 |
| |
|
|
H Tower
|
|
It seems the Scenario League is jumping the gun on us and wants to start a scenario demo game. although the way it is played is going to be quite different than our current structure from what i understand 
quote:
Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
Greetings Comrades!
I have been thinking and discussing a perhaps new idea, mixing diplomacy type games with a sort of PBEM style mixed into a favourite scenario.
I talked a bit with Henrik, and we think this might have a bit of potential here: I am talking about a game of RedFront 1.4 whereby we have several players involved in the game performing various tasks and roles. We model the command structure after Stavka or somesuch, and go about conducting war on the Ostfront.
Perhaps we include 'Front' commanders, whereby a player is in charge of the defense of an area and gets full reign of how to fight in that sector. He then reports to the higher commands such that an overall picture may be obtained of the situation at the frontlines.
Requests for munitions and units etc get passed to the higher ups, who perhaps pass the info onwards to a armaments minister who directs the flow of refugees and the entire Ural moutains factory complexes.
We have votes regarding majour decisions, such that a concensus might be reached, so we all feel that the outcome of the war might hinge on the performance of various Front Commanders. We have a science minister whos job it is to maximize the science output of the Union , or to maximize ruble collection... however he is directed by Stavka.
We elect a Marshal to coordinate the entirety, also to keep players playing and fix any realworld problems encoutered.
I have never played a Demo game, and I am sure there are a few things we are forgetting. I know this would require alot of posts from commanders to other commanders, maybe someone from the Demo circut could fill us in on certain particulars.
So, if you are interested post up. Lets try to iron out any kinks in this, and see if we might be able to beat back the huns. Also, this isnt't going to be a fast moving game, thats not the intention. So those who want turns to be played by the hour needn't apply.
Who's game?
-FMK. |
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=80001
I think this kills two birds with one stone, membership will increase a bunch with all those SLeaguers, and we have a new format, and scenario picked out, what do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
greeny
|
|
The Kremlin
Jan 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
Were not talking about just any scenario cavebear! this is RED FRONT! The bestest, most epic and hard scenario ever with HUGE military campains and a HUGE country to industialise! It would make a great demogame IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
the trick is quickly building up your small cities in the east because the germans conquer everything else. a size 3 city can end up producing 111 shields per turn by the end of the game
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
Well, I've read through the posts at the Scenarios forum...
First, let me say that if Red Front is tried as a democracy game, I really and truly hope that it works. I really don't mean to rain on the parade. 
Second, having said that; I don't think it will work. 
Having been deeply involved in most of both Civ2 Demo games, I see several areas of potentially fatal difficulty.
1. Familiarity with the Scenario - It took years of regular Civ2 play to get general agreement on what constituted fair play and to get people used to follwing those "rules". Red Front seems to have a lot of highly specific things people must not do or they will sabotage the game. Since many of the interested parties seem unfamiliar with them, they are going to innocently do some of those things. By the same token, players unfamiliar with the game are going to make fatal errors that will cause considerable frustration (if not outright loss) to players who *are* knowledgable.
2. Number of Active Players - You are going to lose players for a week or two at a time often, and this game seems much more vulnerable to college and other real life schedules than the regular Demo game structure.
3. Number of Positions - There are too many positions needed as currently described. It is just too complex. Too much communication before and during sessions is required. In the regular Demo game, the amount of coordination is actually quite minimal but even *that* much causes problems.
4. Order of Play - It appears that 10-13 people have to play individually and in sequence in order to complete one turn. I don't know how many turns are typical for a Red Front game, but I think, as a practical matter, you will need 2 weeks to complete one round of play. That's only 26 turns per year! And that isn't counting the time for polling and voting on questions. You aren't going to keep many non-position participants around at that rate. They will just drift away. That will eliminate your pool of available people to replace those with positions who must leave temporarily for RL concerns.
5. Complexity - There is a lot going on in this scenario; the details look ferocious. That's *great* for an individual player, but it is fatal to a Demo game.
6. Position Management (For lack of a better description) - The Organization Chart has a number of people who essentially do the same thing, just in different geographical areas. Either the Front Commanders are all going to be advocating their own strategies in every other Front (which will cause unending debate), or none will and there will be no discussion (as everyone agrees not to intrude).
7. Democracy - The heart of a Demo game is the polling. I don't see a lot of opportunity for this in a Red Front Demo game. If a lot of communication among the people in Positions is required, then citizen voting is not going to work very well. The two are somewhat mutually exclusive.
I've given this a lot of thought, and presented my ideas of where I think problems exist. I hope it helps. And I hope you can solve them.
And, if I may, I will offer a suggestion. Perhaps starting with a very demanding and complex scenario like Red Front is not the way to try out a Scenario Demo Game. The WWII scenario on the MPG CD is similar in nature but more adaptable to Demo Game play. You might want to give that a try first. I mention it only because I have tried it twice (one in progress now).
