not the way to start a conversation. I think we're all happy to take on board constructive criticism but to start by stating that you take one look at a scenario & decide you don't like it is frankly ignorant. If you were a scholar of debating techniques then you would realize your approach is deeply flawed. You have clearly got people's backs up from the beginning. It's all very well referencing Plato, but good orators have the skill & tact to engage their audience's attention. You have merely alienated your audience. You may well be making some valid points, but this is not how to start a conversation!

I like your European map by the way. What you said about the Italian peninsular makes sense, though by widening it the map does appear a little clumsy. Perhaps in gameplay terms, this may work better, especially for a scenario about the Roman Empire.

 

[Buck2005]

OK. I realized that for reasons unknown to me, all who read my post took it as extremely aggressive. I'm not good at English. Probably some semantic constructions in my text were poorly formulated, and seemed insulting to you all. I apologize if my text insulted you. I did not aim to trolling the audience of this site, or any other unworthy behavior. I wanted to have a constructive dialogue with the authors of the scenarios. I may have been really bad at communicating this to you. I'm sorry...

However, if you're still wondering what exactly I don't like about scenaros, I'll try to show you by example. You mentioned the Netherlands scenario. Not quite of course a good example (as there are relatively few cities, and they are quite far apart). But even in it there are separate sections of the map, where cities are too close to each other. See attached picture. On it I noted 4 cities, which are located in 2 cells from each other. I really don't understand why you need this tightness. The map is huge! It is very easy to move them away from each other, so each had its own "legitimate" area 21 in the cell. Yes, this will lose some "realism" maps. But honestly you I'd say. On the engine the 2nd civilization to draw a good map - is impossible in principle. At least because of the notorious isometry. The system of hexagons for example is much more accurately conveys the distance. And since the engine of this game basically does not allow to draw accurate maps, then why aspire to a kind of miserable "plausibility". If you have a choice between the accuracy of the map, and the "playability" of the maps, I'm firmly in the second paragraph.

But once again, this map of the Netherlands is an unfortunate example. There are many other scenarios where cities are built literally across each cell.

 

[JPetroski]

Wrong Netherlands scenario.

 

[Buck2005]

Wrong Netherlands scenario.

Yeah, I don't understand correctly what was discussed. Operation Market Garden-I am not familiar with this scenario. My historical sphere of interest ends with the 1st world war. Therefore, I ignore all the scenarios of the modern era. I admit that in the original post, I had to mention it. But now it's probably too late. Well, at the same time, also acknowledge that I'm a fan of it in vanilla civilization (as correctly said here). I'm not interested either t-O-t . Therefore, the authors of the t-O-t scenarios can also safely ignore my "criticism". )

 

[McMonkey]

Knowing that you are talking primarily about Civ2 MGE makes your comments more understandable. I also have issues with many of the old scenarios, many of which look hastily put together, though there are many excellent examples that are well designed. My advice to you - Be the change you want to see! Make your own scenario to suit your preferences. We all started from scratch at some point. This community will be on hand to give advice.

I note that you are playing the original Civ2 MGE version. While there are some classic scenarios designed for that version, Test of Time greatly increased the options for scenario designers, and I would argue that most of the best scenarios require ToT. ToTPP is another revolution and I think it will address some of the issues you mention, especially when it comes to representing sieges & grand strategies like the Anaconda Plan. I can send you a copy of the latest version of ToT in a zipped folder if you want to message me your e-mail address. I would highly recommend giving it a try as almost nobody here plays MGE anymore.

So you don't like it when cities overlap? I get that. If I was playing the original game I would always try and avoid this so that each city can exploit all available squares. In a historical scenario that is depicting real cities, I think its normal for cities to overlap & don't think most people would find it a particular problem. Think of it this way, cities in mainland Europe are tightly packed together. Many are built in places that seem strange to us now but were important historically. Some grew up from small villages into capitals (live London) whilst others went from important capitals to minor backwaters (think Colchester, Aachen etc...). There is an element of unplanned chaos in the pattern of cities.

