Scenario of the Week Club: scenario #1

[techumseh]

The next one up is Stefan, who should give us his choice next Thursday (not before). He's followed by Hendrik, Phoenix, Paul, Coug and Darth Veda.

[Stefan Härtel]

I liked the scenario very much. I thought the artwork is very good, for it was entirely made for this scenario. It plays well, is a lot of fun (which is the basic intention of scenarios) and pretty well-balanced.
I played it as the Persians (surprise), East Romans and Vandals, and found the Vandals, to my own surprise, the most fun to play. I had little problems wiping out the West Romans (which occured around 441).

It seems to be quite to very accurate. Although it is annoying, I found it pretty good that Roma starved off, and many cities went into revolts, as it occured in reality.
The limited amount of city improvements and units however makes it a little boring. Very soon I found out that I should build only Noble horsemen, and so I did, as I had very much money very early. I conquered territories (such as Alexandria, Caralis or Pelusium) which were beyond of the wildest dreams of the Vandals way before 476.

So, my final notes:

-The scenario is a lot of fun to play and very well-done
-The care put into it, as well as the not-so low basis of new ideas on this small map is astonishing, I think we can all still learn from it
-It is, however very easy. You can keep a very good overview of everything, which results in that you know exactly what to build and what not.

Oh yeah: I put that smiley face up there 'cause I'm happy that I played such a great scenario!

I'll look for a good one till Thursday.

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

We who grew up tall and proud
In the shadow of the mushroom cloud
Convinced our voices can't be heard
We just want to scream it louder and louder:
"What the hell are we fighting for?"
"Just surrender and it won't hurt at all"
-Brian May (Queen)

[RobRoy]

I think I may've had a higher opinion of this scenario than the regular posters, here.

There are a couple of fairly innovative things that really make the game unique and enhance playability: weak defensive values; weak city walls; and switching garrisons. Together, I think these really help the capture the flow and flavor of the period. I suspect most players found that they had to play a bit differently than they were used to, as a result.

The East Romans (the recommended player) were, unfortunately, less entertaining than most of the other civs, who either had the fun of being able to engage in serious conquering right away (Visigoths, Franks, Vandals), or the extreme challenge of immediately fighting for your life at tough odds (West Romans). All of the major barbarians though (Visgoths, Franks, Vandals), but especially the Franks appeared a bit too easy - of course they were not recommended.

So, in the end, I also spent most of my efforts as the West Romans. I focused on Britain rather than Italy (losing most of that for a time), since I found I could make Britain a more secure base. Despite the Saxons superior ships, the AI is hopelessly incapable of prosecuting a successful naval war. As Kull intimated, the key to success as the West Romans is having diplomats available to lead your counterattacks (preferably on boats) and lots of money (hmm...actually sounds kinda historical, doesn't it?). Sell off improvement and have dips available by turn 2, especially if you want to keep Britain.

The small map appeared to work well, despite my overwhelming personal preference for huge maps. I managed to play several games most of the way through, and I'm sure that was due to the smaller map.

A few reactions to Hendriks's comments:

- In a two-year period, even pure barbarian cavalry could successfully beseige all but the strongest fortified positions; after all, they did. Generally, only strong fortified positions with coastal supply were able to maintain themselves once the germans got control of the hinterland (and in the game these cities are incredibly vulnerable to counterattacks and bribe-backs). So I think its appropriately consistent for cavalry to the ignore city walls also, both historically and from a game play perspective. A pity CivII doesn't have two or three shades of city walls, though...maybe in CivIII.

- Ships making shore bombardment - I guess I never really thought of it as shore bombardment for these types of vessels, but rather as the marine contingent (or even sailors) that could often land by surprise and defeat garrisons in ports and harbors. This was fairly common in ancient naval warfare, but the "navy" couldn't really hope to control the entire city or its environs for any length of time without significantly larger forces (represented in my mind by an accompanying/occupying land unit).

- More forests - would certainly be more historical, particularly in central, eastern Europe, but it'd probably affect game-play poorly; swamps might be more appropriate, and would let the owning player (theorectically) turn the areas into grassland versus plains. France is probably okay...it was one of the most productive pieces of the empire until this round of invasions. Some event-driven way to show the reversion to forests/swamps in Gaul after the "barbarians" took over would be interesting (e.g., ChangeTerrain after Lutetia is conquered), but since it was so gradual, it might be unfair to change it before an counterattack could be mounted. CivII also doesn't really allow the representation of an overpopulated, but undercultivated region like central Europe supposedly was at this time.

- Stronger Byzantine defenders - I kinda like the fact that the western and eastern units are virtually identical. That's probably reasonably historical. But some way to represent the Byzantines success at defending themselves would be nice. I notice Trapezus in on a hill. This works well. Maybe just adding some hills/river to key cities like Constantinople, Ancyra, Thesolonika? On the other hand, though, from a game balance perspective, I thought the East was already little too easy (compared to playing the west, at least), once you got used to the fact that you really needed to think a bit differently and engage in an offensive defense of your turf.

