Do You expect historical accuracy in scenarios? What do You mean by that?

Heresson · February 14, 2004, 13:34

It's hard to say what is this historical accuracy. We can never really make the history flow as it did; we have no means even when it comes to the AI, not to mention a human player. Moreover, would it be fun to not be able to change the history?
I just want to know your opinion on the subject

gerryandersson · February 14, 2004, 16:21

History is not an exact science, because history is written by the victor. So, if you are making a scenario, you must consider yourself the victor.
(And you must persuade the AI that your version of history is correct)

POTUS · February 14, 2004, 19:36

Historical Accuracy should be secondary to gameplay.
As accurate as possible, but not so much as to make the game unplayable.

St Leo · February 14, 2004, 23:19

The map should be accurate. Other than that, it's all good.

Case · February 15, 2004, 00:33

My favoured approach is, for historical scenarios, to have the scenario's starting point to be historically correct, and then let things develop from there with no attempt to force events to follow subsequent history (ie, no fleets of Allied ships appearing out of thin air in June 1944). This is the approach I'm trying to use in 'Appeasement and Agression'.

curtsibling · February 15, 2004, 07:19

The civ AI restricts us in various ways.

By soundly using the various modular aspects of the game, we can create a civvish version of history.

One of the best things about Civ2, in fact probably it's biggest selling point;
is the fact that you can affect history and be the achitect of change.

Scenarios offer the same challenge.

Elok · February 15, 2004, 17:23

I'm not much of a history buff, but I'd say that in ANY kind of scenario, it's general atmosphere that matters more than precise facts.

If the scenario is "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," for example, I wouldn't mind if a few cities were misspelled, certain units are made stronger than they were for the purpose of gameplay, or one soldier graphic appeared to be using a style of crossbow that was not actually used until a later Dynasty.

If, on the other hand, there were still "buffalo" resources, hordes of barbarian Chuko Liangs appeared on Taiwan every few turns, or my city graphics suddenly turned into red brick buildings when I discovered "Advanced Rice Farming"...well, then I would be forced to hurt you. It's the general historical mood that really matters, unless the player is an absolute FANATIC about the period in question.

Heresson · February 15, 2004, 18:24

Oops, I had the Chuko Liang problem....

hardjoy · February 15, 2004, 18:24

I agree with most points mentioned above.

The most interesting and most fun (and the most difficult) aspect of history to achieve in a scenario IMO, is a realistic simulation of the possibilities at hand to the historical actors... be it limited or restrained ressources, technologies, logistics, geography, useful units, tactical tricks, deceitful diplomacy and so on. -This includes the untried, unusual combinations of choices which were not made in history, but can be made viable and fun strategies in a game

I find these aspects are the ones I think the most careful about when I tinkle with my own projects.

For instance, I had a lot of time thinking out a working scheme for "realistic" naval warfare in the 16th century, in my Spanish Armada scenario... in civ2 ships will inevitably sink when engaged by other ships, but this was rarely the case in the era of sail. Most ships would not be sunk, but be damaged, conquered and repaired to be used again by the victor. I found Kobayashis idea of 1-range torpedos (from ZWK) worked excellently when converted to naval guns aboard galleons, especially combined with events which gives the english one free galleon for each spanish one they manage to destroy. This gave naval warfare a whole new "hunt for the prize" dimension which provides a lot of excitement in the game, as well as some idea of the historical way wars at sea were fought.

Heresson · February 15, 2004, 19:21

Indeed

Elok · February 15, 2004, 19:45

Do you mean you actually had a planned-to-be-unique unit pop up constantly as a barbarian? Ouch. I was exaggerating. Ultimately, scenarios are like women-the weirdest little things can turn you off.

Heresson · February 15, 2004, 19:57

In my earliest scenario released, yes, it happened. Also, similar thing happens in Heraclius (I thought I looked good at that barbarian advise at SL, but I guess I need to practice it. Wait! Now I know. I initially left this slot empty for the barbarian problem, but I ran out of slots, and forgot why I left it unused), I'm going to fix that, though it's pretty harmless, as the unit can not move.