This also applies to roads & city layouts. For example, here in the UK many towns & cities are basically medieval in layout and not designed for modern traffic. In the USA many cities were planned on a logical grid system which is much better for mass transit. Cities themselves were dotted around the US in a more logical manner, without so much overlap, especially in the midwest. I guess Russia is similar in that regard. No need for cities spheres to overlap when there is so much available territory. There is a joke, I think by Henning Wehn, that Germany did Britain a favor by flattening its cities during the blitz, and what did we do? We built them back exactly as they were originally: in the Medieval layout!

 

[JPetroski]

I find this thread more and more odd now that you state that you don't play ToT (or even the scenarios you complain about!!!). You also say you don't play WW2 scenarios though they constitute a huge part of the library and are some of the best and most innovative out there (Red Front, Market Garden, Iwo Jima Who, Herbstnebel, Fortress Europe, the Dictators Series). Who exactly are you criticising then? The last MGE scenario published by an established author was Michael Daumen's Roman Britain in 2013. It seems you have missed the boat and are attempting to influence echoes from the past!

You should consider investing in Test of Time and then installing the Test of Time Patch Project. It is doubtful that any new scenarios will be made without it, and some of your complaints' only hope is lua.

With that said, I'll take your word for it that you aren't trolling and are interested in a discussion so I'll oblige.

1. Very high entry threshold in the scenario.

Simply put, certain scenarios will not be for you. Most don't replicate the original game. You might enjoy world builders. There are several that came on the Fantastic Worlds CD's "Best of Net." But then you claim you don't like fantasy or sci fi, so I suppose you are more or less stuck with scenarios about cave men, or perhaps Age of Discovery.

Unfortunately, very few scenarios are done with the "sight" of the game from scratch. You will say: it is impossible to correctly model late historical epochs like the Napoleonic wars, the Second World War on large maps of Europe or the World without a huge number of starting cities and units.

I'll say - you just did not try. )

Each of us designers certainly have different styles. I do agree with you to an extent in that my personal preference is for a bit more space or ground to maneuver units. I think Red Front is the pinnacle here. Many of my scenarios, or at least the one's I'm proud of (Up the Deadly Boot, Germanicus, Caesar) have relatively few cities and units and attempt to focus on battles rather than sieges.

With that said, that's just my style. It doesn't make it better than anyone else's. There are advantages, but there are also disadvantages.

Maps / Cities that "ignore resources." ... I want to "tear my eyes out" when I see the city of Carthage (one of the greatest cities of antiquity) which is only shifted to ONE cell from the place where it could capture 4 resources.

Until ToTPP, one was at the mercy of where the map editor/resource seed placed the resources. With ToTPP, each special resource can be meticulously hand-placed if one so desires.

3. "Cities through 1 cage."
Why do you need to bilding the cities so close to each other? The area of the city in the 2nd Civilization is 21 cages. But in very many scenarios, even the largest cities like London, New York, Paris can easily handle only 5-8 cells, having a size of more than 20 inhabitants. Why are you doing this?

There are several reasons and it doesn't all have to do with accuracy. One, having 6-7 pre-built cities that have numerous improvements but less resource squares is generally more powerful than 1-2 cities with the same squares that have all improvements. The most units or improvements any one city can produce on any one turn is limited to ONE, after all. So you can have 6-7 cities producing something in Europe vs. just 1. Your idea is an illusion of efficiency only.

Secondly, and partly because of the reason above, this makes certain areas of the map very useful to control. Europe is a powerhouse compared to backwaters in a colonial game, even if the colonial are could - theoretically, grow much larger. Indeed, the fun of a colonial game is building those colonies to take the pressure off of Europe, where expansion is limited, and into the new world, where it is unlimited (indeed, this is much of the reason why colonization happened in the first place)!

Third, some people just have this style. Again, there's nothing wrong with that.

4. Not a realistic balance of combat units.

I totally disagree with your assessment of ancient militaries-especially Roman. "Meaningless mass of essentially useless units." Maybe if they're fighting space aliens, but they're fighting contemporaries.

The overwhelming number of armies (with proper modeling) should make up such a meaningless mass of essentially useless units. And elite troops should be much more expensive in order to build.

There are several scenarios like this. I just published one Sunday.

In reality, the average static scenario is a set of a huge number of units that are not much different from each other.

Your "average" is from 10-15 years ago as you have ignored Test of Time. It's kind of a pointless conversation with that baseline, don't you think?

