Simple vs Complex

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

As I sit here, considering which scenario to review next (which means I will play it at least twice, from different sides usually), I was thinking about how some of the most memorable scenarios I have played were much simpler then what we see nowadays.

On the one hand, we have a scenario that can be played in one or two sittings (that's a plus), that starts with few units and works it's way through more units and cities towards the end.

An example of this, for all it's simplicity, is the age of exploration scenario in MGE, one that I remember fondly, yet it uses all the old and boring default units, no new terrain or city Gifs, nothing, yet the challenge of taking over the planet with one city is there.

And then you look at a complex scenario, like say red Front, and it's totally different.
A staggering amount of units and cities, half hour turns, days and weeks to complete the game, and yet, you like doing it!
Great looking units, events, city and map graphics, all of this makes such a scenario more then a game, but an experience.

So which approach is best?
As a game player, I would like it somewhere in the middle, looks good but doesn't take forever to play, and keeps moving along.

To tell the truth, I have never seen a really good WWII scenario, all the ones I have played (something like three dozen or so) either have too many units, bad maps, default units or terrain, historical inaccuracies, all kinds of things are lacking.

Even famous scenarios like 2194 days of war has two major flaws (For one, the Atlantic is wider then the Pacific in that game, the reverse of reality, and the v-weapons and Kamikazes make a joke of warfare, destroying everything in site, when both were nusenace weapons at best), so where to draw the balance?

I still wonder about this, as no scenario I have yet seen ever rated perfect in a review, even though many are great fun.

I can still say that I dread playing a scenario where the author says "I have maxed out the cities and units" in a readme!

Alcibiaties of Athenae
Scenario reviews editor

 

[Boco]

Using an example, I really enjoyed Allard's River War. On the plus side, it was fun, historically informative, had a unique challenge (building a railroad in the wilderness), a race against the clock, a low unit/city count, and could be played in a reasonable time. On the minus side, very little replayability, not a lot of 'Civ' in it (researching techs, building improvements, etc.). Usually, I prefer to play a smaller scenario such as this rather than the half-hour-a-turn behemoths. I'm embarrassed to admit that, despite their excellence, Nemo's masterpieces have sat on my hard drive unplayed, daunting me with their sheer size.

 

[CurtSibling]

I admit I love the long-winded strategic WW2 scenarios.

The amount of time between turns is ignored as the wicked
enemy AI does a number on your armies!

Nemo was a CIV genius of our time, I and many other players
truly miss Nemo and Alex's works...but there are many other
craftsmen out there filling the gap!

The recent GREAT NAPOLEONIC BATTLES by W.I.N.T.E.R is a
masterpiece and elevates the CIV engine far beyond it's initial
place...a beautiful scenario. It has huge armies but is engrossing.

In scenarios like Red Front and 2194 days the missles and
kamikazes are not realistic, true. But neither are thousands of
varied and differntlt trained men represtented by a single icon.
Or varying upgrades and versions of the Me109 represented by
one little aircraft icon, no matter how pretty.

But the scenario still rocks, these things are bound by the
limitations of CIV2's engine...if only we had more unit slots,
bigger events, etc, etc!

Not matter if the scenario has a set goal or is a empire builder,
if the author has put effort into the thing it shows...

The long-lived scenario community in CIV2 is a testament to the
game and the great works done by the fans will keep the interest
alive...the more scenarios the merrier!

 

[BeBro]

I agree to some extent. I admire Nemo´s (and others) big scns from a creators point of view - they are really excellent works. But I often get frustrated and a bit confused when I have to control huge armies and a lot of cities even in the first turn. But of course there are a lot of players who want exactly this...

I try to use a compromise in my scns, I often start with only a few cities (or one - in IR), in the end you can control a huge empire here too, but it is more a development. So the first turns are often quick and easy, then it becomes more difficult.

A WWII scn in the style of Allard´s "River War" would be a great idea IMO - I think the desert war in Northern Africa would be a good background for this kind of scn...Case? FMK?

 

[MajorGeneral2]

I prefer scenarios that I can finish in just a few sittings. If a scenario must have massive armies and many cities, I would rather be "worked" into it, if that's the right wording, so I can have more flexibility with my strategies.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Bebro, I'm still waiting on the English version of C&C, I'd love to review it, in fact, your first version would have been done if I didn't know the update was coming.

 

[Prometeus]

What's th most beautiful side of tha coin? Both of them, because you can't spend one without considering the other one.

The only scen i've created with more then 200 turns is Zhanguo, and i wasn't pretty satisfied about it. Playing such kinda scens' with a lot-of-low-level-attack-points' units can be frustrating. A lot of turns requres a lot of attack points' units, IMHO.

"In medio veritas", as Aristoteles said once... I like to play games with big unit variety in a reasonable turns' amount. So...

ancient scens, must be short term scens ( 100-max150 turns)

modern scens, must be long term scens ( 200 to 400 turns )

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
The recent GREAT NAPOLEONIC BATTLES by W.I.N.T.E.R is a
masterpiece and elevates the CIV engine far beyond it's initial
place...a beautiful scenario. It has huge armies but is engrossing.

Already playing and preparing a review.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by Prometeus
ancient scens, must be short term scens ( 100-max150 turns)

modern scens, must be long term scens ( 200 to 400 turns )

Not always, Pro, things can be done with this.

Kull's Seed of Greatness, the early empires, Bernd's Imperium Romanium, and Jay Bee's Of Celts and Iberians all tweaked the game and play past 150+ turns.

The secret is to make a tech tree devoid of modern units, and avoid certain units slots like Knights that cause problems with tech progression.

