Menelik, and some thoughts about Civ scenarios and history

lord of the mark · February 23, 2004, 18:19

Pardon if others have made similar points before.

I recently dled the Menelik scenario. First Civ2 scen id Dled in some time.

First let me offer thanks and congrats to its designer - it was fun to play, and showed signs of major research - accurate map of the key area, good events, etc.

And yet - it was unsatisfying

Why? No fault of the designer i think.

The civ2 engine just gives really strange results in a historical scenario.

Italy starts out as Ethiopias ally. Well and good, thats historically accurate. Italian units wander all over Ethiopia, leaving me with the challenge of being prepared to defend all over. Whats wrong with that? Well historically Italian units didnt do that. A diplo problem -? the real world alliance didnt act like a civ2 alliance - only party. In actual fact even had the alliance allowed for that, it would have been logistically impossible. A substantial unit couldnt have been supplied deep in the ethiopian plateu from the coast - and it could hardly have lived off the land without explicit support from Menelik, and even then it would have been problematic.

Similarly when I play the Italians invade the Madist state, and take most of it, while the Brits are busy elsewhere. Why not you say, the Italian tech advantage over the Mahdists was substantial. This is not just diplomatically unlikely - the Brits would have moved as soon as they saw the Mahdists vulnerable to another European power - its logistically absurd. In actual history the first brit attempt to avenge Gordon, by Wolsely, failed. Khartoum is simply too remote. It wasnt until Kitchener actually built a new RR to supply his army (bypassing various Nile cataracts) that the Brits could take Khartoum. In the scenario, the Italians simply waltz in to the Sudan. This is not the designers fault - its due to Civ2's absence of unit supply rules. But it leads to results that are very silly, especially if you have just read the actual history.

This seems to be a limitation of civ in any "war" scenario.

your thoughts?

curtsibling · February 23, 2004, 19:02

These limitations have been inherent since the birth of CIV2.

How else could an elephant unit live in the polar regions?

These quibbles are tolerated by most players, as they institute thier own 'house rules' or perhaps play in keeping with the historical civ's 'style'...

our_man · February 23, 2004, 19:36

I can put up with a few inconsistencies such as those as long as the scenario's enjoyable. You just have to learn to live with them.

Exile · February 24, 2004, 03:25

There are various and specific fixes for situations like these, though, admittedly, not everything is fixable.

A scen designer can make units cost outrageous amounts of production/money. This limits them somewhat. You can also make the principal units only available via events. Events can also be used to alter (somewhat) the diplomatic relationships in a given scenario.

In the end, however, there are still some situations, unique to specific periods, that the Civ2 engine just isn't able to adaquately simulate. The principal reason that I haven't started/finished my own Roman Centuries scenario is that I haven't yet been able to come up with a satisfactory solution for the Civil wars that occurred during the first century BC and during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. (btw, if anyone has any bright ideas, lemme know).

lord of the mark · February 24, 2004, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
These limitations have been inherent since the birth of CIV2.

How else could an elephant unit live in the polar regions?

These quibbles are tolerated by most players, as they institute thier own 'house rules' or perhaps play in keeping with the historical civ's 'style'...

Well its easy to design a scenario without elephant units, or without polar terrain.

The lack of a unit supply rule is a broader problem, and is particularly striking in an otherwise well designed historical scenario.

IIUC Civ3 doesnt have unit supply either. (of course it also doesnt have full fledged scenarios) If Civ4 IS to have full fledged scenarios, it would be nice to have a unit supply rule feature that could be implemented in select scenarios, if not in the generic game.

our_man · February 24, 2004, 15:07

Unit supply can be acheived within the constraints of the Civ2 engine. Look at Nemo's 2nd Front for example.

Boco · February 25, 2004, 01:15

This thread reminded me of one on the strategy forum. IIRC, players were not happy to be straightjacketed by the historical limitations Nemo programmed into 2nd front. Nor were they wild about DV's invincible fortress units channeling the player into historically plausible routes in Herbstnebel. There's a huge spectrum between playability and historical accuracy, and you just can't please everyone.

Besides using food as fuel and settlers as panzers, designers have worked out other methods for simulating supply.

Expensive units and few high shield cities
Cities building 'unbuildable' units from the start of the game.
Slow units, high road bonus, few engineers
Multiple human-controlled civs in a hotseat scenario
Impassable terrain (ToT) or impassable units

None of these are perfect, but sometimes they work pretty well. Civ2 has a lot of limits, but also a lot of ways to get around them.

Btw LotM, do you have ToT?

Arthedain · February 25, 2004, 08:56

Couldn't you give the units the helicopter flag so they have to go to cities to resupply? Don't know if it works on land-units thouhg, or if anyone else mentioned it..

lord of the mark · February 25, 2004, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by our_man
Unit supply can be acheived within the constraints of the Civ2 engine. Look at Nemo's 2nd Front for example.

I'll have to try that - thanks for the suggestion.

lord of the mark · February 25, 2004, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Boco

Btw LotM, do you have ToT?

Yes.

Elok · February 25, 2004, 12:44

Exile-I don't know about the civil wars in question, but would it be possible to tweak the barbarians somehow, giving Gunpowder via events at 321 BC or some such to make Loyalists appear, then the next tech up William Keenan's ladder, whatever it is, when the war is resolved, to switch the barbarians back to units identical to the robbers or whatever you had appearing before?

If not, maybe somebody can use that.

lord of the mark · February 25, 2004, 12:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Boco [*]Multiple human-controlled civs in a hotseat scenario

IE the old boardgame approach of having house rules, and having the players implement them (well in a board game who else implements?)

Elok · February 25, 2004, 14:58

LotM-I know relatively little about history, but as to the second problem, of the unfeasibility of the computer moving tons of units across a ridiculously thick mass of terrain, could you try:

*Making them "perfectionist" and providing few good city sites or irrigation ability, forcing them to build railroads to satisfy the AI's neurosis?

*A terrain that halves defense and can only be crossed one square at a time? They can move through it, but expose themselves to attack.

*The impassable terrain trick, combined with giving engineers the fighter ability and a weak attack to let them "raze the underbrush?"

lord of the mark · February 27, 2004, 10:34

let me just say that ive kept playing this scenario, and its quite fun. Ive managed to keep the Italians away with units well positioned on mountains, and by killing them when theyre not on mountains (since we're now at war) the French tend to push units at me, but not so much, since i have mountains/ZOC's blocking them, and they dont seem to have as many units - it is annoying that with no diplomacy i cant ask them to retreat units.
I learned to live with the Italians in Khartoum.