By the way, Hendrik, I noticed you had been talking about a late Byzantine scenario, and I was looking forward to playing that. Has it been shelved?

For the designer, one possible bug - Theodosius' Code (The Republic). I'm confused why this slot is used. If the intention is to allow the Byzantine player a one-time option to switch to Republic, it didn't work for me. What it did do was allow me (as the Franks) to steal Theodosius Code, and get a one-time option to change to Republic. I'm not sure how useful this would be, or how historical (I guess I could probably argue either way on that), but more importantly, I wonder if it's the designer's intent to allow this option. The next time I play, I plan to do the West Romans again, again trying to focus on Britain, but this time, I'll try to focus even more on ships, caravans, dips and money, and see if I can steal and become a Republic (and if I can win that way). "Valentinian the Great, Restorer of the Republic"?

This Scenario of the Week idea is great. IMHO, though, you guys might be better off if you truly do it weekly, to maintain your momentum. You risk losing steam/interest if it's bi-weekly. I would think people could be posting on/debating this one, while playing the new one. Certainly my interest would be maintained.

[RobRoy]

Stefan,

It's your call, but I'd say tonight would be preferable to tomorrow night, since it gives people with weekend time more opportunity to play.

But we should probably get more consensus, particularly from Techumseh, as to whether this is really the "Scenario of the week" or the "Scenario of the Fortnight". I assume there was some reason two weeks was originally suggested.

By the way, if we follow up on the excellent idea of producing (one? several?) SL reveiws for these scenarios, who has the responsibility of synthesizing comments and actually producing a review(s)? The person who picked for that week? Someone else, like the person who picked last week (since the picker probably has some pre-existing opinion on the scenario, whether or not that's desirable)? Should we be provding numeric rating input for the reviewers consideration, besides comments and should we be gearing our comments toward a review/critique? Or should each individual consider doing a review? Or is the whole review idea going to constrain comments in a certain direction? Frankly I thought it was kinda interesting to see short recounts of games, pointers, etc., and I'd hate to see those disappear if this continues.

Hendrik, looking forward to your scenario. I'll be sure to pay particular attention to how navies/marines work Feel free to e:mail the scenario if you need a fresh playtester.

[Coug]

While I didn't play it as thoroughly as you must have done, I still played it, and enjoyed it. I only played it as the East Romans, but had fun playing as them. Seemed as a very accurate scenario... And at the same time it was fun to play. Excellent, two thumbs up!

[Kull]

"Mission Creep" - What happens when you take an idea that's simple and popular and start tacking on bells and whistles. There's a reason that phrase has a negative connotation:

1) Doing reviews for the S-League is a "good idea" but making it mandatory for any player is NOT. Likewise, reviews are supposed to be the opinion of one person, not a committee. A well intentioned concept, but you know what they say about the "road to hell".

2) The original idea behind the Scenario of the Week Club is simple: FUN! If it turns into a weekly marathon of selecting, playing, reviewing, repeat.....it will get old in a hurry. IMHO. For those who play it through quickly and want to post while memories are fresh, why not write them up in a text file and save it? Easy enough to paste the whole lot into a post at a later date.

Just my opinion.

[St Leo]

Right now I am playing my third game (the first two were unfinished) as the Franks and have reached AD 503. Constantinople seems to be the only invincible city, as even Clovis is no match for its walls.

IMHO, Franks are probably the easiest tribe. Their strategy consists of the simple France/Britain ~ Italy/Spain ~ North Africa/Egypt ~ Vandals/Goths ~ Anatolia/Greece and at no will they encounter any difficulty. The Huns will become annoying, but if you can hold out until they send you Attila they will no longer merit any concern.

Hints for the Franks:
-Leave the West Romans one city and then periodically demand tribute. They will gladly modernize your empire with useful techs.
-Goths are weak
-Vandals are annoying
-Huns are pesky
-Romans are puny

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[Hendrik the Great]

RobRoy...

- I guess I just can't help myself by accepting that cavalary is so strong. I do realise that it can besiege cities with notable succes. Resupply from the sea sure was a very important aspect of the time.

- Well, in my opinion it could be better realised if all war ships can carry one or two units. Then make these amphibious. Now one can attack cities and units from the sea using troops. Ships then don't have the need to be able to engange in shore-bombardment.
At least that is the way I chose to do this in my scenario that's coming up.

- I guess you are right about the forests in France. It was an important part of the Roman Empire. For the rest, perhaps make a terrian that looks like forest but will support cities well. It could then be used to replace the gras and/or plains in central europe.

- The thing about the Byzantine defense probaly is just a problem for me because I'm used to fight rather defensive wars with well planed attacks at one or two targets.
So I believe it's more a strategy problem on my part than defenses that are too weak.
Perhaps adding a few rivers or fortresses would help...

