The Korean War Redux

Happy New Year Drew - good to see you! Nice scenario btw :)

@Civinator - I like that civilopedia background. Thanks!

@Konig15 - Thanks for bumping this thread; I missed this when McMonkey posted originally. Not so keen on your fascist edgelord politics and general aggressive posting though.
 
It's good to hear from you McMonkey! It's been too long but as John said happy that you are safe and well!

And of course, if you ever do get back in the spirit and need someone to playtest a project of yours, you need only ask and I'll gladly volunteer.
 
McMonkey said:
@Konig15
I'm glad you enjoyed the scenario, despite its imperfections. Between us, Patine & I spent many hours (hundreds) working on this scenario over the years. I'm pleased with the result of my mod of Pat's excellent original. At the time of working on it, I thought I saw the potential to take the original in some new directions that suited my sensibilities. For example, I'm a fan of having historical formations represented. I know others prefer generic units (IE US Infantry instead of individual divisional units). This is just my personal preference, so that's how I designed the mod. I'm very familiar with the history & unit types/characteristics so I may have overlooked some elements when it came to the documentation. It's difficult to anticipate everything that a new player may require & as the community is generally made up of old hands who tend to be history buffs, I thought the Read Me was adequate, though everything can be improved.

This is very much a historical scenario with boundaries. I was not attempting to create an alternative history as such. Of course, you can lose the war or improve on the historical outcome but it was intentionally designed within the historical constraints of the time. For example, the Inchon landings were intended as a one-time event. A human player with unrestrained naval power could easily pick off the AI on a peninsular map, landing at will behind the AI lines to wreak havoc.

My suggestion would be, with Patine's permission, to make your own mod of the scenario to expand on the alternative history element & fix the issues you highlighted. Be warned though, creating a scenario is no easy feat. Small changes can have unintended consequences down the road. A LOT of testing goes into finalizing these scenarios. In fact, that seems to be the hardest part. Events need to be tested, play balance tweaked, errors fixed. The list of TO DO items continually grows. Starting with a sound foundation (existing scenario) and making alterations is a little easier than starting from scratch as an awful lot of the tedious groundwork has already been done & you can concentrate more on making alterations. Give it a go :thumbsup:

I'm afraid I can't answer every point you raised in detail. It's been a long time since I worked on this scenario & I just don't have the enthusiasm right now to get back into scenario design. Perhaps that may change in the future. I really would encourage you to be the change you want to see & have a crack at improving on our work. I'm sure a more open-ended Korean War would be appealing to players. I'd probably have a bash at it myself.

@Scenario League community
Happy new year guys. Apologies for my recent absence. I think I burned out somewhat with scenario creation & got distracted with other hobbies. Hopefully, I'll rediscover my Civ2 mojo at some point in this new year/decade. I did help Techumseh playtest his Burma campaign, which I would highly recommend if you've not already played it! Take it easy my dudes :goodjob:
Click to expand...

Good to see you still draw breath! That honey badger hadn't been the face of a post for quite a while. I do hope you return in the foreseeable future. That Yugoslavian Partisan looked pretty interesting, although I don't if you'd take it back up again. Take care, there!
 
JPetroski said:
Finally, just for my own edification... What on earth are you talking about with the civilopedia? I just went through the whole first AI turn to check on things, and it is very much alphabetized already.

View attachment 542207
Click to expand...

OK, I have a confession to make. I might be autistic, I have these problems EVERYWHERE, including real-life, certainly when I don't mean to. The way I mean it is NOT super angry but more of a boisterous bruiser trying to convince the gang leader to let him brutalize some rival in their territory, who know they are in their territory and expect to get away with it. The BB isn't angry at the leader, but prodding him with a whine and big smile about how much fun it would be to rough those dudes up.

The complaint that the scenario is a chore to play once you establish a defensive line I mean wholeheartedly. I'm not saying you can't have a scenario or any kind where you have to run down the clock. What I am saying, is there needs to be something else to grab the player's attention and make him/her feel like they are doing something more than JUST waiting down the clock. This is a problem NBA had before introducing, I believe it was the Five Second Holding rule, cause without it, it was totally a legitimate thing for NBA players and college players to hold the ball for the entirety of the fourth quarter or even most of the second half and while it worked, the audience HATED it. The rule is there to encourage fast-paced continuous play. Does the second and third act of the Korea war need continuous engagement? No, but it needs something. Invading China is but one thing to do, not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of engagement.

And the Civpedia, I mean the very problem IS that they are alphabetically named by faction. What this means is I, as a player must tediously scroll the Civpedia (and my laptop and mouse sensitivity is a bit finicky) and the Civpedia resets after you click out of the unit. so you need to scroll all over again.

