Scenario Preferences

Exile · December 12, 2000, 18:33

I am curious about scenario preferences. After playing and enjoying numerous scens, I find that the ones I enjoy most are the historical ones that start out with large empires. 20,30, or even 40 cities. While these are an administrative chore sometimes, they give one the feeling of actual ADMINISTRATION. With only a few cities, losing even one is a disaster and has the potential to be a war-loser to boot. With the large empires, one can institute changes over a broad area and watch gradual, subtle changes occur. Moreover, with the large empires, there always seem to be out-of-the-way places where relatively isolated cities will, of necessity, specialize in certain types of production. In short, it seems that the larger the empire, the more accurate is the FEEL of the game for administrative purposes. Wars then become what they have historically been up to about 1850--difficult, time- and resource-consuming operations that can easily come to nothing if lacking in proper planning and execution. Similarly, the rewards of warfare are reduced as well. If your opponent has 30 cities and you take 2 of them . . . well, it will hurt him, but with 28 cities still operating, you can't expect the enemy to collapse. It seems that this type of game scenario (large map, many cities, historical) is also conducive to the idea of limited war; 17th & 18th century-style conflicts where armies and fleets clashed, but very little real estate changed hands and wars were generally fought for limited aims. These scens seem to make the "limited" idea work because only in very exceptional cases can an enemy with 30 cities be overrun. Destroying an empire that large simply isn't realistic in game terms if both opponents have equivalent or more-or-less equivalent military technology.

As I wrote that, it occurred to me that a militaristic player could build up a truly huge army and go after even a large empire and possibly have some small chance of success. My only counter to this is that the large scenarios I have run across tend to have aspects embedded in them that make the maintenance of a huge army difficult if not impossible. Most of the large scenarios (and the ones that I design) begin the game in fiscal crisis--they have money, but are in deficit. The first order of the day is to apply administrative efforts so that the empire is turning a profit--earning more cash than it consumes. The second embedded method of limiting army size is to prevent government switching and stick the large empires with Monarchy or Republic. Either one will tend to limit the size of armies by reducing the potential number of troops via lack of support.

I also heard somewhere (I forget where) that European scenario designers (and players) prefer the large, lengthy scenarios, while Americans prefer the short, all-or-nothing sort of scenarios. Is this just an Apolyton-legend? (like urban legend, get it?) I would like to hear from a multitude of folks on this, Euros and Yanks. Please step up and voice your thoughts on these issues.

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

Captain Nemo · December 12, 2000, 21:20

Large WWII historical scenarios rule!

A yankee (ex-European) opinion

Exile · December 13, 2000, 02:08

Capt. Nemo, I've seen some of your scenarios. Did you produce the American Civil War scen? (edit) OK, just got back from the Civ2 scenario site. You're the guy who makes the Russian Front scenarios. Say, can you help me with a "time/date" problem with a scenario I am almost finished with?

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 13, 2000).]

Captain Nemo · December 13, 2000, 20:33

Actually I made several WWII scenarios and one American Civil War scenario. Yes I would be glad to help you with the time/date issue

Exile · December 14, 2000, 02:33

Your ACW scenario is fantastic! I can hardly believe how much work went into that one. Each time I play it, I find out some other trick you embedded in the game. In my book, you're an expert.

Which brings me to a point I'd like to discuss with you and any other vetran scen designers out there. Soon after purchasing MGE (in March) I began to change some of the scenarios that I had gotten with the MGE package and other scens downloaded from various places. Like you, CN, I discovered that I could use the editors to alter anything the editors could get at--techs, units, events, and improvements. But, for some reason, was unable to change the scenario parameters. Only YESTERDAY, did I figure it out.

For the past 2 weeks something just struck me and I decided to make (or remake) a scenario to suit my own peculiar fancies. After reading the Penguin atlas of Medieval History, I wanted to recreate the LOW middle ages--Byzantines, Arabs, Visigoths, Franks, etc. I realized that there was ALREADY a scen that fit the bill. The "Cross and Crescent" scenario that comes with MGE. Now the C&C scen is thoroughly unplayable as it comes new. Why? Because after about 40-50 turns, the Byzantines suddenly start producing destroyers. This is in the 9th century A. D. Not good. So, I went in to the editors and began altering things. after about a week of tweaking and playtesting the various player positions, I was happy with what I had wrought. It is now a great and playable scenario. No advanced techs, no advanced units, new units introduced to add realism to the scene. I was so happy that another thought occurred to me. I was going to create an all-original scenario.

