Have we become spoiled?

[klesh]

Hey everyone,

Just a general question regarding scenario expectations these days... With the advent and subsequent popularity of multiphased scenarios, tweaked AI's, summer/winter graphics and rules changes etc, have we come to expect these things? Would a scenario that does not have these types of things seem 'unprofessional' or would the author seem 'lazy' if he or she chose to go with a more simplistic design?

Certainly there are scenarios that dont call for this type of thing... A scenario about European colonization of America for instance can probably get by w/o multiple units file. It can also pass without a seasons switch. But in this case, what about some kind of tweaked AI via events? I am just not sure if a standard AI cuts it anymore.

Lets take another example... a WWII scenario.

Lately, it is a safe bet to say that one units file is not enough to have unique tanks and planes for 3 or 4 seperate civs... let alone to track the weapons developments throughout the course of the war. Have we become too used to the Soviets starting with T-28's and finishing with IS-2's, or would T-34's work throughout the game with perhaps a one unit upgrade? The latter, because of these newer, fancier scenarios seems to be not as acceptable these days.

With seasonal changes we get even more complex. We can adjust unit stats creating 'artificial' weaknesses in certain equipment and such... even to the point of some units losing their entire mobility in winter. Is it acceptable to have a larger WWII type scenario that goes by months which doesn't include seasonal changes? Would it seem like something is missing, like not enough effort was put into the scen?

Also, regarding single player games of all types... Is it to be expected that the author will make some attempt to make up for the AI's stupidity? A single scen (Imp Rom. for instance) has different set-ups for playing as each selected Civ. Is a scenario that doesn't attempt to alter the AI somehow less good? Can one really rely on the AI to put up a good fight, especially when large map distances are involved or should the author try to alter things by adding go-to commands and such so that the AI gets a kickstart (here I recall Case's 1st version of Battle of the Atlantic and how there was a problem with AI ships collecting in the Bay of Biscay, problem later resolved with an AI tweak).

I suppose if the AI can handle the fighting than there is no problem. But I go back to the Colonization of America idea and I have serious doubts as to whether and AI controlled (unassisted in neither unit costs {cheap} nor events help) Civ can really hold its own against an intellegent player. Perhaps in this situation some thoughfully placed CreateUnit commands could make for a much more exciting game. In the same line of thinking, in a big ol' WWII scen, can an AI England be left to fend for herself? We all know she could never accomplish a D-Day size invasion, but she would have no problem suicidaly harrasing Germany with her planes. And can the Soviets be expected to be as nasty as they were IRL? Sure, make them fundy or commie, put 'em in the Mongols Civ slot and all that, but this is the crux of the dilema.... is that enough anymore???

I am simply wondering if the scenarios as of late have been so fine tuned, that default AI ability, aestetics and the like would not satisfy the descerning player these days. Does a 'scenario' created now need to be '4 scenarios-in-one', or can it be an older style.

I am not talking here about very specific one-player only type scens like RF, SF, Kyokujitsu or Stalingrad for that matter. Obviously you need a super-tweaked AI to handle those jobs. But in a more open and even scenario to be played from [m]any angle[s] can an author get by without the scen feeling 'unpolished'?

I am not quite sure if I asked my question in the right way or not. I guess we'll find out in the replies...

Thanks for your thoughts.

-FMK.

[Jacobite1688]

My newest scenario is pretty basic by your standards. If a Scenario is, in the large, historic and accurate, it stays on my hard drive. The Spanish history scenarios or The Cruel Sea are good examples.

[MagyarCrusader]

3 letters: ToT

[techumseh]

Innovation over perfection. Playability over intricacy. Fun over size. ToT over FW/MGE.

[winterfritz]

I've always preferred simpler scenarios to more complex ones; RF and its ilk, while sometimes fun to play, often daunt me by their sheer size and intricacy.

Simpler scenarios, that only use the events to keep some historical accuracy, or even not at all, and where every civ is playable, are often far easier to get into and more fun to play. Justinian and Bonaparte are two examples that spring to mind.

[ravagon]

I don't know about "players expecting" syndrome but it seems to me more like "makers providing". Criticism of new scens seems increasingly rare yet those making new ones still seem to take ever more care, and make use of what has gone before as well as adding to the ever-increasing font of knowledge. Overall a rather pleasing state of affairs (IMO of course)...
That's starting to sound rather drivelly even though it wasn't supposed to so I'll stop now

Originally posted by techumseh
ToT over FW/MGE.