But renaming the units by a nickname, you get more letters of the alphabet to quick search by, instead of 15 units starting with ROK and 30 with the letter U (as in both US and UN) you can better quickkey the unit you're looking at to see where in the order of battle it fits. Also, if you put a fight/bomber note on the aircraft, you give the player a massive quality of life where they can mentally keep track of which airplanes do what they much better. And this isn't just a criticism of this scenario, but all scenarios where units are given via event and not built. Because when they are built, it's easy to look them up through the production screen, if you can;'t build them, it becomes frustrating to try and look up their stats on command.

I don't consider you or the good professor crazy for patching out the rockets doing massive damage to buildings. However, I would like to discuss at some point how this low attack with high firepower versus high attack but low firepower might be utilized in a different context.

The reason I feel I'm owed explanations is actually to try and keep to the spirit of the scenario even when I'm not obeying the letter. Cause there are things that aren't house rules but kinda should be. There was NO house rule about shipping the McClellan unit west and using him to kickstart the goodies of the Western Campaign, but it's definitely not in the spirit of the Civil War. Swarming Washington with US militia units so no Cofenderate attack can breach the walls of DC because they literally drown in conscripts? That's cheese. Because while that could be done in the real world, Lincoln would have had draft riots in EVERY state, It's just in Civ 2 there's no way to simulate unhappiness from battlefield loses.

I need to know WHY things the rules are this way in order to follow them with any enthusiasm. You put up a sign that says "Do not walk on grass," I will walk on the grass when I like and maybe just to spite you. I'm not the only one by a long shot. Show me a picture like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...may/08/how-do-i-revive-my-trampled-lawn#img-1
Then I'm like, yeah, that's a good reason. Now it makes sense, now there's a consequence and a context that's not just a threat of punishment, whereas before there was simply a command that was to my understanding, arbitrary. And to prove it's just not me, there's a sign in the unisex bathroom at my church that says "DO NOT FLUSH TAMPONS. $250 PLUMBER'S BILL!" While I don't use tampons, someone needed to be told WHY, because they couldn't readily infer a good reason. And ever since I've been coming to the toilet has never been backed up so I guess the explanation is working.

Also, even if you don't fully document, explaining the AI blunders if you do X is important in giving some insight for newish or returning players on how they might want to make their own scenarios. Cause the unit buying mechanic I would never remember if it was just in an FAQ of scripting options. But having seen it in action in Exodus 1948, I will never forget it. The stupidly broken power of Democracies and Republics didn't dawn on me until I (totally within the rules) became a Republic in Conolies IV and then build the Aqueduct and Sewer System analogs. Bu 1765 almost every one of my Atlantic seaboard colony cities were the size of London. From a design perspective, I don't think anything made as much of an impression on me on WHY coastal batteries are so important in that in the Outremere scenario, I managed to conquer Saladin's lands as CYPRUS by 1203, just from churching out ship after ship. This is also why I'm very VERY insistent that spies have a place in the order of battle and be readily replaceable.

I would feel utterly remiss, not putting these notes in a scenario I made because if I avoid these mistakes, people playing my scenario won't understand WHY things are the way they are and complain or savescum or mod it into cheese in search lateral or historically plausible lateral options.

Cause these are exercises in design. The kind of people who play mods, are also the kind to want to make mods, assuming the obsticles aren't too intense. Why not make it as easy as possible?
 
CurtSibling said:
@Konig15
Your review of a scenario is acceptable, and very welcome. Historical rants, less so.
What is definitely not going to work is taking an aggressive tone in your posts.

None of us here are into the internet hardman nonsense.
Just talk here in a way you would in real life.

This advice is not open for debate.
Click to expand...

You might not believe me, but I'm not trying to be internet hardman, nor make demands as demands, but only as criticism to be taken or left or preferably get interaction as to why this wasn't done. I don't even know what I did to give you that impression. But I do this a LOT. Cause this IS how I talk in real life, albeit there might be a difference in tone. I don't know how to use emoticons properly.

My complaints about not being able to kick Mao in the ass were meant in the following spirit:

Not a threat, not angry, and frankly,if I had gotten what I considered to be a good counter-argument, I would have done Fletcher's frustrated "Good Call!" too and called it a day..

Moderator Action: Our staff works hard to provide content for the enjoyment of our members. Please repay them with civility and constructive criticism, not this. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Konig15 said:
OK, I have a confession to make. I might be autistic, I have these problems EVERYWHERE, including real-life, certainly when I don't mean to. The way I mean it is NOT super angry but more of a boisterous bruiser trying to convince the gang leader to let him brutalize some rival in their territory, who know they are in their territory and expect to get away with it. The BB isn't angry at the leader, but prodding him with a whine and big smile about how much fun it would be to rough those dudes up.