Now I had tried this before. With usually appalling results. We don't even want to go there. Disasters. But this time, I was going to do it. I downloaded a BIG, good map of central Europa and began to put the thing together. I had always wanted a 1480-1740 scenario, but none really existed that pleased me. Most were simply too small. Virtually ALL the "exploration" scenarios fit into this category. There are a couple of really nice ones--but they weren't what I was looking for. I seem to prefer scens where several players have 25-40 cities on BIG maps. After about 2 solid days of work, the new scenario was almost finished. But I made the mistake of altering something I shouldn't have. It screwed things up, I couldn't put things back right WITH ONLY THE EDITORS, and I was almost ready to give up (yet again) on the whole thing. I slept on it, and when I got up, decided to try saving as scenario after I made the changes again. IT WORKED. Now any tweaking that needs to be done CAN be done. This afternoon I realized with a start that ANY scenario's parameters can be altered in this way. If I don't like the tech paradigm, (for example) save as scenario can change it. It was a revelation! Suddenly all the little details that frustrated me before in scenarios I liked were rectifiable! I can change just about anything in any scenario I have.

Am I just dense, or was this as difficult to figure out for others. No wisecracks please.

But the bottom line is that the scenario is up and running and I am playtesting it now to see whether I am happy with the tech and tech paradigm, unit interaction & obsolescense, game balance and historical realism, etc. This is the first scenario that I have actually finished and am happy with. I would like, (after tweaking it a bit more) to submit it for testing to someone else. Where is the best place to go for this? Scenario League? Apolyton? Stewart Spink's? Platehead's?

Just for reference, I really like Markus Eklund's "1650" scenario, but find it unplayable because "monsters" appear and I can't figure out how to get rid of them. I alter ALL my units with the MGE unit editor--I have never even seen a gif file that I know of, and I can't seem to reach the "monster" slot to rid the scenario of it. Too bad. The "Long 19th Century" is one of my favorites, as is the "Imperialism 1884" scenario by Mattias Pitz. Big, sprawling empires are good.

Sorry to run on, but this silly business actually has me excited! Pathetic, huh? Thanks to the kindness of Gothmog, I have already instituted the time frame changes. And Gothmog, THEY WORK! Pleasant exclamations of joy! Thank you soooooo much. The time frame business is STILL a stumbling block, but at least I know that there is somewhere where I can get the numbers needed. Now if I could just figure out the time/date thing MYSELF, I'd be set!

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 14, 2000).]

Captain Nemo · December 14, 2000, 22:11

You are not alone being frustrated with the Civ2 editorial capabilities... You learn all the little tricks bit by bit. I have been making scenarios for Civ2 for 5 years and am still learning every time. For example the Red Front scenario is far more advanced than the ACW and uses the capabilities of Civ2 atleast 100% better! BTW: I HATE the MGE editors, they are useless and cause more problems than they solve. Editing the files directly yields better and more predictable results.

Exile · December 15, 2000, 04:01

Yes, I am apt to agree with you about the MGE editors, but only the advances editor seems to be stubborn. I have read the "advanced tech trees" article over on the Scenario League site 15 times now, and this business of "burying" techs has got me blocked. Manipulating the techs during the tweaking process seems to work ok. But whenever I try to use a "no,no" tech THAT LEADS TO SOMETHING ELSE, the results are unpredictable. Not disastrous; nothing that can't be redone, more or less. But I KNOW that the "buried" techs CAN be done. I have downloaded plenty of scens that contain just that feature. Can the "no,no" techs ONLY be placed from inside the Rules file? NOT the editors? is this the problem? The MGE advances editor seems to "correct" any techs derived from "no,no"s and leaves them with a "no" in the prerequisites slot where I placed the name of the "no,no" tech that they were derived from. Is the secret then to forget about the advances editor and only rely on direct alterations of the lines in the Rules file when attempting to place "no,no" techs?

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

St Leo · December 16, 2000, 22:05

I prefer starting with 3-5 cities in the Ancient or Medieval period.

P.S. FW editors are pathetic.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

Captain Nemo · December 17, 2000, 02:03

The no,no tech, call it "Impossible Tech", should never be the prerequisite of any researched tech, but of the "Nation Specific" Techs.
For example Impossible Tech: Pla,no,no
British: Bro,nil,Pla
German: Alp,nil,Pla
Now give the Bro and Alp techs respectively to the British and German Civs via the cheat menu and base all research that each tribe can do on Bro and Alp... Never use Pla anywhere else in the Tech tree.
This works perfectly well!

