Going Medieval--Reviews of Medieval Scenarios

[fairline]

Good work Drew

[Exile]

Case, I'll be reviewing Harlan's classic Mongols scenario, but at the moment, I'm still working on the Fire & Roses review. I've played Mongols before, but not in the comprehensive way really necessary to produce a good review. Gareth, any chance that I could get an MGE set of units for that one? It'd sure make playing it more fun. You have one laying around somewhere?

Brian, I don't know how to do screenies, but yeah, it's a great idea. If you can make 'em, send 'em along to moi. I can upload them here in the individual reviews once I have them.

McMonk, go for it.

Sadly, Masis abandoned Civ2 several years back to move on to other lands. Too bad, as he was prolific, imaginative, and diligent. A mercurial talent.

There's been the world's worst Ice storm here past few days, so sorry for the delays in answering questions. Just got I-net back today. Heat and light yesterday.

Upcoming; After Stephan Hartel's Fire & Roses, Seize the Crown by John Ellis.

[curtsibling]

Truly brilliant additions - Fine work, McMonkey!

You are without doubt, the wiki-meister!

[McMonkey]

I enjoy making the pages and there will be many more to come. The Scenario League is really easy to work with and I am learning lots of new tricks in the process.

Its good to make these classics easier for people to access. After all these years there are still people rediscovering CivII and they should be able to benefit from playing the best scenarios from creators over the years!

Exile's reviews were the inspiration for this batch of additions and I look forward to reading more of his thoughts.

[Exile]

FIRE AND ROSES

Fire and Roses is another of Stephan Hartel's scenarios focusing on the history of Persia/Iran. It has some nice features, but remains largely an unfinished symphony. There are echoes of a much grander game, filled with fabulous elements as well as the depicted rise and fall of historical early Islamic empires.

There's no other scenario that addresses this period and region, and frankly, no one besides Stephan is so well equipped to do so--it's been his specialty all along. The map is unique, with a novel orientation, and neatly makes room for all the historical civs while eliminating much superfluous territory. It contains the important parts of Iraq, all of Iran, northern India, Afganistan, and central Asian oasis zone. The map is mostly plains and desert, and thus truly challenges the player, offering no easy pathways to expansion. The map's size, the terrain layout, the inclusion of settlers in the unit mix, and the overall underdevelopment of the cities seems to be a conscious effort to use the propensities of the AI to best advantage. Faced with situations in the scenario, the AI seeks to expand and settle and there is ample room to do so--but it remains challenging because the available lands are not very fertile. The unit mix is obviously well-researched and contains many new graphics, as does the improvement and wonder list, all the author's creations.

Playing as the Samanids, this scenario can be fun. This civ already has a significant production capability, is constantly reinforced by event-delivered cavalry units, and can begin expanding right from the first turn.

Fire and Roses, however, seems more than anything to be an incomplete work. There are a number of things in the scenario that suggest this;

1.) The sole port of the Abbasid civ is Basra . . . which CANNOT (?!) build ships. Using CivCity, I checked Basra's status--it is "landlocked." To correct this, use CivCity and check off the "can build ships," and "can build coastal" boxes.

2.) Tugrhil Beg, the leader unit of the Turkish civ, never appears. On the predetermind turn, the event announces it, but does not include a createunit command. Adding the unit isn't difficult.

3.) There are a number of units that never appear in the scenario, but appear in both the pedia lists and rules. These are the Genies, Evil Genies, magic lamps, magic carpets, etc., as well as a mysterious set of units simply called Inscriptions. Apparently, these units were part of an unrealized version of the scenario that included fabulous aspects. These units, and the interesting ideas that lay behind them, remain fascinating. I'd like to hear from Stephan to see what he had in mind. This added dimension to the game had me riveted when I initially examined the pedia.

4.) There are messages in the game file that indicate the Scout units were originally intended to be helicopter-type units that needed resupply every so often. Novel idea, but again unrealized.

5.) The Ghurid and Ghaznevid civs are simply far too weak to accomplish anything. Yet, historically, these empires rose and fell, expanding aggressively.

6.) Silk Trade is the Nuclear Fission tech. Except for the diplomatic advantage, this is a dead end tech.

7.) Historically, the Buyids rather rapidly overran the Abbasid Caliphate. This simply doesn't happen in the game.