The complaint that the scenario is a chore to play once you establish a defensive line I mean wholeheartedly. I'm not saying you can't have a scenario or any kind where you have to run down the clock. What I am saying, is there needs to be something else to grab the player's attention and make him/her feel like they are doing something more than JUST waiting down the clock. This is a problem NBA had before introducing, I believe it was the Five Second Holding rule, cause without it, it was totally a legitimate thing for NBA players and college players to hold the ball for the entirety of the fourth quarter or even most of the second half and while it worked, the audience HATED it. The rule is there to encourage fast-paced continuous play. Does the second and third act of the Korea war need continuous engagement? No, but it needs something. Invading China is but one thing to do, not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of engagement.

And the Civpedia, I mean the very problem IS that they are alphabetically named by faction. What this means is I, as a player must tediously scroll the Civpedia (and my laptop and mouse sensitivity is a bit finicky) and the Civpedia resets after you click out of the unit. so you need to scroll all over again.

But renaming the units by a nickname, you get more letters of the alphabet to quick search by, instead of 15 units starting with ROK and 30 with the letter U (as in both US and UN) you can better quickkey the unit you're looking at to see where in the order of battle it fits. Also, if you put a fight/bomber note on the aircraft, you give the player a massive quality of life where they can mentally keep track of which airplanes do what they much better. And this isn't just a criticism of this scenario, but all scenarios where units are given via event and not built. Because when they are built, it's easy to look them up through the production screen, if you can;'t build them, it becomes frustrating to try and look up their stats on command.

I don't consider you or the good professor crazy for patching out the rockets doing massive damage to buildings. However, I would like to discuss at some point how this low attack with high firepower versus high attack but low firepower might be utilized in a different context.

The reason I feel I'm owed explanations is actually to try and keep to the spirit of the scenario even when I'm not obeying the letter. Cause there are things that aren't house rules but kinda should be. There was NO house rule about shipping the McClellan unit west and using him to kickstart the goodies of the Western Campaign, but it's definitely not in the spirit of the Civil War. Swarming Washington with US militia units so no Cofenderate attack can breach the walls of DC because they literally drown in conscripts? That's cheese. Because while that could be done in the real world, Lincoln would have had draft riots in EVERY state, It's just in Civ 2 there's no way to simulate unhappiness from battlefield loses.

I need to know WHY things the rules are this way in order to follow them with any enthusiasm. You put up a sign that says "Do not walk on grass," I will walk on the grass when I like and maybe just to spite you. I'm not the only one by a long shot. Show me a picture like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...may/08/how-do-i-revive-my-trampled-lawn#img-1
Then I'm like, yeah, that's a good reason. Now it makes sense, now there's a consequence and a context that's not just a threat of punishment, whereas before there was simply a command that was to my understanding, arbitrary. And to prove it's just not me, there's a sign in the unisex bathroom at my church that says "DO NOT FLUSH TAMPONS. $250 PLUMBER'S BILL!" While I don't use tampons, someone needed to be told WHY, because they couldn't readily infer a good reason. And ever since I've been coming to the toilet has never been backed up so I guess the explanation is working.

Also, even if you don't fully document, explaining the AI blunders if you do X is important in giving some insight for newish or returning players on how they might want to make their own scenarios. Cause the unit buying mechanic I would never remember if it was just in an FAQ of scripting options. But having seen it in action in Exodus 1948, I will never forget it. The stupidly broken power of Democracies and Republics didn't dawn on me until I (totally within the rules) became a Republic in Conolies IV and then build the Aqueduct and Sewer System analogs. Bu 1765 almost every one of my Atlantic seaboard colony cities were the size of London. From a design perspective, I don't think anything made as much of an impression on me on WHY coastal batteries are so important in that in the Outremere scenario, I managed to conquer Saladin's lands as CYPRUS by 1203, just from churching out ship after ship. This is also why I'm very VERY insistent that spies have a place in the order of battle and be readily replaceable.

I would feel utterly remiss, not putting these notes in a scenario I made because if I avoid these mistakes, people playing my scenario won't understand WHY things are the way they are and complain or savescum or mod it into cheese in search lateral or historically plausible lateral options.

Cause these are exercises in design. The kind of people who play mods, are also the kind to want to make mods, assuming the obsticles aren't too intense. Why not make it as easy as possible?
Click to expand...

You use some VERY, VERY strange analogies. In fact, I think you're quixotic and bizarre choice of such analogies easily derails and detracts from any point you may be trying to make.
 
