Morten Blaabjerg
Settler
This is going to be a little long, but bear with me, because I've been thinking about this for a while. And also bear with me, if I am bold enough to give advice to some of you more experienced with scenarios than myself. But I write this just as much to clarify a few things for myself, as to get your opinions on this. Nevertheless, I think there's an important discussion there.
Well, I think there's a great strength to the Civ2 engine, that allows much possibility in simulating historical events in almost any time and space. But something is bugging me, and I'd like to hear other positions on this, from some of you great historical scenario creators and others of you playing historical scenarios.
I have been playing many of the historical scenarios available on the net, if not to the end (I quit many halfway through because I felt bored). Well, I've seen and played enough to speak my mind about it. -And I give a lot of thought to it when I contemplate my new scenario projects, and want to avoid these kind of problems.
Apart from all the looks, and bells and whistles (which is also a great part of a good scenario, I recognize this), there's a core issue, I think, with many scenarios around. In the way of HISTORICAL REALISM vs. INTERACTIVE PLAYER RESPONSE. These two things are often seen as opposites in a scenario, but I think they need not be so.
As I see it, there's great confusion about how to make a great historical scenario, that both gives all the historical realism and colour of the particular period, AND is playable and FUN for the player(s). There seems to be a conflict between presenting events "as they really were", and allowing for player action.
Some scenarios seems to me to be like a straightjacket, in terms of events supplying definite units and small historical pop-up messages at the specific turns/years-of-events, while player action in regard to research, economy, government, unit access/war strategy is constrained to a very narrow space, because then things will not go the way the creator thought they should go (because then it would not be historically correct). This can be very frustrating, if you want to try out a strategy that might very well be historically justifiable, but that the creator didn't contemplate. -But it can also be frustrating in a positive way, if this frustration was part of what the creator was trying to simulate. -There are some great scenarios which do this very successfully. (But most often it is not so!)
Other scenarios are very very big, with a large map and a zillion cities to simulate the whole world at the time, but little or very limited focus as to what the player is expected to do. Sometimes these end up in bare confusion, because there's so much to do, that it is overwhelming. In number of cities, many new different unit types available, many (often irrelevant) tribes. Why ALWAYS have seven tribes in a game? Why play on the same tedious Europe Map, when the war you're simulating is taking place in France? (the hundred years war, for instance). Why not concentrate on a map of main France, with England, Spain and others at its borders? -The full-scale setup can of course also be profitable, in the way of a whole world coming back to life from the past. But ONLY if the player has some idea of what course of action to take in this huge chaos. Otherwise he will surely quit after a few turns... And all this work will be in vain.
Sometimes both these types are combined, to make things even worse, in terms of heavy constraint AND lack of focus. I know it sounds contradictory, but I've felt it. HUGE scenarios where goals are so far from obtainable that you might as well give up, because you can never do it. This is a sure killer.
---
As it is, many historical scenario creators put a lot of work into their creations, with great looks, great attention to historical detail and a lot of research put into it. Which is good. BUT, all this will be in vain, if the player simply is frustrated beyond reason, or confused and lost in the pure scale of it. I think scenario designers need to make very clear to themselves what they're trying to tell to their players.
What is it about this particular war or situation that compells you to all this work? Is it the "mood"? The glory of a nations rise and fall? The great discovery? The development or empirebuilding? The more concrete the better, the more you can focus on simulating exactly that problem or situation, you can set up the scenario accordingly, with units, techs etc, and player actions will fall naturally in place, because you've set up the conditions for that very specific situation.
No need for bogus events to force-create units at given years, then, because you've set up the scenario so that this course of action will fall quite natural as a player response! -And the bonus is that the player can be allowed to take other courses of action, if he so desires. -This way you can gradually expand the options available to the player, and allow for change in the rhytm, pace and feel of the game.
In other words,
1) WHAT IS the specific historical problem or situation that your players are asked to solve or get into?
2) HOW CAN this be set up scenario-wise -so that the message goes through to the player instantly?
3) WHICH OPTIONS will be available to the player? -in which ways will he be constrained? -how will he be able to solve the situation? -how can hints be given as to this course of action?
I think many historical scenarios would benefit enormously from just a little thought to just these few points. In what ways will the player be constrained, and in which ways will he be able to take a course of action? In other words, the player needs to be told, not in the readme or the briefing, but in the problems that OCCUR IN THE GAME, and the means he have at his disposal, which way to play the scenario.
If there's an economic problem, there should be an economic solution. If there's a war or difficult strategic situation, there should be a way to solve it militarily or in some other way. If the player is supposed to make an attack, he should have a good REASON to prepare for war. That is, you have to set up a threatening situation for him to understand. ...or strategically place a few cities with desirable wonders that he desperately needs to get his tribe going. There are many other ways to do it of course.
ADVICE.TXT can be used to give actually helpful advice as to what the improvements and units are good for! In addition, there are a dozen small ways to tell the player what the units are good for. Defensive units should naturally be preset to fortify! Units about to embark on a boat should be preset to "board next ship"!
Historical situations can be very complex to simulate or recreate (even for an historian), not to speak of reducing them into a Civ2 scenario. It is a difficult thing. So make it simple from the outset, and easier for yourself, and make sure the simple mechanics of the scenario works first. Then gradually you can expand the situation with more units, techs etc. Your events will be more meaningful, if they fall as responses to player actions. Events can be used as preset factors as well, but, please, NOT, as the misunderstood historical realism "taking over" the players hand. What is left for the player then? There's no fun in watching the computer play the game for you, if it's not in response to your actions.
