Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
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
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