One thing I didn't mention, is I love the Anciet era when done right, more then any other, followed closely by the Industrial age/age of exploration/Colonization.
I enjoy the other ages as well, middle ages and modern era, and I have a special place for sci-fi, something that civ is very good at when done right.

Curt mentions how he loves lots of units and turns, and I like that sometimes, but to tell the truth, that often gives me a headache thinking about 200+ units to move about and more!

Bernd and I have discussed this before, he favors the same as I, start small and work your way towards dominance.

Another thing I dislikle is too many useless or low value units that are good for nothing but dieing, a waste of time.
Each unit should play a part, have value, if only for a short time in each scenario.

Already playing and preparing a review.

I considered this also Kev, but as it's an update of the old Micropose scenario, I decided against a review myself.
I did like the new units and events file additions, as well as the new sounds, quite nice.

 

[Case]

I find that more complex scenarios have greater replayability. For example, I really enjoyed playing Allard's River War, but I have never felt any great urge to play it again. On the other hand, I've played all of Harlan Thompson's scenarios multiple times.

 

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Bebro, I'm still waiting on the English version of C&C, I'd love to review it, in fact, your first version would have been done if I didn't know the update was coming.

Chris, I hope I can start to make the English translation soon - there were some problems in the German version, but now it seems they are solved...

Back to the topic, I always like it when a scn offers a similar challenge like the original civ - small start, but a lot to explore, to discover and to conquer. If there are enough new techs, units etc. that appear during the gameI have nothing against a big 300+ turns scn...Multiple events are a good method to keep the player´s motivation high in such big scns.

Currently I playtest a ToT scn by Tecumseh, which is quite the opposite, it has already lots of cities in the beginning. However, I´m absolutely impressed by Tecumseh´s efforts to implement the advanced scn features of ToT, perhaps I´ll make scns for ToT too in the future...

 

[Field Marshal Klesh]

I like both types of scenarios. As long as you know what the scenario has set out to be, then you can choose the proper one in the style that you feel like playing. With Bernd's idea, starting from a very small civ, you get to track your own development and you feel more knowledgeable about your troop dispositions and empire strength because you have forged the path throughout the game. You are not simply dropped into an overwhelming historical situation that you need to familiarize yourself with.

I tried to do this with Stalingrad by starting the player with 2 (rather) small kampfgruppen at either corner of the map. The units have plenty of room to move, and you dont really need to stay top the road all that much, so moving the gruppen is rather quick at the start. As your victories progress, you'll have a gerneral idea about your tactical situation because you've created it yourself. And you'll also be able to see the auto-resupply happening, so you will have an idea as to the future strengths of your troops.

Sadly, I have the sneaking suspicion that people will not enjoy my Stalingrad scenario. It probably will have little to no replay value and it is pretty linear to boot. It is what I wanted it to be, but I'm not sure how much demand there is for that kind of thing. Ah well, it has been fun and quite an experience in making it, I just hope some people in the community that have provided me with scenarios to play can get some enjoyment out of playing mine for them.

-FMK.

 

[SunTzu]

Btw, I love Stalingrad FMK! Very cool and fun scenario!
And i want complex scenarios, just my preference :

 

[sgrig]

My all-time favourite is definitely Red Front. I just love how big and complex it is! I played it a number of times (each time taking a couple of months ) and I was amazed that each time I never got bored with it. I guess that's because there is a LOT of fighting to do, so there is not a single moment in which to get bored (except of course micromanaging those labourers!). I seem to get bored in scenarios where you start off with a large empire but there are no wars to fight.

So my favourite types of scenarios are either those in which you start off with very little, and build up your empire or when you start with a large empire and have a big war to fight!

 

[DarthVeda]

I kind of like how I've set up the economic system in Kyokujitsu so far... I've changed the micro production system to a macro production system.

Although I think I'm going to revamp the scenario at the point I'm at in events to make it significantly more difficult to continue to wage war without improving the infrastructure and industry of the empire.

At the point I'm at, fuel shortages are starting to rear their head, and later in the game it will become absolutely vital to convoy fuel from the Dutch East Indies.

 

[Archer 007]

Thought this was a good debate, so i brought it back from the death (don't want to be accused of being a bumper). I think that the key is a middle ground. This is what i'm trying to do in Euro 2002. A mix bewteen complexity and quickness.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by archer_007
Thought this was a good debate, so i brought it back from the death (don't want to be accused of being a bumper). I think that the key is a middle ground. This is what i'm trying to do in Euro 2002. A mix bewteen complexity and quickness.

For a moment I was confused and thought you were making a scenario about the European Championships in 2000.....

 

[Archer 007]

Thanks outragous. Maybe someone will let soccer become their guide for a project.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I've give it a thought more than often, but I can't get a good idea of how to actually make it. I thought it would be European theatre only, since I don't know that much about other non-european leagues, with all kinds of leagues (civs) that can produce players (units) from their stadiums (cities) to attack other stadiums. By event once a game some special player would pop out, f.e. Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Zoff or whatever. City Improvements would become stadium improvements of course (aquaduct = seating, sewer system = cover)....but let me stop, this sounds like thread-jacking.

 

[mordhiem]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
I've give it a thought more than often, but I can't get a good idea of how to actually make it. I thought it would be European theatre only, since I don't know that much about other non-european leagues, with all kinds of leagues (civs) that can produce players (units) from their stadiums (cities) to attack other stadiums. By event once a game some special player would pop out, f.e. Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Zoff or whatever. City Improvements would become stadium improvements of course (aquaduct = seating, sewer system = cover)....but let me stop, this sounds like thread-jacking.

Wow, someone else has thought like that too? I have thought how you could do a scenario based on football many times and have come to similar conclusions. I always come to a stumbling block when considering the acual design aspects though.