Exile · December 17, 2000, 06:22

St. Leo, you're a renowned scenario designer too. Why do you prefer such a small kingdom to work with? With ony 3 towns, if you loose even 1 . . . Did you ever play on big maps with lots of cities? If so, what didn't you like about them? I've seen your work and am interested in your viewpoint.

Capt. Nemo; I could SWEAR that I have tried EXACTLY the set-up you just described, and I cannot get it to EVER function correctly. I feel like I'm missing some obvious, stupid detail that's staring right at me!

BTW, I have a test-version of my scenario right now. Wanna help me beta-test it? How about you too, St. Leo? I could really use the assistance of two veteran designers like you guys. I sent out 2 copies of the zipped package yesterday, but haven't heard back from the recipients yet.

A question about sound files; should I separate the sound file folder and make it a completely separate zip file--sent separately as well? I have noticed that this beast of a scenario of mine is pretty large. Does removing the sound file significantly reduce the total size of the scenario package?

A trick I used to create nation-specific techs and units; In my new scenario, Europeans research and produce several 16th-17th century units. The Turks have Janissaries. In order to get the cities to come out right, I renamed Industrialization tech "European Worldview" and gave it to all the Europeans, then made it a "no,no" tech. Then I made the Janissaries go obsolete with European Worldview. This way the Euros build what they are supposed to, their cities look the way they should, and the Euros do not produce Turk units. The problem then became more complex; when the Euros get the 18th century units, (with a tech I renamed "Modern Troops") how do I make the 16th-17th century units go obsolete while at the same time preventing the Turks from building the 16-17th century Euro units? I created a no,no tech called "Euro obs." and gave it to the Turks (and Berbers) at the start, so they won't be producing these units. Then I created an event so that anytime ANYBODY receives the "Modern Troops" tech, the event gives them the "no,no" "Euro obs." tech at the same time. This way the Turks and Berbers can't make the Euro units--the 16th-17th century units are already obsolete for the Islamics and the "no,no" tech makes the earlier Euro units go obsolete for them just when I want it to do so.

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 17, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 17, 2000).]

Cam · December 17, 2000, 08:56

Blackclove's Design Tip (Part One) on divided Technology Trees, leads to (Part Two). See also here for info' for Test of Time's set up.

BeBro · December 17, 2000, 09:58

quote:

I wanted to recreate the LOW middle ages--Byzantines, Arabs, Visigoths, Franks, etc. I realized that there was ALREADY a scen that fit the bill. The "Cross and Crescent" scenario that comes with MGE. Now the C&C scen is thoroughly unplayable as it comes new. Why? Because after about 40-50 turns, the Byzantines suddenly start producing destroyers. This is in the 9th century A. D. Not good.

Exile, just a question: With MGE comes a medieval scn called "Cross&Crescent"? That´s funny, because I made a similar scn (exactly the same name) with FW without knowing that (I haven´t MGE). Can you send me the unit graphics of the MGE scn (see profile for my mail adress)? That would be nice...

------------------
Civ2000

Exile · December 17, 2000, 21:15

Yes, BeBro, there is a scenario that comes stock w/MGE titled "Cross & Crescent." The map is huge and is a GREAT one. I saw your scenario name several days ago and wondered about just exactly what you had there. Apparently, the minds of great scenario designers think alike. BUT, the scen that comes w/MGE, as I stated, is really unplayable because of the tech problems. I completely reworked the entire tech tree, the units, the improvements, and the wonders. Additionally, I altered the city- and flag-graphics also. The scenario had tremendous potential and I tried to bring it out with some judicious tweaking and changes.

Now, you tell me you have created an original scenario called "Cross and Crescent?" I must say I'm certainly interested in seeing your work. I forget--where is it available for download? The unit graphics for the stock scen w/MGE were mostly default, w/only a couple of exceptions, and, IMHO, that was part of the problem with it. The original designer added maybe 3 new techs and shifted some techs around, but left the rest of the tech tree pretty much intact. Which is why the Byzantine Destroyers appeared after awhile. The unit graphics I used came from all over. I've downloaded dozens of scens from websites everywhere, so, using the MGE unit editor, I have available HUNDREDS of unit graphics from any one of those scenarios. If you'd like to see the version of MGE's "Cross and Crescent" that I altered, let me know and I will attempt to send it to you. It is a BIG scenario, however, and it didn't get any smaller when I reworked the unit sounds--it now has its own sound file.

