Tweet
I am curious about scenario preferences. After playing and enjoying numerous scens, I find that the ones I enjoy most are the historical ones that start out with large empires. 20,30, or even 40 cities. While these are an administrative chore sometimes, they give one the feeling of actual ADMINISTRATION. With only a few cities, losing even one is a disaster and has the potential to be a war-loser to boot. With the large empires, one can institute changes over a broad area and watch gradual, subtle changes occur. Moreover, with the large empires, there always seem to be out-of-the-way places where relatively isolated cities will, of necessity, specialize in certain types of production. In short, it seems that the larger the empire, the more accurate is the FEEL of the game for administrative purposes. Wars then become what they have historically been up to about 1850--difficult, time- and resource-consuming operations that can easily come to nothing if lacking in proper planning and execution. Similarly, the rewards of warfare are reduced as well. If your opponent has 30 cities and you take 2 of them . . . well, it will hurt him, but with 28 cities still operating, you can't expect the enemy to collapse. It seems that this type of game scenario (large map, many cities, historical) is also conducive to the idea of limited war; 17th & 18th century-style conflicts where armies and fleets clashed, but very little real estate changed hands and wars were generally fought for limited aims. These scens seem to make the "limited" idea work because only in very exceptional cases can an enemy with 30 cities be overrun. Destroying an empire that large simply isn't realistic in game terms if both opponents have equivalent or more-or-less equivalent military technology.
As I wrote that, it occurred to me that a militaristic player could build up a truly huge army and go after even a large empire and possibly have some small chance of success. My only counter to this is that the large scenarios I have run across tend to have aspects embedded in them that make the maintenance of a huge army difficult if not impossible. Most of the large scenarios (and the ones that I design) begin the game in fiscal crisis--they have money, but are in deficit. The first order of the day is to apply administrative efforts so that the empire is turning a profit--earning more cash than it consumes. The second embedded method of limiting army size is to prevent government switching and stick the large empires with Monarchy or Republic. Either one will tend to limit the size of armies by reducing the potential number of troops via lack of support.
I also heard somewhere (I forget where) that European scenario designers (and players) prefer the large, lengthy scenarios, while Americans prefer the short, all-or-nothing sort of scenarios. Is this just an Apolyton-legend? (like urban legend, get it?) I would like to hear from a multitude of folks on this, Euros and Yanks. Please step up and voice your thoughts on these issues.
Salutations,
Exile
------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
As I wrote that, it occurred to me that a militaristic player could build up a truly huge army and go after even a large empire and possibly have some small chance of success. My only counter to this is that the large scenarios I have run across tend to have aspects embedded in them that make the maintenance of a huge army difficult if not impossible. Most of the large scenarios (and the ones that I design) begin the game in fiscal crisis--they have money, but are in deficit. The first order of the day is to apply administrative efforts so that the empire is turning a profit--earning more cash than it consumes. The second embedded method of limiting army size is to prevent government switching and stick the large empires with Monarchy or Republic. Either one will tend to limit the size of armies by reducing the potential number of troops via lack of support.
I also heard somewhere (I forget where) that European scenario designers (and players) prefer the large, lengthy scenarios, while Americans prefer the short, all-or-nothing sort of scenarios. Is this just an Apolyton-legend? (like urban legend, get it?) I would like to hear from a multitude of folks on this, Euros and Yanks. Please step up and voice your thoughts on these issues.
Salutations,
Exile
------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
Comment