 |
| |
|
|
Field Marshal Klesh
|
 |
Klesh Marshal Field
Jan 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Thoddy
|
|
Hannover, Germany
Jan 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
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/showthre...&threadid=42742
Last edited by Thoddy on 03-04-2002 at 16:59
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
our_man
|
 |
Glasgow, Scotland
Oct 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shaka Naldur
|
 |
Castellón, Spain
May 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
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 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Field Marshal Klesh
|
|
Klesh Marshal Field
Jan 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Oobir
|
 |
Michigan, USA
Apr 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
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...
Last edited by Mr. Oobir on 04-04-2002 at 06:05
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mercator
|
 |
Sorekara no Nanimo
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
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
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:18
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 07:30
, mainly because I won't ever be able to play those scenarios since there is no mac port of ToT 
I'm sorry to hear that. 
Why don't you guys (FMK&DV) trade scenarios for a month?
|