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 17, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 17, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 17, 2000).]

BeBro · December 18, 2000, 06:21

Exile, you can preview and download the English version of my "C&C" via http://www.crosswinds.net/~cbrosing/...ssCrescent.htm

If the direct link above doesn´t work (crosswind is sometimes as annoying as xoom or geocities) enter my site via the signature, choose the English pages and go to the "Scenario" section, you´ll find it there.

The scn is designed for Fantastic Worlds, but should run under MGE (but some MGE players reported problems).

Hope you like it

------------------
Civ2000

Prometeus · December 18, 2000, 08:11

I really like ancient and medioeval ones... but often, when i start to create something, the whole scen crashes misteriously... that's why i created so few scens in eight years. Do you need a list of failures? Just ask...

P.S. But when i manage to create something... OH MY !!! I can't stop !!!

Exile · December 18, 2000, 21:37

Prometeus; My own story w/scenarios resembles yours very closely. Welcome to the club.

BeBro; I downloaded your scenario and am going to check it out just after I get offline here. Thanks for the link.

Open questions;

1.) Was there ever a time in Apolyton history when scenario discussion was more lively?

2.) Am I correct in assuming that there are actually very few scenario designers? Who communictate on the web? I should think that there would be hundreds!

3.) Is there a place other than Apolyton where scenario designers go to chat, exchange ideas, talk about scenarios and scenario-making?

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

St Leo · December 18, 2000, 23:07

St. Leo, you're a renowned scenario designer too. Why do you prefer such a small kingdom to work with? With ony 3 towns, if you loose even 1 . . . Did you ever play on big maps with lots of cities? If so, what didn't you like about them? I've seen your work and am interested in your viewpoint.

Ah, but with such a starting condition one does not make Red Front's USSR. The idea is to have the player quickly get a feel for what his country is about and start adding to it. Yes, I've played on big maps with lots of cities and frankly one does not get sufficient reward for the time investment needed to effectively leverage one's land under those conditions. It is, however, easier to tolerate if the cities are acquired prebuilt through conquest and assigned roles one at a time rather then all at once.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

Exile · December 19, 2000, 02:59

St. Leo; You certainly have a point. When you expressed it that way, it occurred to me that what I was after, in an historical sense, was actually the stifling difficulty of administering a far-flung realm with insufficient apparatus while at war during the period. In my own "historical" perversity, I sought just the murkiness and lack of focus you're trying to avoid. After reading some histories of the era, it seems to have been characterized by the chronic inability of government "institutions" to cope with difficulties, not to mention crises, with which they were constantly faced. I can understand why most players would NOT see murkiness and lack of focus as virtues. Reaching for historical accuracy in my own, twisted way.

BTW, went to the Ziggurat. Been a long time since the last time visited and the site seems to have grown. The list of scenarios is amazing. It's just one hit after another. Great site. Noticed that there were many sound-only packages. What's the deal? I tried to register. Unsuccessfully.

Capt. Nemo; Bolt from the blue. Your method for nation-specific techs works perfectly well . . . if you leave out spies and diplomats. Correct?

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 19, 2000).]

BeBro · December 19, 2000, 09:47

Exile, I think we scenario designers are still more than a few

Please try out the ScenarioLeague Forum here at Apolyton, here you can meet many designers, too...

------------------
Civ2000

St Leo · December 19, 2000, 22:44

Reaching for historical accuracy in my own, twisted way.

Myself, I agree with Sid on that historical accuracy takes second place to fun.

BTW, went to the Ziggurat. Been a long time since the last time visited and the site seems to have grown. The list of scenarios is amazing. It's just one hit after another. Great site. Noticed that there were many sound-only packages. What's the deal?

What exactly do you mean? A lot of scenarios have sounds and their creators often choose to separate them into easy-to-download package sizes.

I tried to register. Unsuccessfully.

On the forums? I have heard of that problem before and I hope we'll finally migrate to the new forum system we are developing soon.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

Captain Nemo · December 19, 2000, 22:48

I note from the above that you are using no,no techs directly in the tech-tree... That is why you are having the problems with the technologies!

You say you have tried my set-up before but I don't think so because it is the well-documented method for structuring tech trees used by all scenario designers and it has worked flawlessly for me in 4 massive scenarios developped over the last 5 years.