Yes, they are all equipped with beautiful pictures, all invented a believable "legend" and an "explanation", why exactly such indicators of attack, defense, hint points and so on put the author. In the details, everything is fine. But in general - the picture is more than depressing. Any player with a less "nametannym eye" instantly allocate from this crowd units 1 or 2 with the strongest indicators and will build only them.

I would put McMonkey's Fortress Europe, and my Germanicus and Caesar scenarios up as scenarios where you will need to use combined arms to be successful. There are several others. You haven't seen them because, again, you don't play Test of Time.

I remember that in the early 2000s, I went through the scenario"Mongolia". I built only "siege towers." And with these "towers" I seized the whole map from China, to Paris. Siege towers, Karl! In the steppes and deserts! )) Yes, of course, everyone knows that the Mongols used siege weapons very actively in their wars. But the overwhelming part of their army was still cavalry, and of rather poor quality (from the conquered peoples in the main). 10% of the army accounted for the share of elite "thoroughbred" -mongolian cavalry. And only 1% of the army (at best) - was a park of siege weapons. In the case of my passage, my army of Mongols made 100% of the siege towers.

Mongols was ground breaking at the time. But, yes, early 2000s there were several scenarios (including some of mine) where it was just a siege train from city to city. Things have developed much since then. But, AGAIN, you don't play Test of Time

5. There is no principle of "siege of the city".

There are a few reasons for this:

1. It is boring.
2. The AI cheats and probably wouldn't let the city starve too much regardless
3. You still, eventually, have to kill the units in the city, because unless they are homed from that particular city, they aren't going anywhere.

Now, with that said - we can probably eliminate all three of these issues with Lua. But to see a scenario like that... Well, you guessed it - Test of Time

 

[CurtSibling]

Simple answer: No-one is forcing you to play CIV2, Mr Buck.
Go play COD or some trash. We are happy with our old game.

Best Regards,
Curt

 

[JPetroski]

I think this is just a confusing situation because constructive criticism is meant to enhance future projects, but the scenarios you've discussed are all from years and years ago. Much of the criticism therefore has been heard, reviewed, and suggestions incorporated in future works. I would take McMonkey up on his offer and check Test of Time out. You might like the new scenarios much more.

You have obviously rubbed people the wrong way but that's nothing I haven't done before - we can move on

 

[CurtSibling]

Some people just love to pick fights. I suggest Buck goes to OT forum or something.

 

[techumseh]

I'm with Curt. This guy is a troll. Despite his protestations to the contrary, his comments are offensive and disrespectful to people who put hundreds of hours into making something for others to enjoy. And the "criticism" is as unconstructive as any I've seen. I'm not going to waste any energy trying to engage with him.

 

[Buck2005]

Yes, I will be grateful if you send me this version. My mail: ekklesiast2005@yandex.ru
Thank you for your offer.

About the "grid cities." I agree with your arguments that many cities (including large ones) in Europe are located chaotically irrational, and very close to each other. Some cities became large seemingly in the most uncomfortable places. Others (large in ancient times) - were dying to the present day. History is a dynamic process. Therefore, I do not call for the strict adherence to reality (which is still impossible). And to more "bold" modeling of the conditional reality on the game engine with advanced capabilities. What in fact will be much closer to real reality than a "blind" copy of a realistic map.
It surprises me that authors create "tightly" models by limiting themselves to 2 types of maps: physical (when creating a world model) and political. In the best case, they look at the economic map. There are also other types of maps, sometimes very strange and "insanely" fading, however, the same exact as physical and other. In the attached file, I gave an example of a population density map, which looks very strange at first glance. This map just demonstrates how to correctly model the significance of different regions. There are similar maps of GDP and other indicators. My idea is that you do not need to cut yourself off with an exceptionally physical map.
If the scenario "colonialism" is intended to emphasize the importance of the "base of Europe" as the start of the colonization movement, then one can simply enlarge the scale of this Europe by means of its forced "stretching". It's like "to magnify under the magnifying glass" the desired region. After all, everything is in your hands.