[Case]

A few months ago I was really surprised to find out that most people demand sound files with scenarios. Personally, I find sounds grating and usually turn them off, but it seems that I'm definetly in a minority on this.

I personally think that scenario designers have an obligation to make up for the AI's stupidity. This is especially true as the AI can perfom quite well when given the necessesary tweaks via clever city placements, events and unit abilities.

[DarthVeda]

I don't know about spoiled, but scenarios like Red Front and Second Front certainly raised the bar by a fair margin. These two both represent such a quantum leap in scenario design that the scenario design community has been left breathless in their wake to top them.

[Henrik]

Imho the thing that marks a good scenario is not all the fancy stuff like multi events and such (even though they can be very good to have as well), it is more about a "solid" feel that you can find in some scenarios, that while they look unsophisticated at a glance, really makes the scenario a wonderful gaming experience (scenarios with this "feel" to them generally makes good pbems as well).

Creating a good scenario is hard, I have tried several times myself (and I've even released one scenario) but I can't say I've been totally happy with the results ever. Mainly because it's very hard to define what makes these scenarios good, but generally I think it's a good thing if you use as many of Civ 2s original elements in a scenario as is possible (for instance: tech threes are extremely important!).

I don't think that Red Front and/or Second Front necessarily where the best scenarios of all time (although I did like Red Front a lot the one time I played it) even though they showed that a lot of neat effects could be achieved with the civ engine, but I guess this is a matter of taste as well...

Oh and I hate ToT , mainly because I won't ever be able to play those scenarios since there is no mac port of ToT

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Henrik
Oh and I hate ToT , mainly because I won't ever be able to play those scenarios since there is no mac port of ToT

No mac version of ToT was released? Why didn't I know that? I'm sorry to hear that.

[Henrik]

Yup it sure sucks

[Thoddy]

In my mind the strenghts of Civ stands in development as the original game is designed for.

The AI is only able to manage a developing civilisation. But many decisions are coded by rules stored in rules.txt.
->How to research
->tileimprovement
->use of units If you create a defenderunit with weak defense AI will produce this unit for defence instead of the attacking unit with the better defense.

As next the AI is developed for managing small empires with only 15-20 core-cities. Large maps are counterproductive. The go to order works only within distances of 22 or 23 tiles. Some other functions within the game are affected by this.

In Addition the AI cannot use large scale effects and never mobilises all possible ressources to reach a target. The AI has no built in strategic abilities.

But:
Most modern scens have more than 200 cities and begins with developed cities (esp. WW2 Scens). So a large part of the AI abilities (rules) is obsoelete from beginning.

The human player is able to recognise, how to win a scen.
-special strategies -xinning
-Research a key technology as fastest.
-use of a killer unit
-attacking a opposing unit with its optimal counterpart
-Decisions where to hold and where to attack. (The AI is not able to concentrate on a special target at a time, so every expierenced human can make them confused)
-use of killer terrain (every AI attackunit will attack even the defender is in strong devensive positions.-where is the trap- its on the mountain with the fortified phalanx)

So every scenario designer has to provide the AI to compensate their loss of abilities if its not an developing scen.

possible solutions
-all round units for AI.
-stronger units for AI
-AI units cheaper. - shorten shield box (not 10 but 5 or 6 rows) so the AI can build reinforcements very fast.
-create unit events but in this case you have to deal with the unit-build-limit.

-only older gouvernments for human player (monarchy and republik) to compensate large scale effects

-go to events

Thats why I'm creating this feasability study-scen.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=42742

[Case]

Those are some good points Thoddy

I've noticed that the AI's basic military strategy is to react to the human players moves. Becuase of this a swift moving bltizkrieg campaign can cause real havoc (and is my favorite strategy in Second Front). On the other hand, if you ever stop for a breather, the AI can be very good at concentrating its resources on where your main force is (and, where possible, is rather good at hitting them with nukes!)

[kobayashi]

Yes we are spoiled.

I also had an experience when I was critisized for using the standard terrain file - what was the big deal? It looked fine and it wasn't meant to be the focus. Anyway, in the end I gave in and changed the terrain in a later version.

Even then, I am still against complicated scenarios and I have yet to make anything that extends beyond the standard set of scenario files.

[our_man]

It's all Captain Nemo's fault! If he hadn't raised the bar so much by creating masterpieces such as Red Front and 2nd Front we would all have a much easier time.