It has the advantage of regular Civ2 rules and the functions could be divided up in a similar but less-complex fashion than proposed for the Red Front scenario. It could be a testing ground for a Red Front scenario Demo Game to follow.
You could have a Marshall to coordinate, 2 Front Commanders (Moscow and Stalingrad?), 2 Industrial Managers (East and West), and 2 "Affairs" Managers (Foreign and Internal. Each would present polls to the citizens about matters under their areas, and then recommend all actions to the Marshall, who plays the sessions. Perhaps all terms could be 2 months rather than 1 for greater continuity. Each Position person would choose (so as to be more "Soviet" about it) a second in command to automatically fill in in case of extended absence.
Approaching complexity incrementally often succeeds where a sudden attempt fails.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Field Marshal Klesh
|
 |
Klesh Marshal Field
Jan 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cavebear
1. Familiarity with the Scenario - It took years of regular Civ2 play to get general agreement on what constituted fair play and to get people used to follwing those "rules". Red Front seems to have a lot of highly specific things people must not do or they will sabotage the game. Since many of the interested parties seem unfamiliar with them, they are going to innocently do some of those things. By the same token, players unfamiliar with the game are going to make fatal errors that will cause considerable frustration (if not outright loss) to players who *are* knowledgable. |
Thats why the marshal & elected members are sure to be those familliar with the scen. There aren't many rules, once we all agree (the ones set out already cover it pretty well) then people will stick to them. None are potentially 'disasterous' to gameplay.
quote:
2. Number of Active Players - You are going to lose players for a week or two at a time often, and this game seems much more vulnerable to college and other real life schedules than the regular Demo game structure.
|
Hopefully only less than ten people will be touching the actual file being played. Thas only slightly more than the 7 that are used to play most PBEM games. We are used to that pace, this will obviouslty be slightly slower. Not a life or death issue either. Players are replaceable.1
quote:
3. Number of Positions - There are too many positions needed as currently described. It is just too complex. Too much communication before and during sessions is required. In the regular Demo game, the amount of coordination is actually quite minimal but even *that* much causes problems.
|
Too many, too complex, too much are all matters of opinion. With the right people playing, It really should hold things up that much. Also the Marshal is there to smooth things out with ultimate decisions.
quote:
4. Order of Play - It appears that 10-13 people have to play individually and in sequence in order to complete one turn. |
No, there is no sequence needed. Only that all playing members play their part of the turn.
quote:
I don't know how many turns are typical for a Red Front game, but I think, as a practical matter, you will need 2 weeks to complete one round of play. That's only 26 turns per year! And that isn't counting the time for polling and voting on questions. You aren't going to keep many non-position participants around at that rate. They will just drift away. That will eliminate your pool of available people to replace those with positions who must leave temporarily for RL concerns. |
35 turns in the game. If people dont want to stick around, that not our problem. We have enough kids from the SLeague, who are genuine scenario designers and enthusiasts to which this idea is like a godsend (the way we always wanted to play this epic game). The rest is speculation. We'll see I guess.
quote:
5. Complexity - There is a lot going on in this scenario; the details look ferocious. That's *great* for an individual player, but it is fatal to a Demo game.
|
Not when those in charge of the playing of the scen are well versed in it. Its not rocket science. Then other who are interested in it becauise of the storyline can be explained the civspecific aspects of the game. Its not meant for the casual WWII fan, which probably explains the lack of intrest here. Not a problem.
quote:
6. Position Management (For lack of a better description) - The Organization Chart has a number of people who essentially do the same thing, just in different geographical areas. Either the Front Commanders are all going to be advocating their own strategies in every other Front (which will cause unending debate), or none will and there will be no discussion (as everyone agrees not to intrude).
Front commanders can advocate all they want. STAVKA would be the decisionmaking body on big choices, and its a council of the generals + Marshal= joint strategy.
No one is doiung the same thing I dont believe. The only overlap I see is where Front cvommanders are allowed production control in the cities their armies are in. That is fine because anything built in said city will go immediatly into his army. If you think about it, that actually lightens the load of the armaments minister by like 40 cities.
[quote]
7. Democracy - The heart of a Demo game is the polling. I don't see a lot of opportunity for this in a Red Front Demo game. If a lot of communication among the people in Positions is required, then citizen voting is not going to work very well. The two are somewhat mutually exclusive.
|
I guess this is a different kind of game then. If its a new idea I created, I didnt give it the right name. Simultanious Multiplayer PBEM? S&M-PBEM  
quote:
I've given this a lot of thought, and presented my ideas of where I think problems exist. I hope it helps. And I hope you can solve them.
|
Me too.
The default WWII scenario by Microprose would simply not fly with the SLeague (which added to that the PBEMers which are Sleaguers playing) was the target group for my original post. Blame HTower for this one here. Our job over there is to make scenarios. We have so many in the WWII genre, but RF is like the monumental beacon to us all. It's strange, but it has a quality to it that is something special. I really dont think were going to have a problem with it.
-FMK.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2003 08:24
|