 

[Buck2005]

Your arguments about the fact that MGE is an outdated game - I consider inadequate. In a world where there are already 3, 4, 5, and already the SIX (!) version of the Civilization game, your statements about the "obsolete" MGE are just ridiculous. )

The story in this case on the name of this forum announcement in large letters: "this is a forum exclusively for civilization II T-O-T", and I will consider my claims ridiculous. For now, this is a forum that is simply called "Civilization II". This means that any person (not a regular visitor), occasionally glancing at this forum, quite rightly will consider that this is a forum of two equal versions: MGE and T-O-T. I have until now been completely unaware of the latest "fashion" on the version of this very old game ... Therefore, I consider it quite fair that I was initially not quite right and explained in detail which scenarios I criticize. Subsequently, I more than correctly clarified and detailed my position. And I apologized for out of my incorrectness. Therefore, your tone of the snob, "instructing" and "edifying" me to be aware of the latest "fashion", I consider unacceptable.

 

[JPetroski]

Your arguments about the fact that MGE is an outdated game - I consider inadequate. In a world where there are already 3, 4, 5, and already the SIX (!) version of the Civilization game, your statements about the "obsolete" MGE are just ridiculous. )

My point is you're arguing with/debating with/attempting to influence essentially no one. I'm not even really sure why I'm carrying on with it. You're clearly trolling.

The story in this case on the name of this forum announcement in large letters: "this is a forum exclusively for civilization II T-O-T", and I will consider my claims ridiculous. For now, this is a forum that is simply called "Civilization II". This means that any person (not a regular visitor), occasionally glancing at this forum, quite rightly will consider that this is a forum of two equal versions: MGE and T-O-T. I have until now been completely unaware of the latest "fashion" on the version of this very old game ... Therefore, I consider it quite fair that I was initially not quite right and explained in detail which scenarios I criticize. Subsequently, I more than correctly clarified and detailed my position. And I apologized for out of my incorrectness. Therefore, your tone of the snob, "instructing" and "edifying" me to be aware of the latest "fashion", I consider unacceptable.

Since you brought up tone, to sum up all of your posts:

1. You don't like the design choices someone else made in a scenario they created for free.
2. You don't have the time/desire to invest yourself and build a scenario you like;
3. You don't actually play many, if any, scenarios because you take one look at them and are want to "tear [your] eyes out" due to an issue that can easily be fixed with Test of Time and the patch project;
4. Even though you don't play them, you know you hate them based on their outward appearance;
5. You have suddenly, nearly 20 years later, decided to start bashing scenarios like "Mongols" when the author is long gone, offering critiques that have long since been recorded, reviewed, analyzed, and adapted to.
6. You really haven't offered a single concrete example of a way to fix any of your situations other than "put Rome up by Milan and call it Italia because there are more random resources there." We heard you. Thank you for the suggestion. Next

You can certainly come in here and talk about whatever version you would like, but you can't go into the Ford plant whining about the Model T because it doesn't have airbags and expect someone to take you seriously!

Oh and P.S. if you want sieges to starve a city go into any scenario you like and modify this digit to make it lower on the terrain around a city. This will make it starve sooner.

Grassland, 1,2, 2,1,0, yes, 1, 5, 2, For, 0,10, 0, Hil, no, ; Grs

 

[CurtSibling]

Your arguments about the fact that MGE is an outdated game - I consider inadequate. In a world where there are already 3, 4, 5, and already the SIX (!) version of the Civilization game, your statements about the "obsolete" MGE are just ridiculous. )

The story in this case on the name of this forum announcement in large letters: "this is a forum exclusively for civilization II T-O-T", and I will consider my claims ridiculous. For now, this is a forum that is simply called "Civilization II". This means that any person (not a regular visitor), occasionally glancing at this forum, quite rightly will consider that this is a forum of two equal versions: MGE and T-O-T. I have until now been completely unaware of the latest "fashion" on the version of this very old game ... Therefore, I consider it quite fair that I was initially not quite right and explained in detail which scenarios I criticize. Subsequently, I more than correctly clarified and detailed my position. And I apologized for out of my incorrectness. Therefore, your tone of the snob, "instructing" and "edifying" me to be aware of the latest "fashion", I consider unacceptable.

This is the CIV2 SL forum - We are not here to argue the merits of the game, since we are already dedicated to it. If you don't like the forum, no-one is forcing you to hang out here?

These pointless arguments about versions are a waste of time, and distractions at best. I won't allow such foolishness on the threads.

THREAD CLOSED:
I am closing this one down, as this guy is a troll and looking to cause havoc.