For my first (and only) scenario to date, The United Irishmen, I had to make use of the events to give the AI moveunit commands, units and gold in order to make it a more worthy opponent. I used two event files for these, but if I had to I could have cut it down to one. Everything I put into it felt like it was enhancing the game - at no point did I feel that I was tweaking it too heavily.

I think that the more complex a scenario is, the more deeply you are drawn into it (I spent many an evening fretting over the fate of Leningrad against the German onslaught in RF - could she possibly hold out one more turn!?). Sometimes it is more desirable to have a less involving scenario, one where you can simply dip your feet in, so to speak. It depends on the player and their particular mood.

Personally, I think the overall demand on quality after RF has been a move for the best, with the quantity of new scenarios no doubt suffering. In fact, with the anticipation that their authors build up (Stalingrad - when will we get it!) they are now like the blockbusters of the movie world. I don't know whether anyone else gets this analogy, but it more or less sums up how I feel.

I believe that the scenarios where you could very well pick any civilization to play as, with the exception of specifically designed PBEM's, is now dead and gone.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by our_man
It's all Captain Nemo's fault! If he hadn't raised the bar so much by creating masterpieces such as Red Front and 2nd Front we would all have a much easier time.

Of course, when things begin to seem daunting, one of the huge advantages of SL is it's cooperative nature. All the best scenarios have had a significant degree of collaboration. Just look at the Readme files.

[Heresson]

Once I discussed this with Allard.
The question was why there are less scns than there used to be, and the answer was that the more scns complicated are, the less people will try to make them; if someone posted at SL a scenario of scn.file and rules only, he would be laughhed off. So the answer is yes. Additionally, the more complicated scns are, the more time it takes to make them; it is evolution, but a spirale going down; oneday, there'll be one scn a year or so. With everything that was invented that far, on the other side.

[Shaka Naldur]

of course some imporvements are needed,
how many "normal" scenarios we have??
a thousand??
(btw, why don´t we count the scenarios out there?)

i´m not saying that all should be like RF or SF, that´s too much, I wouldl ike to know how much time did nemo spend in any of them,
but for example Henrik scenario was just perfect,
new graphics (am very bored of the original ones)
and a good playability, ç
but one thing i really like is to read historical texts via events

or if you want build up empire something like C&C and Sthe Crown are excellent,

something different is needed, if i download a scenario and i see the original graphics i won´t play it, why? because i´m sure that the playability is going to suck, because i will think that if the scn designer didn´t take enough time to change the graphics he probably did the same with everything else.
is going to be just like a normal game, and i want something different in the scenarios

when i tried to made a scenario about Waterloo the first thing i did was to look for good graphics and think in new ideas, but the computer crashed and spoiled all my work

[klesh]

Okay fellas, thanks for some of those great respones.

It has just been on my mind lately. I have had a few great ideas as of late regarding some scenario ideas, for which Stalingrad is on hold for the moment. I have been rather bored with hyper-tweaking the AI for Stalingrad, and I was thinking about other ideas. With Stalingrad I think I wanted to do an amazing Nemoesque piece, but I just didnt apriciate all that goes into them. For the person who asked... I recall Nemo saying that RF represented well over 1,000 man hours! Stalingrad, being my first ever scenario, was probably, no, definately the wrong topic to choose. I have learned things in the past months of designing that I should've implemented from the start (had I only known about them).

So in thinking of some other topics for a scenario, I came up with a great one. I went along collecting some things for it and such, and realized it would be another turbo-AI type of deal... not something I really wanted to get my hands into again. So that idea is on hold as well. Too bad really, would've been nice and hopefully will be in the future.

So I did the 2194 thing (which is almost ready to go in the finished version, I am just monitoring Pap's and Magyar's PBEM of the old version) in about a week. I have put way more time into that than I had anticipated. It was supposed to be a day or two mini-project!

So I had a fourth idea as well, something I have been toying with for awhile, and this thought hit me. "If I dont want to do a 'one-sided' quest type of scenario again (RF, SF), what kinds of things do need to be done to make it acceptable to the players? Must their be seasons, must their be multi units files, multi terrains and rules etc etc?

I can say that whenever playing the original 2194 as Germany, you rarely had to worry about the Brits, and the Americans might as well not have access to ships...as they never used them. Is that cool? Should their be some kind of event to repair this deficiency? Nemo did have a small D-Day event, but it was easily thwarted by having one fighter plane stationed by the coast to sink all transports. All this being said, I still enjoyed the scenario a lot.

