The West Awakens

[fairline]

I understand and agree with you about the use of separate formations of light troops at this scale. This still leaves the question of legion versus phalanx, if your scenario goes as far as the third century (ignore me if it doesn't ). In the normal course of events the phalanx should outfight the legion every time; it was the tactical flexibility of the legion, particularly in respect of it's greater ability on rough terrain, that proved to be the undoing of the hellenes. Again, I'm just bouncing ideas here and won't be upset if you dismiss them

Just as a side note reagrding roads and movement: point taken about the lack of roads in Greece, but should you wish to use this idea for a future scenario I recommend you check out Sengoku Jidai by DV. It's possible to give units low movement values which restrict their movement off-road, while allowing them to travel relatively large distance via roads which have had their movement modifiers substantially adjusted.

[Exile]

Hope this isn't a threadjack.

My oldest S & T is the one with the Destruction of Army Group Center in it. I actually have a few issues of The General too.

Brian, I have near 200 HO scale vehicles, German & Allied, fully painted, (except the roco/minitank allied stuff), organized into divisions, and near 1000 fully-painted troops. In addition, rather than encyclopedias, I own a wide range of trees, buildings, and even mockup, contoured hills. When we used this stuff, which was years ago, I owned two large plywood slats that were painted green. We used masking tape as roads. I devised a set of rules on my own which we playtested and worked. All this stuff is still in big boxes in one of my closets. My kid saw this stuff last time he came to visit and his eyes went wide. "Well, it might be fun to play with soldiers, dad."

Ok, ontopic;

The issue of tactical vs. strategic is a primary one for scenario designers. It was the reason I almost eliminated the machine gun unit from Imp1870. Too often, spiffy new unit graphics are thrown into a scenario without realizing that, in strategic terms, these units did not play a decisive role. The same can't be said for items like the t-34 or the P-51. Those WERE decisive in a strategic sense.

I have the same problem with most ancient/medieval scenarios. In the interest of "color," many designers use graphics of light troops that, by themselves, simply didn't make a strategic contribution to warfare. My own test is this; picture the unit in question by itself. Could it effect real conquest over a large area? If so, use it. If not, don't. Unit slots are usually at a premium anyway, so this is also a way to conserve valuable slots.

[Boco]

Well, techumseh wins the Ex-hex prize.
techumseh #2
Boco #16
Exile #36
beingofone #67

The poster prize!


Honorable mention for Exile!


And to fantasize!


You guys make good arguments about the balance of strategic vs tactical units. In fact, don't tell Fairline but I've been in the midst of dropping some of the more colorful artillery units from EA2 in favor of integrating them in with the infantry. Civ2 simply doesn't handle artillery or missile units very well, and there are compelling strategic arguments to use the freed slots for infantry to show the development of that arm during the campaign. I still have a slew of dedicated 'funny' tactical-sounding units that fill unique strategic niches, though.

Beingofone, take these as ideas aired with no knowledge of the context. A strategic argument may yet stand for a slot that fits an 'irregular' or 'light' troops description. Provinces in regions that were largely broken terrain often tended to field troops that did not fair well in pitched battles on open fields. They did, however, prevent the Greeks from controlling the more remote parts of Alexander's empire. The vision is yours, though. You've obviously given it serious thought, and I'd prefer that you come up with an approach that satisfies your goals. 'Course that won't stop me from throwing out ideas that don't fit your context.

Units with mf=1 are usually not used for the reasons you cite. If you want to enforce one attack per turn with no post-battle movement, as well as the effects of force marches, then mf=1 coupled with a high road bonus and/or terrain costs that are <1 (i.e. taking advantage of quirky integer math) can be useful. The downside of high road bonuses are low max mf values.

Some jiggery-pokey with movement values should help with the desired effect - move-1 for hoplites

Am I wrong in interpreting this suggestion as hoplites having an mf that is one less than other units (i.e. move minus 1)?

[beingofone]

Fairline

This still leaves the question of legion versus phalanx

It will end in 337 BC. Just before the manipular legion, the Romans were still using the phalanx legion.

Boco

A strategic argument may yet stand for a slot that fits an 'irregular' or 'light' troops description.

The Thracians will be a handfull with their roaming peltasts.

Exile

My kid saw this stuff last time he came to visit and his eyes went wide. "Well, it might be fun to play with soldiers, dad."

After reading your post, I bet my eyes looked like your boys.
I am filled with envy for your HO collection.

My own test is this; picture the unit in question by itself. Could it effect real conquest over a large area? If so, use it. If not, don't

Excellent and to the heart of the question.

I am delayed in finishing, family crisis.
I can still work on this and stay in touch but it will be delayed.

[fairline]

Here are the final amended units graphics, with a couple of tweaks since I sent them to you Beingofone.

Is anyone else out there playtesting this scenario? It has a huge amount to recommend it: great map, choice of civs, large unit movement values that give a new dimension to civ play and excellent unit progression. I personally find the balance between attack and defense stats to be skewed too far in favour of defence, but then I'm an impatient and unskilled player. I'd be interested to hear other views on this and any strategies people have taken in their playtests.