Konig15 said:
You might not believe me, but I'm not trying to be internet hardman, nor make demands as demands, but only as criticism to be taken or left or preferably get interaction as to why this wasn't done. I don't even know what I did to give you that impression. But I do this a LOT. Cause this IS how I talk in real life, albeit there might be a difference in tone. I don't know how to use emoticons properly.

My complaints about not being able to kick Mao in the ass were meant in the following spirit:

Not a threat, not angry, and frankly,if I had gotten what I considered to be a good counter-argument, I would have done Fletcher's frustrated "Good Call!" too and called it a day..
Click to expand...

The point is, we don't act like this on the forum. We are not here to argue, but to create and discuss.

Please either reign in yourself, or hold off on posting.
If you cannot restrain your impulses, then we cannot continue.

Your call, Konig.
 
Konig15 said:
I don't consider you or the good professor crazy for patching out the rockets doing massive damage to buildings. However, I would like to discuss at some point how this low attack with high firepower versus high attack but low firepower might be utilized in a different context.
Click to expand...

This discussion is more than welcome in our OTR creation thread and I am quite serious that I would love to have your help playtesting it. There's no point to doing so right this second as Prof. Garfield and I have just completed a playtest of our own and are making changes because of it, but once they are made, I'd be delighted if you would try it out and offer all the feedback that you want. It is of course mostly a multiplayer scenario (and I would be up to play you, if you like) but I'm curious what your thoughts are about the proposed single player rules to make it at least viable for a lone wolf until they can convince someone else to play.

Anyway, I think you made a good post for the most part but I'd suggest that we drop it from this discussion because we've turned poor @McMonkey and @Patine 's scenario thread into a philosophical discussion. If you're still interested in debating this, I think you have a high level scenario design thread you started where it may be more appropriate.

In an effort to get this scenario thread back on track - I recently thanked Techumseh for putting Corsairs in Burma. I admit I haven't had a chance to sink my teeth into Korea yet but I noticed that it too has Corsairs, so that must change quickly.

(OK, so it's not much of a redirect but it's the best I can do before 5 a.m.)
 
JPetroski said:
In an effort to get this scenario thread back on track - I recently thanked Techumseh for putting Corsairs in Burma. I admit I haven't had a chance to sink my teeth into Korea yet but I noticed that it too has Corsairs, so that must change quickly.

(OK, so it's not much of a redirect but it's the best I can do before 5 a.m.)
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's your gripe about Corsairs? This is a new issue to me. I do admit, they're are a few kicking around in this scenario, and Empire of the Rising Empire was all set to have some. I'm curious as to why you believe them to be problematic, for very practical reasons.
 
Patine said:
Sorry, what's your gripe about Corsairs? This is a new issue to me. I do admit, they're are a few kicking around in this scenario, and Empire of the Rising Empire was all set to have some. I'm curious as to why you believe them to be problematic, for very practical reasons.
Click to expand...

No gripe whatsoever, they are my favorite airplane, so I am pleased to see that they are in your scenario. You could give them 98 attack and I would consider it appropriate.
 
JPetroski said:
No gripe whatsoever, they are my favorite airplane, so I am pleased to see that they are in your scenario. You could give them 98 attack and I would consider it appropriate.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misread your post as "I recently thanked Techumseh for pulling Corsairs in Burma," as in pulling them out, or removing them, not what you said, "I recently thanked Techumseh for putting Corsairs in Burma." I think my laptop screen needs a wipe, as it seems to be starting to get grungy.
 
So I needed to get my Civ2 mojo back and decided to give this scenario a truly proper go before diving into some creation work. Let me tell you, I had a blast, and was not able to achieve a victory on my first go through! (I'm 5 turns from the scenario ending and need 5 cities with reinforcements too far away, so it's not happening).

Definitely a fun game where I think you two have done a splendid job of making "infinite but scarce" resources work. The next time I play it I'm going to have to make far better use of engineers as I noticed much too late in the scenario that I was really better off fighting in the terrain than in cities. Chalk that partially up to me just not being that great of a player, but I'm going to definitely invest in solid defensive terrain for the next go around.

If you ever take a stab at updating this, the only thing I'd suggest is putting a little asterisk or what have you next to the cities the UN needs to capture during their first offensive to guarantee they get the scripted reinforcements. I do like how you basically goad the player into overextending themselves early in the game but I missed on city and never got the South African F-86's. Given one knows they need to advance far to get all the event units, I don't think this overextension would be stopped if you gave folks a more specific target. Also, there are a few typos here and there in the events but nothing that breaks immersion too much.

All in all, great scenario! Well done to you two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom