Our next game (And why we need to start talking about it now)

[Ben Kenobi]

Technically you're both right.

Still working on my high score game.

Computers by 1774, averaging 2 techs/turn.
Population up to 180 million people.

I'm also interested in Red Front. Sounds tough!

[MrWhereItsAt]

How is this scenario in comparison with some I actually know? Say, the High-tech mod scenario of the USA or WW2 1997 or Cold War '79.

If it is really that huge, I would baulk even further at participating again than I am doing right now.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by cavebear
I think he was talking about a different game. Not sure, though.

I'm talking about the new game.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
How is this scenario in comparison with some I actually know? Say, the High-tech mod scenario of the USA or WW2 1997 or Cold War '79.

If it is really that huge, I would baulk even further at participating again than I am doing right now.

well, at deity we'd probably run into the max number of unit problem, and here's a little screen shot taken by FMK one time when he was playing the scenario one time, although this is not a record.

[atawa]

Sounds like a wargame, I'm more of a builder though.

[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

[CannonFodder]

Yeah, and with huge refugees you can jack those city sizes up real fast too. Just make sure you build that industry like a madman.

[CannonFodder]

Note: I died the first time I tried Red Front. And that's saying alot cause I hardly ever actually die (unless I'm trying to) in any game of civ2.

[klesh]

RF to me is the perfect mix of empire/industry building and wargaming in one nic civ scen. If you dont fight well, the Germans will break into your industrial heartland in the Ural Mnts. If you do not build up your infastructure there (simulating the breaking down of entire factories and shipping them eastward) then ytou'll have no troops with which to take the fight to Germany's soil.

The real problem with the scen it thats its so long, big and difficult. The opening attack by the Germans takes around 15 minutes to pass. This isnt one you fire up on a regular basis. Something thats perfect though for a drawn out demo game.

-FMK.

[Kataphraktoi]

can someone give me a link to d\l red front?it sounds like a good scen but i couldnt find a (working) link anywere

[klesh]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
can someone give me a link to d\l red front?it sounds like a good scen but i couldnt find a (working) link anywere

Here you are: RF 1.4

Game1.zip
Game2.zip

Sound1.zip
Sound2.zip
Sound3.zip (Reported to be apparently corrupted)

-FMK.

[cavebear]

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.

[Kataphraktoi]

thanks klesh

[klesh]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[CannonFodder]

The stock WWII scenario is, too me, just too easy as any one of the big 3 powers. Unless played as a multiplayer game, it would be won with little effort (so long as the President wasn't a newb).

Of course, I could always be Hitler.