SCENARIOS: What direction?

[CivPartisan]

Hey Guys!

I've been seeing a lot of creative designs for scenarios lately...are we going to abondon classic simple designs...and maybe start expecting HUGE productions or will the simple scenarios still be around...?

I'm seeing some really good work out there...

What do you think?

John

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Simple ideas are still the best ones. Graphics/finish wise I'd say we'd come to expect more, which is only natural, the original graphics look incredibly dated compared to the highpolished work of latest scenarios. And I know for myself I've come to set higher standards for what I'll accept for my own work.

BUT... its still the simple, strong ideas that count, IMO, those that makes playing the game worthwhile. And its incredibly tough to do, especially in a historical scenario.

One type of scenario that I actually miss a lot, is the small, well-defined multiplayer scenario that can be played between friends in a couple of hours, and be clearly won or lost in that time. It seems there has been a tendency for rather slowpaced, big-map scenarios with fullblown tech trees. This is all fine and dandy, if you really get the full depth of the thing, and have the time for it. But I think I'd really appreciate a fast mp scenario, that can be played like a fast game of RISK. Any recommended?

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg
One type of scenario that I actually miss a lot, is the small, well-defined multiplayer scenario that can be played between friends in a couple of hours, and be clearly won or lost in that time. It seems there has been a tendency for rather slowpaced, big-map scenarios with fullblown tech trees. This is all fine and dandy, if you really get the full depth of the thing, and have the time for it. But I think I'd really appreciate a fast mp scenario, that can be played like a fast game of RISK. Any recommended?

Check out W.I.N.T.E.R.'s scenario 'Great Napolionic Battles' (which is currently taking the PBEM world by storm)

 

[amadeus]

Right now I'm working on a scenario, "Eastern Europe, 1991," the idea is to take command of a particular former Soviet-bloc country (Hungary, Czechoslovokia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Poland) and try to get it ready for facing challenges in the 21st century. Germans, Italians, and Greeks are going to be made the "Barbarians" (established democracies), and I'll hex-edit the players to force an "alliance" between the "barbarians" and the countries.

 

[CivPartisan]

Morten,

I think you touched on an important point regarding scenarios...we do expect more from both scenarios and our own work as designers. I know I'm constantly looking to improve my skills and presentation.

Another thing to consider is this: I'm seeing a trend toward turning Movies into scenarios...Is this a good idea or just a popular one?

rmsharpe,

That is interesting idea that you have for a fictional scenario...the hex-editing thing is a bit intriguing...are you a programmer?

What other comments are out there?

John

 

[techumseh]

I agree - smaller, innovative, with superior graphics and a simple premise. River War, Eldorado, Moria are examples.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by JValdezToo

rmsharpe,

That is interesting idea that you have for a fictional scenario...the hex-editing thing is a bit intriguing...are you a programmer?

I've hex-edited Imperialism scenarios, so I'm a quasi-veteran...

 

[Peregrine]

As a creator of "big map scenarios with full-blown tech trees" I felt that I should add another viewpoint to the dialogue.

I stated it before in a conversation w/Kobayashi, but I'll say it again here. Small or large; it's all a matter of personal preference. It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad."

Small, compact scenarios don't hold my interest. "Simple ideas are the best ones" ??? Really? In my view, simple ideas are . . . simple. It's arguably an oversimplification, but comparing a small scenario to a very large one is like comparing checkers to chess. The more factors one throws in, the more intricate is the total challenge. It just so happens that I very much enjoy huge scenarios where administration plays as large a role as combat and expansion. Micromanaging an empire is what turns me on. If I am given less than 20 cities, it's a bore, frankly, and over too quick. My feeling is that if one wants to play a quickie combat game, there are plenty of other games out there that are designed specifically with that in mind. Civ2 is a game that is capable of encompassing imperial expansion, development, and conquest and on as large a scale as one can manage. Why NOT take advantage of these aspects? My feeling is; if you want Risk, play Risk. Why bother with Civ2?

And when it comes to the time limit, I have the time. Very often when I sit down to play a game of civ, I fully expect to be there for 8-10 hours. If I'm not, it's a disappointment.

I found the use of the phrase "well-defined" somewhat mystifying. If one can't discern the "definition" of a scenario, whose fault is that? It could be a problem with the scenario, but it just as easily could be a problem with the person trying to grapple with a level of complexity that is beyond them. I have no problem "getting the full depth" of a large scenario. It's one of the most enjoyable elements--when you can see the larger picture through all the micromanagement and heated warfare.