Historical realism is much more about setting up the economic and strategic conditions for the specific historical events, so to present the player to the certain kind of options he has, than force historical events to happen at preset historical dates.
Well, I think there's a great strength to the Civ2 engine, that allows much possibility in simulating historical events in almost any time and space. But something is bugging me, and I'd like to hear other positions on this, from some of you great historical scenario creators and others of you playing historical scenarios.
I have been playing many of the historical scenarios available on the net, if not to the end (I quit many halfway through because I felt bored). Well, I've seen and played enough to speak my mind about it. -And I give a lot of thought to it when I contemplate my new scenario projects, and want to avoid these kind of problems.
Apart from all the looks, and bells and whistles (which is also a great part of a good scenario, I recognize this), there's a core issue, I think, with many scenarios around. In the way of HISTORICAL REALISM vs. INTERACTIVE PLAYER RESPONSE. These two things are often seen as opposites in a scenario, but I think they need not be so.
As I see it, there's great confusion about how to make a great historical scenario, that both gives all the historical realism and colour of the particular period, AND is playable and FUN for the player(s). There seems to be a conflict between presenting events "as they really were", and allowing for player action.
Some scenarios seems to me to be like a straightjacket, in terms of events supplying definite units and small historical pop-up messages at the specific turns/years-of-events, while player action in regard to research, economy, government, unit access/war strategy is constrained to a very narrow space, because then things will not go the way the creator thought they should go (because then it would not be historically correct). This can be very frustrating, if you want to try out a strategy that might very well be historically justifiable, but that the creator didn't contemplate. -But it can also be frustrating in a positive way, if this frustration was part of what the creator was trying to simulate. -There are some great scenarios which do this very successfully. (But most often it is not so!)
Other scenarios are very very big, with a large map and a zillion cities to simulate the whole world at the time, but little or very limited focus as to what the player is expected to do. Sometimes these end up in bare confusion, because there's so much to do, that it is overwhelming. In number of cities, many new different unit types available, many (often irrelevant) tribes. Why ALWAYS have seven tribes in a game? Why play on the same tedious Europe Map, when the war you're simulating is taking place in France? (the hundred years war, for instance). Why not concentrate on a map of main France, with England, Spain and others at its borders? -The full-scale setup can of course also be profitable, in the way of a whole world coming back to life from the past. But ONLY if the player has some idea of what course of action to take in this huge chaos. Otherwise he will surely quit after a few turns... And all this work will be in vain.
Sometimes both these types are combined, to make things even worse, in terms of heavy constraint AND lack of focus. I know it sounds contradictory, but I've felt it. HUGE scenarios where goals are so far from obtainable that you might as well give up, because you can never do it. This is a sure killer.
---
As it is, many historical scenario creators put a lot of work into their creations, with great looks, great attention to historical detail and a lot of research put into it. Which is good. BUT, all this will be in vain, if the player simply is frustrated beyond reason, or confused and lost in the pure scale of it. I think scenario designers need to make very clear to themselves what they're trying to tell to their players.
What is it about this particular war or situation that compells you to all this work? Is it the "mood"? The glory of a nations rise and fall? The great discovery? The development or empirebuilding? The more concrete the better, the more you can focus on simulating exactly that problem or situation, you can set up the scenario accordingly, with units, techs etc, and player actions will fall naturally in place, because you've set up the conditions for that very specific situation.
No need for bogus events to force-create units at given years, then, because you've set up the scenario so that this course of action will fall quite natural as a player response! -And the bonus is that the player can be allowed to take other courses of action, if he so desires. -This way you can gradually expand the options available to the player, and allow for change in the rhytm, pace and feel of the game.
In other words,
1) WHAT IS the specific historical problem or situation that your players are asked to solve or get into?
2) HOW CAN this be set up scenario-wise -so that the message goes through to the player instantly?
3) WHICH OPTIONS will be available to the player? -in which ways will he be constrained? -how will he be able to solve the situation? -how can hints be given as to this course of action?
I think many historical scenarios would benefit enormously from just a little thought to just these few points. In what ways will the player be constrained, and in which ways will he be able to take a course of action? In other words, the player needs to be told, not in the readme or the briefing, but in the problems that OCCUR IN THE GAME, and the means he have at his disposal, which way to play the scenario.
If there's an economic problem, there should be an economic solution. If there's a war or difficult strategic situation, there should be a way to solve it militarily or in some other way. If the player is supposed to make an attack, he should have a good REASON to prepare for war. That is, you have to set up a threatening situation for him to understand. ...or strategically place a few cities with desirable wonders that he desperately needs to get his tribe going. There are many other ways to do it of course.
ADVICE.TXT can be used to give actually helpful advice as to what the improvements and units are good for! In addition, there are a dozen small ways to tell the player what the units are good for. Defensive units should naturally be preset to fortify! Units about to embark on a boat should be preset to "board next ship"!
Historical situations can be very complex to simulate or recreate (even for an historian), not to speak of reducing them into a Civ2 scenario. It is a difficult thing. So make it simple from the outset, and easier for yourself, and make sure the simple mechanics of the scenario works first. Then gradually you can expand the situation with more units, techs etc. Your events will be more meaningful, if they fall as responses to player actions. Events can be used as preset factors as well, but, please, NOT, as the misunderstood historical realism "taking over" the players hand. What is left for the player then? There's no fun in watching the computer play the game for you, if it's not in response to your actions.
Historical realism is much more about setting up the economic and strategic conditions for the specific historical events, so to present the player to the certain kind of options he has, than force historical events to happen at preset historical dates.