Give this one a go: it is worth the effort.

@ Ken: why not post the updates you've made.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Boco
Can't decide whether my next project will be based on Alesia...

[delayed reaction]

Is that still on the cards Boco?

[Broken_Erika]

*drool*

[Boco]

A good model (the hex game), lotsa ideas, and several sections of Rules.txt done, but I'm daunted by the terrain art.

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by fairline
Is anyone else out there playtesting this scenario?

Playtesting might be to strong a word, because I have no time at all to play civ, as all my (too reduced ) civ time is dedicated to finishing my own scen...

But I gave it a try, and here are a few comments:
1) it looks, and plays really fine!
2) it definitely has that "1 more turn" feel we all expect in a good scen (I intended to play just 3-4 turns to see how it looked, and I played a few hours instead... )
3) it needs commitment to play it efficiently: to understand the unit balance and the tech tree! This means it should provide an excellent "long term" entertainment!
4) and last, fully subjective: I just LOVE the horn sounding when some units attack!

[fairline]

I agree Cyrion - the horn sound is great

As for unit balance, this is a bit tricky to fathom initially, given the large stat values. It's my one area of concern with the scenario - all units are extremely well-endowed defensively and I struggled to make a lot of headway in attacking cities. That said it's very satisfying to finally capture a city

[beingofone]

Here is the latest version after much playtesting.

The West Awakens Test

Fairline

The units are superb as always Gareth.
Thank you sir for your hard work and attention to detail.

I personally find the balance between attack and defense stats to be skewed too far in favour of defence

I really need some feedback on this question. I was striving for historical accuracy and the warfare of the period was one of which you win a war by not losing. Burning enemy fields would force the choice of surrendering, bargaining table, or fighting a pitched battle. Waiting an enemy out until their army had to disband due to the begining of the harvest season. These guys had daytime jobs. This was the normal warfare of the period.
The Spartan and Athenian refusal to accept surrender after many years of war and near bankruptcy in the Peloponnesian War is one such exception, as is the Roman refusal to surrender after Cannae.
If this game moves to slow, historical accuracy or no, it will spoil the fun - and after all fun is the goal.

That said it's very satisfying to finally capture a city

LOL- for me 2, sometimes it takes the effort of your entire nation to take 1 enemy city
I will say when I played the Spartans I captured all of Messenia by the historical date of the end of the 2nd war 640 BC IICR.
I then trounced on Argos and captured this city and was besieging Thebes and had Athens pinched in a corner at about 590 BC. I was way ahead historically, but we all want to change history no?

I need a couple more opinions please. This may have been a fluke.

Erika

*drool*

You make me laugh - thats a good thing.

Boco

Can't decide whether my next project will be based on Alesia...

You must do Alesia or you will be punished again.
Where there is a whip - there is always a way.

Cyrion

Thanks for the compliments. If you enjoy the scenario it makes the 90 - 100 hours I put into this thing worth it.

[beingofone]

That 100 hours was just designing not including playtest time


As an afterthought perhaps I could start the scenario earlier.
Maybe before the Spartan conquest of Lanconia and that way you can gratify that need to crush something as the scenario begins? That would give the Spartans and the Carthaginians a good fight right at the beginning. Sparta subduing their territory and Cathage overunning Numidia.

Either way the fighting in the open outside the city walls is fun.

Are you tired of having hoplites from the neighboring city trample down your wheat,
hack up your grapevines, and chop down your precious olive trees?

Have you had it with those rascally Thracians swanning around your farms, heaving
javelins at your old rustics, and carrying off your lovely daughters?

Has the local Satrap come around for earth and water just TOO MANY TIMES?

WELL STOP COWERING BEHIND YOUR LONG WALLS! SUMMON
YOUR MANTIS, DUST OFF YOUR SALPINX, WAKE UP THE HERALD,
AND GATHER UP YOUR PANOPLIES…
IT’S TIME FOR HOPLOMACHIA!

ELELELEU!!!!!

[beingofone]

I have playtested every civ in this scenario and no matter who I play I end up way ahead of history.
So my conclusion is - it is balanced for single player as the cities cannot hold out against a determined siege.

Fairline if you still feel it is imbalanced please send me your adjustments to the defense and I will playtest those.


If not I will post the final version.

[Varwnos]

In a map with a lot of cities placed very close to each other the only thing you can do is make siege near impossible without a vastly superior army to the defending one (and i mean a largge number of attacking units, something like 3:1 at least). This way you make things go the way of the player who has a big army in an area.
The computer, though, always sends few units at a time, so it is hard to help it crush you (???), if you dont decide to make at least a few civs unplayable.

[fairline]

Beingofone: I agree, historical accuracy is preserved but at the cost of some frustration for me as a player; there were an awful lot of turns elapsed before I could make any headway.

Hey Varwnos, you're a bit of an expert in this period - give this scenario a try and let's have some feedback