8.) The event file itself has an error. I suspect that, until that error is cleared up, all the events after it won't fire. The error is a misplaced "@ENDIF" This conclusion is suggested by the fact that no slave revolts appeared in any of the games played until AFTER this file was repaired.

9.) The "anybody" bug regarding caravans is present. In order to correct this, a number of new events are necessary to ensure that the civs all receive cash awards correctly. Happily, there is sufficient space in the events file to do this.

10.) The Ghurids and Ghaznavids parted company for the usual reasons. In the scenario, the Samanid city of Mashhad must fall--to someone, anyone--before Ghor and Ghazna turn on each other. Is there a good reason for this? Playing as the Samanids, the forementioned city never falls to anyone, and the two civs in question never initiate hostilities. This interrelationship could be better modeled by a turn-timed makewar event.

11.) The Abbasid civ, starting the game in Democracy, can boost the luxury rate and top out its cities' populations rapidly. It also has the funds to build the necessary improvements to allow this. Government switching IS permitted in this scenario, and both of these aspects are questionable. What every designer should understand about the Republic and Democracy governments is that a wily player can boost the luxury rate and create explosive population growth at whim. I'll say more about this in the final review.

12.) There are several Citytaken events which deliver specific techs to the triggerattacker. These techs have as a prequisite the X7 tech, which is a "no,no" tech. Because these events have never fired, I'm not sure whether this could cause a problem or not--it's not using the "twice-removed" trick.

13.) The Baghdad citytaken event only fires if the defender is the Samanid civ. The Somnath citytaken event only fires if the attacker is the Ghaznavid civ. In each of the citytaken events, the "anybody" indentifier is present. This might be a problem. The "anybody" indentifier has its uses, but they are limited by the notorious bug. Unsure as to the author's intentions, I remain mystified about these events.

The map, the units, the history of the region, all these aspects are fascinating to this reviewer, and everything about this scenario is appealing, and yet . . .

My final impression of Fire and Roses is that it should be reclaimed by its creator and reforged. It is very good steel, but requires a finer edge.

[Exile]

CRUSADES 1100

This scenario is one of an initial trilogy of games by Jamestout. The following review has appeared in a previous thread, but I've included it here because it seemed appropriate to do so, and didn't want to appear to disregard it. It's a very good scenario and fun to play.

First, the map. This orientation is very smart, and maximizes the space used in terms of civ placement. The slight "tilt" eliminates a lot of undesirable map space and, whether intended or not, funnels the AI into areas that were historically active. The Map is large enough to convey the distances traversed both easily and with difficulty during the period, yet not so big that the AI gets lost. Very well done.

Graphix; Everything fits together very well, practically seamless. The units are mods of vanilla and Bernd's, but done very consistently. The terrains are well thought out and fit the period. The cities are a new design for this reviewer, but fit well with all the other graphics.

Technology; The tree you've designed is clearly a good combination of vanilla techs and period-specific techs that are well-chosen. The tree makes sense and has a number of units, improvements, and wonders placed very well to promote gameplay.

Improvements; Like the technology, the improvements are also a good combination of vanilla items and new period-specific things. Everything is consistent and fits well.

Wonders; The wonders are artfully done. The scenario has a number of placed wonders at the start that give the various civs their identity and advantages, and this is typical, but the majority of wonders have uniquely generic names that neatly allow any civ to build them and not be jarring because of historical "wrongness." To clarify, how many of us have played scenarios in which an AI has built a wonder called, say, "the tower of london" in Paris? This design escapes that kind of undesirable nomenclature by using the very general names for the various buildable wonders. Very nicely done.

Governments; Once again, nicely done. The only suggestion I can give is to get a Describe.txt in the scenario and change the texts inside the Governments box to fit the labels. Easily done.

General comments; The units seem to be mostly 1 hit point. IMO, this makes them very vulnerable to attack. My guess is that the scenario is intended to be precarious? Facilitating easy and rapid conquest, but limiting the ability to hold conquered territory? I'll have to play it more to see how this works out, but this is a very good idea. We're all used to seeing primarily ancient units with a single hit point. Having every unit in the game with only one is very likely going to be challenging. In general, there are very few changes made in terms of cosmic principles. For example the terrains are a little less productive, but the cities' population limits are still 8 and 12. The lower Danube is navigable and I'm guessing that this is intended to do 2 things; first to funnel the various barbarians into medieval Europe and away from the southern balkans and to 2.) protect the greco-thracian core Byzantine area from attack.

