Popular Scenarios You Dislike

[St Leo]

I am not a big fan of Red Front.

EDIT:

I admire it from a technical standpoint and I have no moral objections towards roleplaying as USSRians (or Nazis for that matter), but it involves too much micromanagement.

I have always stuck by the Mongols 2.0 approach to scenario design: start with up to five cities and expand fast. Scenarios that give me billions of cities or units in the beginning bore the hades out of me because I like to grok the character and uses of cities and units as I obtain them.

P.S. I don't know if Red Front is too hard for my tastes because I never got to the first winter in it. However, any scenario that becomes unwinnable because one moved the a couple of units in the wrong direction by accident is too hard for me.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca
[This message has been edited by St Leo (edited May 17, 2001).]

[SixArmedMan]

Harlan's Pacific War scenario bugged the hell out of me... You'd spend so much time on your first turn only to have your carriers sunk by roving American planes weaving their way through your fleet to find your defenceless carriers... ALWAYS irritated me. I never started a second turn... I'm still of the opinion that a good Pacific war scenario is unlikely because of the computer's dismal use of carriers... Well, there's still Darthveda's one for TOT coming out but wasn't that one supposed to be released last year? Or something like... What do I know anyways?

[MagyarCrusader]

No offense to Nemo, but I didn't like Red Front either. I'll admit that it may probably the closest thing to a perfectly designed scenario, but as I've stated before... I just can't roleplay the commies in that war.

[BeBMan]

Hm, not really dislike, but I never played Harlan´s "Lord of the Rings". All people say it´s great, and I have it on my HD for a long time, but I simply love the book too much, I can´t imagine that any civ scn can reflect its atmosphere...

------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

[Paul Hanson]

I must admit, I find Nemo`s scenarios extremely frustrating. And Harlan`s WW2 Europe, because I have something of a moral issue with playing the Nazis.

[Chris 62]

This will seem odd, because I am playing it PBEM right now, but 2194 days of war borders on fantasy more than WWII. Because of the world map and rail lines, history is distorted. The Atlantic is wider than the Pacific, The Japanese can rip up the Soviets from the rear, the med is compressed, so many different things. The units and graphics are beautiful, and the level of care is excellent, but as an historical scenario, it is lacking somewhat.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Eternal]

I never finished a game of Red Front either. It just takes so long for the Germans to move, and you're so hopeless against them, and it takes too long to get to winter and winter doesn't last long enough!

I never got to the 6th turn of Second Front either. There's just so much to do in both of these scenarios, and I don't like doing a lot of stuff.

Still, these are probably a couple of the most visually stunning scenarios out there, and if they weren't I probably wouldn't have played them as long as I had.

[Cal]

There seems to be a lot of anti-Red Front sentiment around here...

Personally, I loved it! How can you have a moral issue when playing a civ2 scenario? Civ2 reduces everything down to the emotionless tactical aspects, and besides, in a time of crisis, it's best to forget about the 1930 Purges.

The only thing I disliked about Red Front is that it had no definite ending, I would've liked all hostilities to have ceased once Berlin was captured and Hitler was dead. In contrast, Kobayashi's Dominion scenario has definite conclusions and wipes whole civilizations off the map with the capture of the capital or paramount cities to insure there's a conclusion even when negotiations aren't allowed.

[Exile]

I will have to agree with the 6-armed one; the pacific war scenarios have so much potential to really be a good game, but the combination of the AI's dismal non-use of carriers, combined with its stunning inability to conduct amphibious warfare generally make those scenarios unplayable as a single-player game. One of the original attractions of the MGE package was the inclusion of the East Wind/Rain scenario. That scenario had other problems, but suffers most from the ineptitude of the AI to wage war in the pacific. I would dearly like to play the Japanese; lightning conquests of the East Indies and Malaya, destruction of the Dutch fleets, desperate surface fights in the south pacific, and carrier war in the central pacific. Alternately, it would also be tremendous fun to play the American side; last-ditch defense of Midway and the Coral Sea, inevitable momentum as your industrial advantage is brought to bear on the IJN. Either side would be a real blast to play.

Ummm. Anyone for a pacific mp game? Or duel?

Salutations,
Exile

[Henrik]

I have played one game of Red Front, while playing it I got into the game so much that I allways (even when not playing civ) knew what my cities where producing, where the germans where attacking at the time and where I was going to start major offensives.
After that great one game I have never ever played the scenario again, I simply cannot get into it this time

A popular (well I think it is) scenario I dislike is the Underdark scenario, I found it very bothersome to have my definite objective defined as:
Destroy all other beings in the Underdark, that would have been boring even as a rpg.

[master on high]

This is a really constructive thread

[our_man]

I don't know why, but I could never stand any of Alex the Magnificent's scenario's (except the ones done in collaboration with Nemo). I never could get into them - I played a few turns but they never managed to hold my interest.

[Leonidas]

Red Front is one of the best designed scenarios out there. It takes WORK to learn how to play it properly. But it is superbly done. I have played all of the versions of this scenario - and they get better each time. Nemo broke the traditional Civ "mold" when he designed this scenario. It set a standard that rarely has been matched.

In contrast, I cannot recall how many times I have downloaded and played other scenarios (by all designers) with the expectations of great game play only to wind up deleting that scenario because of bugs, inconsistencies, or down right dum civ/AI/diplomatic actions. For example, there is one middle east scenario (can't recall the name), that started out to be a great scenario. I was playing the Israelis against the Arabs. Then as I started winning, NATO declared war on me! Give me break - as usual - I deleted that scenario.

Nemo's scenarios are some of the best out there - they are well-designed and it takes real effort/strategy to play them well. Anyone who dosn't want to be challenged and be forced to use real strategy - should not be playing Nemo's scenarios. There are plenty of easy, substandard ones out there. . .

------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

[kIndal]

Too, I have to recognize that I don´t like so much Red and Second front (as I said that "2914 days" is one of my favourites ) I think that they are probably the best ones in graphics, accuracy and innovative ideas, but they fail in one of the most important points, the playbility, it is very boring moving hundreds of units and wait a lot of time to play other turn, I have never played more than a pair of turns.
But it is only a personal point of view, I like short and quick scenarios.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by kIndal on 05-17-2001 01:38 PM But it is only a personal point of view, I like short and quick scenarios.

Is this why you design a 30 years war scenarios...
Your Carolus scenario was pretty long too...