There should only be one no,no technology in the game, the one that serves as a prerequisite for all the "National" given technologies which in turn serve as prereq to the researched technologies. If you use a no,no tech as a prereq for a researchable tech you will never be able to research it.

All researched and unit generating techs must be TWICE removed from the no,no tech.

Impossible Tech: no,no

National Tech: nil,Impossible Tech (Given to specific Nation by Cheat Editing)

Researched Tech: Anything, National Tech

Units can come from the National Tech or the Researched Tech but NOT from the Impossible Tech that nobody should have or ever be able acquire.

Captain Nemo · December 19, 2000, 23:00

Yes you are right about the stealing of techs if you have spies in the game... Impossible to prevent theft of any technology except the ones that don't appear in the science screen, ie the no,no techs. All my scenarios disable negotiations between AIs and warns the Human player not to trade/steal techs as this can upset the gameplay. If you set the "value" indicators for the techs very low (0,0 or 1,0) the AI will steal other techs before the National ones although he may ultimately try to steal them too if given enough time.

Exile · December 20, 2000, 00:34

Sometimes I can be so smart. At others I can be soooooo dense. Capt. Nemo; Understood. Like I said, bolt from the blue. Yes, it does work if there are no spies and no negotiations. Also just realized that I'm not really after separate tech trees, just separate units. Pretty much.

Yes, St. Leo, I noticed that many designers separate their sound files into distinct zip files. Why?

When I have snatched the pebble from his hand. . . ,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited December 19, 2000).]

St Leo · December 20, 2000, 17:21

A lot of users who are still on dial-up don't have resuming software like GetRight or Go!Zilla and cannot always download an multi-megabyte sound package.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

Exile · December 21, 2000, 09:25

AAAAHHHH. Thank you, St. Leo. You ARE a saint, evidently.

I will keep that in mind. Just how big are sound files in proportion to the scenario files themselves?

Just asking,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

Exile · December 22, 2000, 08:32

Here is a concept. I'd like to hear what other designers have to say about it.

For me, scenarios fall into 2 general categories. Specific and generalist. A specific scenario uses several unique and differentiated civs. There are few if any common units; each civ has its own units, techs, etc. The "Midgaard" scenario that comes with MGE is a good example of this. Each civ has its own character, techs, and units. I should think that game balancing these would be difficult. The other category is generalist. The default game is generalist. All the units, techs, etc. are NOT civ-specific, and any civ could build any of it. Many scenarios fall into a "middle ground" between specific and generalist. A civil war scenario that uses, like the ACW scenario by Capt. Nemo and Alex the Magificient, different units for north & south, is specific. A scenario designed so that both north and south could build, say, "rifled musket" units, is a generalist scenario. But the WWI scenario that comes w/MGE is a hybrid. The civs all have some units that are civ-specific, but anyone can build the artillery and ships. Anyone else ever notice this dividing line? Anyone have preferences?

Comments? Thoughts?

Proud heir of an infinite # of monkeys,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

Prometeus · December 22, 2000, 09:40

Got the point...

It depends, Exile. BTW I like very much the "hybrid" kind between them ( i.e. my newlycoming Chan Kuo scen... Ch'in has his own techs, Chinese Warring States have their ones - and some in common with Ch'in; Yueh tribes have their ones, too ).

St Leo · December 22, 2000, 21:15

Some units (Settlers, Spies, Caravans) are almost always shared.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

Exile · December 23, 2000, 04:00

Prometeus, did you say you were working on a Warring States sceario? Where did you get a map? I have spent hours trying to locate a good period map that points out the cities from the era. No luck yet.

St. Leo; yes, but which do you prefer? and why?

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

Prometeus · December 23, 2000, 09:26

Well, i melted three maps into one:

1) a nowadays China map ( a bit distorted, but this allowed me to save most of the rivers and lakes without any trouble...

)... and i did it myself.

2) a Warring States China map ( from tha book written by A. Cotterel, "The first emperor of China" ); this allowed me to set on borders and main cities' locations... and several rivers' changes.

3) a map showing most of the bronze works' archaeological discoveries in China ( bronze was used in chinese noble families ancestors' rites, often these masterpieces carried on themselves several inscriptions, and only princes and emperors could use it, so most of these cities were easily identified as feudal states' capitals...

).

If you want, i can send them to you...

PS a good source for ancient maps ( not Civ ones, but these are useful too...

) is

Byzantine Studies Homepage.

Tha map section is full of links...