But this can obviously only be taken so far. Lest we forget the inability to tweak the AI enough in 'The Blitz', essentially leading to Nemo becoming frustrated and needing a vacation. It can be overwhelming sometimes indeed.

I suppose the bottom line is if tweaking is needed, do so. But also one must consider bottlenecking the player in a web of events that he/she has no controll over, unless of course it is a ultra-historical or quest type of scenario.

Thanks again for thinking out loud with me.

-FMK

[DarthVeda]

Let's look at my undertaking with Kyokujitsu... When I started out it looked entirely different and I had originall intended to use MGE or something of that nature. About two months in, the popularity of Red Front really caught on and I realized just how outclassed my scenario was going to be. So I massively upscaled the project.

Two years later, I'm still working on it... and I have no idea when It'll be done.

[Mr. Oobir]

This reminds me of my scenario-making situation. Aside from a couple of incredibly short and stupid scenarios, I haven't made any. I started working on one, though, that was based on the Resident Evil games. Mix Dungeon: Heroes of Beckhorn with El Dorado, put it over 4 ToT maps, and add more story and events and you'll have a good idea of what I was aiming for. Getting into it at first, it didn't seem too difficult. All I really had to do was change the graphics, add some sounds (and I made some good sounds!), and whip up a story and the rest would fall into place, right?

Well, this is where it got a bit hairy. Creating an acceptable wall graphic and finding a way to implement it as a wall in the game was easily the biggest problem I faced. Then, I had to deal with making an intuitive and coherent layout work over four maps. There was also the pacing and balance of the game. Your units would be moving a lot; how do I strike a balance between inactivity, repetitive battles, and excessive text (that, by the way, would be generated with multiple events files)? Oh, did I mention the complexity of the events files? With the rough outline of the planned story, I calculated how many of the flags in Test of Time's events language I would need. I think the maximum of 32 flags was just barely enough, and that was with switching, replacing, and reusing several of them. Add to all of this that I am in no way a graphics artist and get impatient easily, it's pretty clear that I was way in over my head.

How did I deal with it? I gave up, frustrated and dumbfounded. And this was the other big problem with the creation of my scenario: I didn't seek help on it. I was so intent on suddenly springing the Next Red Front on the unsuspecting CivII populace that I didn't check to see if anyone could help me with graphics, or even to see if what I was doing was feasible.

With the files for "Resident Evil: Poison Files" languishing on my hard drive, I doubt that I will be working on it any time soon. I still think that I could make it happen, but I don't have the enthusiasm or patience for it right now. Maybe in the future, I suppose...

Edit: I also forgot to mention the multiplayer game that was unlocked when the main game was finished. It was a hide-and-seek type of game that pitted a person against several other teams. It was a lot like a deathmatch in a first-person shooter, actually...

[techumseh]

Why don't you guys (FMK&DV) trade scenarios for a month?

[WarVoid]

I think if a scenario is made really well, it will shine on for a long time.

For instance, my New England Civil War scenario used all recycled graphics from a huge myriad of other scenarios. In addition, I only spent around thirty hours on the entire project. Mind you, I spent three whole days doing nothing else BUT working on the scen.

That was released about a year and a half ago, without playtesting, and directly to SLeague. And even today I still receive fan mail about that scenario from people. Kinda makes you feel all fuzzy inside.

[MagyarCrusader]

Mr.Orbir,

I feel your pain. ToT is more complex than standard MGE, but thats because of the greater possibilities involved. But you gotta create scenarios for yourself, not for the public, otherwise you will definetly lose your ambition. This is espicially true for ToT since the ToT public is rather small. Hell, my last scenario Final Days, I didn't get any feedback except for a thread on civfanatics calling me a neo-nazi. You must invest so much time into these scenarios and you really don't get anything back except for self-satisfaction when you play it yourself... So I've basically given up scenario creation. I recently updated my Second Reich scenario for better multiplay, and I think that any other scenario efforts I make would be updates on my old scenarios.

[Shaka Naldur]

1000 man´s hours


i´m i reading that you are going to make another scenario before you finish stalingrad???

[Mercator]

techumseh, Heresson, Mr. Oobir:

And Mr. Oobir I've had those problems as well. I have plenty of ideas, and I still have two scenarios, which have barely even started to take shape, sitting on my HD collecting dust.