It's a good thing we don't all agree about everything. If we did what would be the use and the fun of discussing this here?


My scenario is in the last phase of playtesting. Can you wait one, maybe two weeks?
It is as you noticed about the late Byzantine Empire. It begins in 1204 and goes till 1453. A lot of new units and so. But wait and see!

I support the idea of doing this weekly. Otherwise we might lose interst too soon.

[Stefan Härtel]

I support that idea too. As you see, most comments already come immediately. Should I choose a scenario now or tomorrow evening?

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

We who grew up tall and proud
In the shadow of the mushroom cloud
Convinced our voices can't be heard
We just want to scream it louder and louder:
"What the hell are we fighting for?"
"Just surrender and it won't hurt at all"
-Brian May (Queen)

[techumseh]

I'd prefer if we can stick to the 2 week schedule for the time being. People have up and down times, times when school, job or personal pressures keep them from contributing. Tighter time frames put pressure on people and make it more likely that they will drop out. I've seen it too many times. So lets allow lots of time for selecting a good scenario, playing it through from a couple of points of view, and having a good discussion. If there's a few days where nothing's happening, that's OK. There are lots of other things to do in the interim.

[Hendrik the Great]

As Kull said doing a Review for the ScenarioLeague is a good idea, however, should not be a necessity. If anyone wants to write a review about a scenario we have discussed that should be the personal matter of that individual.

One week two weeks? I have been thinking about that one and I must say I had not considered the avantages and disadvantages entirely. I have changed my opinion on this one now...

It is better as it is now I think. If in the future we notice that it is not working as well as we thought we can still change to one week rounds. It has worked the first time...

On something else:
What are we going to do about all the things we discussed? I mean if we are not going to write a review as part of this. We can't just let the points we brought up disapear into Oblivion again.

I suggest we might want to put the discussions we had about a scenario on a website for everyone to look at so people can make their own judgement about the scenario after seeing the opinions we had. If someone wants to write a review about the scenario then it is still possible and we wont be getting into each others way when discussing or reviewing.
Also it would be a nice thing to have I think.
What do you think?

[Gothmog]

I am the designer of Justinian and I'd like to post a few comments of my own. I can see that the overall reaction is positive and I will study the criticisms and make use of them in case I ever revise the scenario.
Thanks.
There is a lot to digest here, so I can't address every issue mentioned but here are some of the issues that stick out in my mind.

Several people commented on the tactical unrealism of ships being able to bombard and cavalry being able to ignore city walls. I tend to agree with them. For me this was an issue that I considered while building the scenario. I decided to ignore reality in this case in favor of an overall strategic result.
For example, the Franks would be too weak without bombarding ships.

The scenario was designed for 1 level below diety and the cities are just barely happy at that level. So it's not surprising that cities would go into revolt on turn 1 at diety level.

So Gaul was more forested. I did not know that.

Malta. I judged that the map was too small to include Malta.

About the Theodosian Code. The intention was Not to be able to change the form of government to republic. I guess I should have used a different tech slot.

A playing hint: Because walls are so weak and offensive values are higher than defensive values you have to defend cities with lots of fortified units.

[Hendrik the Great]

It's good to see that you appreciate what has been discussed here!

It is a well made scenario. Especially the new Graphics do look very good and they fit together quite well.

Keep on your good work!

[RobRoy]

So it sounds like the consensus favors continuing it bi-weekly, as planned. I'll look forward to Stefan's selection (Thursday, I gather). Hope I didn't stir things up too much.

Gothmog,

Do I recognize your name from some multi-player games last year? Have you tried this scenario multi-player?

If you are going to do an update, I wouldn't worry too much about the Theodoius Code (The Republic) tech slot. I actually think it could add a bit of potential spice to the game, even if that wasn't your intention. While it is extremely unlikely that a player will be able to steal it from the Byzantines, at a convenient time, and have both the desire and ability to prosecute wars in your environment as a Republic, it might be fun. I was just curious about your intentions - if you intended to leave that option open to the non-Byzantine players, but closed to the Byzantine, or vice-versa.

If you do modify the scenario, though, I would encourage you to review ship strengths. I like the ability of warships to engage in "shore bombardment", (I never really consider it an artillery barrage, when dealing with ancient units). But without Coastal Fortresses, and against fairly weak defensive units, both the Roman and the Saxon ships are a little too strong, IMHO, in the hands of human players. I don't know whether making them a bit weaker would handicap an AI playing those civs, though. If you decide to disallow Shore Bombardment, you might want to add more marine-type units, as Hendrik suggests. But I don't know whether/how you'd want to modify ship costs or consider unit maintenance issues.

This scenario appears to be fairly recent, I notice. Are you working on any others, that you'd care to share with us?