Problems; Your pedia text needs a few rewrites, as does your wonders description text. Apparent oversights. The terrain description need several rewrites too. Your buffalo looks like a bunch of rocks, your buffalo somehow is "ivory" etc. More oversights, easily corrected. The Turkish city of Ankara is building a barracks, but already has one. I will hereafter refer to this problem as #1. Konya is supporting one peasant(settler), but is running a food deficit with no reserves, so that the peasant starves on turn 1 with no apparent recourse. Is this what you intended? The Fatamid city of Alexandria is in Revolt on turn 1; is this what you intended? 5 Aragonese cities are # 1; Santiago, Saragossa, Toledo, Porto, and Valladollid. The French city of Bordeaux is # 1. The city of Tours is building a marketplace but already has one. The Byzantines seem to immediately discontinue their production of the Mass Servile Labor wonder on turn 1. Is this what you intended? Is there a way to prevent it? Your pedia text for units displays the ICBM. Is this intended? (lol) I would find some way to eliminate the desert oil and oasis terrains--the AI will choose to build near them if you don't. You'll have AI cities in ridiculous locations otherwise--in the middle of the sahara. Adding a People.gif or bmp might be advisable, but including a Readme file is really a glaring omission. Even if brief, every scenario should have one to explain the various quirks and special attributes of your scenario, to credit those who contributed and to take credit for your own work.

[Heresson]

Re: MAMELUKES

[
1.) The mongol units event-generated at a very low number. 50 turns into the game, most of the central portion of the map is covered by them.

Hm. Mongol units always worked fine for me. The map was flooded with them. Perhaps because I play on the highest level? Didn't the mongol wave start in the proper time? Remember that the mongol invasion doesn't start at once in this scenario. Only when Baghdad falls it means it is imminent. I event-started Hulagu-Kitboga expedition in proper time. Doesn't it work? It really worked each time I played it.
The only thing You need to do early in the game is to capture Al-Karak and Jerusalem. Going further north until Hulagu invasion frankly makes no sense. I gave the player some time until the real battle. I think the scn starts somewhere around 1250, and the invasion is 1260 (1258 in Iraq) or so.

2.) Getting the recruits to Egypt. This is a very innovative idea, but its implementation here is problematic. The Crusaders/Franks and then the Byzantines both will attack the unarmed convoys from the Trade point, and if the trade point itself is overrun, no more recruits at all. You have no time to build the necessary fleets to convoy these units safely.

You start with a couple of genuese galleys and it should be fine. Of course, You should be cautious not to lose your valuable fleet somewhere between Crimea and Egypt, but I never wanted my scns to be easy. Actually, it is not that hard to keep your mamluks coming, as long as You keep to east egean coast and keep good relations with at least Golden Horde and Byzantines (Romans), and possibly Franks. It is a part of historical accuracy: precisely in order to gain mamluks Egypt had to mentain good relationships with Saray and Constantinople. Also, it should make You more willing to be at peace with Franks in the beginning, as it was in reality.

3.) On the higher settings, the Beduins of the desert west and south of Egypt prove almost unstoppable. Preserving the nascent Mamluk state from being quickly overrun is very difficult. Is this historically accurate?

It may be. I never had problems with that, perhaps because I know what I should be doing. There is one important thing to learn: DO NOT HAVE TRUCES WITH (OTHER) MUSLIMS CIV. Only that will cause beduins to accumulate and become really dangerous. If You keep at war with them, You can, being enough cautious, fend them off relatively easily. Perhaps I should have written it somewhere in the readme to be clear. If You lose your own 3 beduin units defence may become hard.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Exile

Brian, I don't know how to do screenies, but yeah, it's a great idea.

You can do screen shots several ways Pheonix.

In my review work I prefer a program called hypersnap, but this sometimes conflicts with games, but an old one like Civ 2 and ToT should work fine.

A simpler way with the windos XP program is this procedure:

Have what you want to 'capture' on your monitor.

Look on your keyboard, you will see a button to the right of your function kets labeled 'print scrn/sysrq. Press this, and the image is now in XP's memory.

Go to start/programs/accesories/paint.
ALL windows programs have this.

A blank image will appear, in the coomand on the upper left, select 'edit' and scroll down to paste and left click this.
Your screen shot will now load into the paint program.