I'm not much of a scenario man in the first place, and WWII isn't really my favourite topic either...
But I think Nemo's scenarios are really taking it too far. I just don't want to know about all those different tanks, airplanes and what have you that were on the field. I'd enjoy the standard WWII scenario more than Nemo's.
Everybody has been trying to surpass everybody else in the size, complexity and accuracy of their scenarios.

(perhaps a bit of an inappropriate plug, but quite serious) I'd highly recommend my scenario Orbis Terrae, if anyone hasn't played it yet. Of course it won't be everybody's thing, but it's just plain fun and simple, IMHO, nothing too ambitious and no real problems with accuracy since it's mostly fictional...

And if you think it's too simple, I can send you the earlier beta version. There I somehow managed to create a massively aggressive and destructive AI Viking fleet, but I screwed that up by messing further with the rules, so the final version didn't have that.

[techumseh]

I've posted 6 scenarios and have more than that unfinished. The unfinished ones generally are pretty ambitous, where I've bitten off more than I could chew. For example, where I decided I was going to make ALL NEW units or something like that. Another failure factor is the BIG SECRET, where no one can know what I'm up to until it's too late (for what?).

In general, I've had more success finishing a scenario if it is: 1) modest in size, 2) something that I've played around with before, 3) I've got help with from other scenario designers, and 4) most importantly, it's something I personally want to play.

There is lots to be gained through collaboration - look at Alex and Nemo - though I think that one person has to take ownership of the project and the other(s) provide advice, assistance and encouragement.

Size and complexity are a mixed blessing. Red Front was a huge hit, but Second Front was considerably less so. Chances are, if it seems too big to finish, people will find it too big to play. In a couple of instances, I've rescaled a project which allowed me to retain much of my work and ideas, but get it done in a more practical format.

Smaller scenarios are often real gems. Consider Gothmog's
"Justinian the Great," which IMHO one of the best scenarios ever made. The map is quite small, there are no multiple events. But it recreates the fall of the Roman Empire very accurately and each civ is playable (well, I wouldn't want to be the Western Roman Empire) and fun.

Smaller scenarios often work better because the AI is designed to work on small maps. Much of the famous "stupidity" of the AI is because of maps which are too large. I've seen some pretty well coordinated AI offensives at close quarters. On big maps the enemy comes at you one unit at a time.

I think people do expect a higher degree of polish these days, as well as some innovation. Allard's "River War" was an example of both, even though it didn't have a huge map and it wasn't hugely complex, aside from the bat files to change the river level.

There are so many good new graphics out there these days, particularly the great new WWII units, that making a good looking scenario is within everyones' grasp. And with all the tips on the SL site and the Cradle of Civilization, plus all the free advice here, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

[Heresson]

He he he Justinian was great.
I played byzantines and attacked western Romans, assuming there's no sense to wait until someone else does it. I took most of their territory and soon recaptured taken by Barbarian cities (not minding conquering Persia). And it was all just at the start of the game...
I wonder, should human players bother themselves to keep the scn hist. accurate?

[Case]

Originally posted by Heresson
I wonder, should human players bother themselves to keep the scn hist. accurate?

Of course not

[winterfritz]

Originally posted by techumseh
I've posted 6 scenarios and have more than that unfinished. The unfinished ones generally are pretty ambitous, where I've bitten off more than I could chew. For example, where I decided I was going to make ALL NEW units or something like that. Another failure factor is the BIG SECRET, where no one can know what I'm up to until it's too late (for what?).

I've started about 6 scenarios, and each new one has been successively less ambitious than the last. The one I'm working on now is sufficiently modest that I may actually finish it

One reason to keep projects a secret however, is so no one is disappointed if you have to abandon them. Consider the reaction if FMK suddenly announced tomorrow that he would never touch Stalingrad again

But I agree, Justinian is one of the greatest scenarios of all time (I was considering mentioning it in my first post as a prime example of the kind of scenario I love ). It has all the elements of a good historical scenario, in that it succeeds in recreating the period as well as having an excellent atmosphere and being fun to play and replay.

In the end I think that all RF and SF type tricks should only be used to help a scenario achieve those goals. Complexity for complexity's sake is pointless. A part of this is tweaking the AI if it is necessary to provide a more challenging opponent for your scenario.

I don't believe that the single events file, original terrain.gif scenario with all civs playable is dead. I don't believe it ever will die.