Tweet
Have we become spoiled?
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.
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.
, 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. 
Comment