Next, go file and scroll down to 'save as' and name the screen shot, and save it as 'jpeg'. Jpegs use very little space and can be uploaded to many sites.

There are basic tools in paint to trim the image and to make it smaller, they are listed under 'image'.

Always remember to 'save' your work, and if want to keep the original, use 'save as.'

That is all there is too it.

[AGRICOLA]

Re: MAMLUKS

Originally posted by Exile
Unhappily, this is one that seems to require some major revisions to be completely workable.
.
.
.
.
There are so many things to enjoy in this scenario, but renewed testing could be very rewarding, and is necessary.

I concur that this scen needs both revisions and playtesting. I was hoping to play Mamluks but quickly came across a number of items that are either puzzling or definite problems.


1. There are a number of events that use TRIGGERATTACKER as shown below. None of these events work because TRIGGERATTACKER is not meant to be used in this fashion. The CHANGETERRAIN works.

@IF
TURN
turn=20
@THEN
TEXT
Meanwhile, some changes took place in Cairo.
Sagar ad-Durr killed, of jealousy and envy, her husband that was going to marry
princess of Al-Mawsil, descendant of Zanki, and is murdered herself in the name
of his young son, Al-Mansur Ali. Egypt is ruled by mamluk oligarchs.
ENDTEXT
CREATEUNIT
unit=Mamluk
owner=TRIGGERATTACKER
veteran=yes
homecity=NONE
locations
41,73
40,69
40,70
42,72
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
endlocations
CHANGETERRAIN
terraintype=8
maprect
76,50,76,50,76,50,76,50
@ENDIF

Unfortunately, the above example also contains one of the dreaded odd/even squares.

2. I don't understand the reason for events forcing Egyptians to receive Malmuk Recruits (30 shields) at a cost of 100 gold to the Egyptian treasury. These are weak, one-shot (missile) units that most players wouldn't bother building, even for 10 shields. I'd keep a couple to defend Trade Point and disband subsequent ones to build something useful.

3. Having 2 civs with the same color and the same flag seems a bit unusual and is definitely confusing.

4. The Pedia only includes the wonders that have not yet been built. It would be helpful to have all wonders displayed so that players could use the descriptions to decide whether it is worthwhile to try to conquer the city where a particularly useful wonder is located.

[Heresson]

Re: Re: MAMLUKS

Originally posted by AGRICOLA


I concur that this scen needs both revisions and playtesting. I was hoping to play Mamluks but quickly came across a number of items that are either puzzling or definite problems.


1. There are a number of events that use TRIGGERATTACKER as shown below. None of these events work because TRIGGERATTACKER is not meant to be used in this fashion. The CHANGETERRAIN works.

Hm, shouldn't barbarian events be created this way? That's what I wanted to achieve. If not, thanks, I will fix it manually.

Unfortunately, the above example also contains one of the dreaded odd/even squares.

again, thanks

2. I don't understand the reason for events forcing Egyptians to receive Malmuk Recruits (30 shields) at a cost of 100 gold to the Egyptian treasury. These are weak, one-shot (missile) units that most players wouldn't bother building, even for 10 shields. I'd keep a couple to defend Trade Point and disband subsequent ones to build something useful.

Do You think increasing their hit points would make them more valuable? Anyway, the way I play them, I bombard besieged cities with cavalry, and when the defenders are already weakened, I finish them off with mamluks.

3. Having 2 civs with the same color and the same flag seems a bit unusual and is definitely confusing.

Perhaps, but this was intentional, as both civs start as one civ, being in alliance. Only later on they get separated.

4. The Pedia only includes the wonders that have not yet been built. It would be helpful to have all wonders displayed so that players could use the descriptions to decide whether it is worthwhile to try to conquer the city where a particularly useful wonder is located.

How do I change that?

Thanks for comments.

[AGRICOLA]

@Heresson

Hm, shouldn't barbarian events be created this way? That's what I wanted to achieve. If not, thanks, I will fix it manually.

I think that you cannot spawn actual barbarian units. However, you know which of the Mongol or Muslim civs is attacking and, consequently, should be the owner of the newly spawned unit [i.e. owner=civ X rather than owner=triggerattacker ].

Do You think increasing their hit points would make them more valuable? Anyway, the way I play them, I bombard besieged cities with cavalry, and when the defenders are already weakened, I finish them off with mamluks.

