 |
|
gerryandersson
|
 |
Billesholm, South Sweden
Oct 2002 time: 06:34
|
|
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)
Last edited by gerryandersson on 15-02-2004 at 01:26
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003 time: 00:34
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
hardjoy
|
 |
Odense, Denmark
May 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|