However, let me say this; It is ALL a matter of personal preference and I categorically reject qualitative assessments based solely on size. I have seen interesting, challenging, and historically-accurate scenarios done on small scale and, although they are not my cup-o-java, I'd never dismiss them as "bad" simply because they failed to appeal to my personal interests.

Perhaps an analogue is in order.

I don't listen to jazz music. Don't like it. But I do recognize the expertise, skill, and sheer joy of playing it for those who do.

"You say to-mah-to . . . " --some wise ass somewhere

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Peregrine,

Didn't really feel I was saying something very provocative or dismissive... but I always enjoy a good discussion, so I'll elaborate.

With "simple ideas" and "well-defined" I simply mean that the basic idea/premise of the scenario is clear and focused. IMO, the more complex, the more depth you want to put into something, the more important it is to keep focus of the single strong idea, that is the groundwork for the more complex workings. I agree, the more factors you throw in, the deeper and more gripping can it get. I have enjoyed a lot of scenarios that were big and complex, but not because of size, but because the complexity was always based on exploring a simple idea, that worked very well. If you don't have that, complexity and size doesn't make sense, it can be outright blurring and confusing.

That said, a well-known situation with mp games/scens, is that they never get finished.... often because of lack of time and because the scope is too large. You can spend 8-10 hours on a single player game, but it becomes increasingly difficult to set up that kind of time for it when more players are involved (maybe in different time zones). So I think it'd be cool to have more simple, fast-paced and "well-defined" scens, that can be played in 2-4 hours (and still provide some complexity). IMO, there aren't that many scens that are well suited for that kind of game. (and thats not necessaril being dismissive of the "full blown" kind of thing, which yes, can be very enjoyable if you have the time for it)

 

[CivPartisan]

Ok guys,

What I am seeing here is that there are strict categories-- all of which have very significant preferences by author.

At this time, I'd like to ask players to discuss what they think the categories are and what they would like to see or express about the scenarios of the future.

I am going to put this out there...

There are scenarios that are large in turn length, map, scope, complexity, and internal management.

There are also scenarios that are small in turn length, map, scope, complexity, and internal management.

But what about scenarios that are multiplayer, mission based, objective based, modpack, some other category?

Morten brought up some good points about the MP scenarios never getting finished...this is a so common, it's expected. I've played a lot of hot seat games and maybe only finished two or three...no seems to have the time to devote to several hours of play.

What do you think?


John

 

[kobayashi]

On the big-small question, actually the author's preference is irrelevant. It is the players who are demanding these big fancy jobs.

As for which type, as I recall from my earlier poll, most people only want to play scenarios of the Kill - Kill - Kill type .

 

[Winterfritz]

I think that accuracy is also a relevant factor in the large/compact scenario issue. For certain events or periods in history that one could want to depict, it may be realistic to place large civs with lots of hard-to-manage cities, in order to simulate the difficulty in running such nations (eg late Roman Empire, various feudal European nations, assorted Chinese Empires.)

On the other hand, some historical situations might require smaller and easier to run civs, with the focus instead being on warfare or something else. (My favourite scenario of this type is Justinian the Great by Carl Fritz - essentially one long war over the Mediterranean, but hugely entertaining and addictive.)

Another example is the 'full-blown tech-tree': for some time periods, research would not have been a large or important issue, and in scenarios depicting those periods, only a few new techs could be added without detracting from the quality of the scenario at all.

However, I don't think that the author's taste is irrelevant; after all, if an author doesn't want to play a scenario then he won't make it. Conversely, what kind of scenario he makes will depend very much on his own taste.

 

[Peregrine]

Kobayashi; The author's preference is NOT irrelevant. I am both an author and a player. As I've stated before, I create my scenarios to please myself first. If others like 'em, great. If not, I have a game that I'll enjoy, and that's been exactly the case on more than one occasion.

The accuracy of polling is an entirely different topic and one that I won't go into, but there doesn't seem to be a paucity of players out there for the pbem games nowadays, does there? Check the Scenario League forum. You'll find no less than 3 pbem games going that are using scenarios I've created. Matter-of-fact, the longest-running one is one of mine. To date, it's the biggest and has the most stretched-out tech tree of any I've put together.

It also has a 5-star rating.

(There is one due for release any day now that will be bigger yet Take a look at the Imperialism 1870 thread while you're at the SL. )

JValdez; I do agree, however, that there are several different "types" of scenarios and I'd like to see a coherent categorization of these types.