Please disregard what I wrote. I now understand what you are doing with the recruits. It's very clever!

How do I change that?

Seeing as these wonders have already been built, you can safely change their prerequisites from "no" to "nil". This will make them appear in the Pedia.

There are also units that do not appear in the Pedia for the same reason. Although this forces players to check RULES for even some of their own units, it would be a significant job to fix this through a series of Not Egyptians, Not Numidians, Not Romans etc. techs as has been done in many MGE scens.


I think that we have hijacked Exile's thread more than enough, so perhaps you could start a Mamluks thread or PM me if there are other things to discuss.

[Exile]

Nonono

Hijack away, Aggy.

Mamelukes is a great scenario, though flawed, and if we can fix it, then . . . superb.

Heresson, I'd stay away from Triggerattacker commands if I were you--They're useful only in very straited circumstances. The problem is the same as the "anyone" bug, IIRC. The FIRST civ to trigger a triggerattacker event becomes permanently labeled by the game as the "triggerattacker" and any subsequent events using the triggerattacker trigger will only fire if the civ now labeled as "triggerattacker" triggers it.

That's a precise description, believe it or not.

Aggy is correct in pointing out that there are ways to get otherwise unique units into the pedia. The confusion about civ colors could be resolved by having the two civs in question with SIMILAR colors, rather than the same color.

Btw, the meta-review is underway. I decided not to add any more reviews myself, but . . . I do encourage anyone else who would like to review a MEDIEVAL scenario that I've passed by, to go ahead and do so in this thread.

If there IS a hidden agenda here, I can only surmise that my purpose is to analyze medieval scenarios and scenario-building, finding elements that work and are fun, with the hope that more medieval scenarios will appear. In this context, the meta-review should examine the different techniques and tricks used, and their relative strengths and weaknesses. Not exactly a "how-to guide" for medieval scenarios, but something to establish some basic functional principles.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA
@Heresson

I think that you cannot spawn actual barbarian units.

I've heard that before, but it is simply not true, at least not in FW (my scns are for FW, not MGE!). I'm 100% sure You can, and I did it in a couple of scns.

Seeing as these wonders have already been built, you can safely change their prerequisites from "no" to "nil". This will make them appear in the Pedia.

Oh, thanks. Now I do recall.

Heresson, I'd stay away from Triggerattacker commands if I were you--They're useful only in very straited circumstances. The problem is the same as the "anyone" bug, IIRC. The FIRST civ to trigger a triggerattacker event becomes permanently labeled by the game as the "triggerattacker" and any subsequent events using the triggerattacker trigger will only fire if the civ now labeled as "triggerattacker" triggers it.

Huh? Really? That's never happened for me. Is it true for MGE, or also for FW? I can avoid using trigerattacker here, because I can write Barbarian there by hand, but trigerattacker trigerdefender commands are to useful not to use them. It'd take a couple more event space to fill the void created by eliminating them.

confusion about civ colors could be resolved by having the two civs in question with SIMILAR colors, rather than the same color.

hm, can be done

Btw, the meta-review is underway. I decided not to add any more reviews myself, but . . . I do encourage anyone else who would like to review a MEDIEVAL scenario that I've passed by, to go ahead and do so in this thread.

Perhaps I will do it in some time.

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Heresson
I've heard that before, but it is simply not true, at least not in FW (my scns are for FW, not MGE!). I'm 100% sure You can, and I did it in a couple of scns.

So did I in MPGE! And I see no reason why it wouldn't work for ToT!

All you have to do is replace in the event the name of the civ to which the created unit belong by "barbarians"!

[Exile]

The following Meta-review will appear in these numbered components due to the character limit imposed by the forum engine. Because of this, it is organized in this rudimentary, but effective way.

1.) Scale

In civ 2 scenario design, the idea of scale is the key to conception. Scale is primarily a function of the MAP, but is also a function of TIME. Whatever the size of the scenario, the relative scale of the map and the time duration dictates many physical aspects of the game. Unit movement, the road multiplier, and terrain movement values can be determined easily enough, and then adjusted for effective game playability. If the scale is altered significantly from the vanilla norm, what MUST be kept in mind is that the AI functions the same way regardless of the scale of the specific scenario. Most problems occur in scenarios when the change of scale, either in geography or time, or both, renders the normal AI behavior useless for the purposes of the scenario. For example, left on its own, in a great, flat plain, the AI spreads its cities in a predictably mathematical pattern of settlement. If this is NOT what the scenario requires, then alterations must be made to enable the AI to function in a worthwhile manner. There are effective solutions to the AI hardwiring, however. The elimination of settlers from the unit mix isn't as impractical as it sounds because settlers can be event-delivered, and if done correctly, can even be made to found cities in selected locations. Channeling agents such as terrain and impassable units can be used to create a more effective, and sometimes more historically accurate AI. Adjusting the aquaduct and sewer system numbers can create dramatic effects. Events can address specific and general challenges when the scale changes substantially.
The overall scale of any scenario is simply a matter of gameplay preference. Some like a small, tight game with emphasis on military action and enhanced mobility (like Justinian). Others enjoy the micro-management and administration of great, expansive empires (like Alexius). Having said this, the horrible truth is that the farther away, in overall scale, that one moves away from the vanilla game, the more AI behavior will become problematic, and, as a result, the more difficult the design. As we all know by now, the AI is simply incapable of concentration, organized military expeditions, or even tactical wisdom, and its only deceptive maneuver is the surpise attack. What this means to the designer is that the AI is incapable of modeling certain kinds of states, but is actually pretty good at modeling others. Relatively small, fragmented parts of prior empires usually fall into this category, and this era is full of these. If a designer keeps the scale close to the vanilla norm, the AI behavior is easier to predict and control. Justinian is the primary example of this; its scale seems perfectly suited for the AI to perform in precisely the way required by the scenario. But there is no "right" or "wrong" way here; simply a matter of personal preferences, priorities, aesthics, and the perceived demands of the design. And designers have devised good solutions to big changes in scale. In Shaibani, Stephan gave the major civs primary units that moved very fast on a very large map. Inomine, Crusades 1100, and DAROAE use channeling terrains. Tamerlane used the convenience of the silk road/RR to channel movement. Above all, this idea of overall scale is the primary design consideration for many elements that follow, and must always be kept in mind.

2.) Direction

Direction, and the selection of viable player civs is a vital issue when considering various design elements, especially replay value. Some scenarios are very directed, assigning the human player ONLY to a specific civ. A completely directed scenario has no options for the human player--there is only one civ that CAN be practically played. Tamerlane, Shaibani, Justinian, and especially Mamelukes, are very directed, with one civ designed for human play. In a practical sense, Fire & Roses and and Age of Alexius are also designed with one civ as the only viable human position. Inomine, Hammer, DAROAE, and the 1100 scenarios are designed so that several other civs in the game are interesting and viable to play. In several scenarios, there are rudimentary civs, too weak, or too uninteresting to play, doubtless placed for historical effect. This is an important design question for medieval scenarios; do all civs need to be playable? For some small nations, barbarians and barbarian cities will work, but for some others, a player civ might be necessary in order to create a small, but aggressive country or kingdom.
When the scenario is very directed, design can be "narrowed" in the sense that the entire scenario can be created "around" the single player civ. The narrower the direction, the easier it will be to balance the design. The AI, as seemingly unpredictable as it is, actually has only a few strategic tricks. Anyone who has played the vanilla game knows these. Examples: an AI will send boats along a horizontal sea lane much of the time; if an AI naval expedition lands somewhere, it'll land there again; the AI sole land campaign trick is to select a point to attack, usually an enemy city, and move all available units there; the AI sends its naval units in a random search pattern, aggressively attacking anything it comes across. By comparison, a human player would have virtually infinite flexibility. This formulation should be part of any scenario design. DAROAE is unique and uses the range of positions. The primary player civs, Niceans, Epirotes, Latins, and Venice are all very different, have different priorities and challenges. Yet the Trebizond civ is not really for play, and to a lesser extent, neither are the Serbs. The Ottomans are more of an historical mechanism than a viable player position. DAROAE uses a good mix of approaches, and the payoff is flexibility and replay.
The opposite philosophy has its own advantages, however. Making one civ the primary player position means that the events, economy, and happiness numbers for the other civs can all be more predictable. This design problem is the difference between the way the AI plays and a human plays. Giving the player a truly awful economy can be a real challenge; dynamic administration is a game in itself, but an AI will simply cheat, both in terms of happiness and money, to make up for shortages. Knowing that a civ will be played ONLY by an AI makes the civ easier to design in order to achieve the desired results.