Scenario Design Contest #5

[WarVoid]

The difficulty with doing a "Great Battles of History" type contest is you have no clue what people will be submitting. It could be the Battle of Granicus in 315 BC (I think that's about right...) or the Battle of the Bulge. A huge difference in concepts.

As the de-facto judge, I researched the criteria of SDC #4 to insure the winners applied historical accuracy. Opening it to such a wide theme would require me to do an immense (read: impossible) amount of research.

Unless of course we do away with the old rules;

No code names
No coded judges
Announced scenario design (i.e. you clearly sate "I am working on such and such a battle scenario")

Knowing ahead of time what everyone will be working on will allow me to research the necessecary information prior to the contest deadline. And I personally think the codes and hush-hush bit was a bit stupid and unnecessecary.

[DarthVeda]

yes especially when people insert unmistakable trademarks into their scenarios

[Dr. Nick]

I think that the issue of you being able to research prior does not mean that the scenario has to go public, WV. We could simply email the information.

[klesh]

When suggesting a duel, I meant that only 2 human playable civs exist, or course allowing for the others to be AI or utility civs. Everyone agrees with that right?

-FMK.

[Boco]

Even if you know the history behind them, how do you compare scenarios about the battles of Granicus and the Bulge? There's too little common ground. It's comparing apples and spaceships.

[St Leo]

es especially when people insert unmistakable trademarks into their scenarios

I don't know what you are talking about, Japan-boy. No one could have possibly guessed that the alternative history scenario about an ice age set in the Age of Sail could have been made by the same designer who made the alternative history scenario about Venice/Hafsids/Teutonic Knights set in the Age of Sail and used the same units selection.

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
yes especially when people insert unmistakable trademarks into their scenarios

Maybe that remark was directed at me? Nah..I don't think so, I've never made anything from any of the historical eras.

BTW, I support any idea that does not involve WW2 and I agree that it should be something that is not already half finished sitting on someone's harddrive.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by WarVoid
Knowing ahead of time what everyone will be working on will allow me to research the necessecary information prior to the contest deadline. And I personally think the codes and hush-hush bit was a bit stupid and unnecessecary.

I think the codes can go too.

But how about having a history overview included as a requirement. That is, the senario creator should also give a reasonably detailed description of the (historical) situation etc.
I think scenarios should mainly be about playability, innovation, and then a fair portion of historical accuracy. But this is Civ2, historical accuracy will always be limited or a scenario would become too rigid. Besides, most likely a lot of the players don't know nearly as much about the subject as the scenario creator.

So what I'm saying is, the scenario creators should provide the historical information to the judges, then the scenarios will be judged using this information (perhaps also the quality of the information itself) and "simply" the overall goodness of the scenario, regardless of historical accuracy.

This will give the scenario creators a little leeway, but also force them to do some decent research. Apart from that, it will allow players to enjoy the scenario, even if they don't know the exact historical setting, and prevents a situation where a scenario can only be won if you do exactly what really happened.

And... No WWII please.

[mordhiem]

Originally posted by Boco
Even if you know the history behind them, how do you compare scenarios about the battles of Granicus and the Bulge? There's too little common ground. It's comparing apples and spaceships.

How did WV compare DV's Sengoku Jidai with Kobi's TRON? They are very different in structure and the way you play them. If we pick the Southern Asia option, how do you compare a scenario about the Indian Mutiny in 1857 with one about the Afghan expansion of 1747-1773? They would be played in completley different ways and the player would have widley differing objectives. The only wasy you can compare scenarios, (unless they are about the same subject, but with revealed identities that woun't be a problem) is how much fun you have playing them and how historically accurate they are. If the players provide their own histories that makes part one easier for WV and I'm sure he is capable of deciding how much fun he is having without any help.

[conmcb25]

Ditto Mordhiem!

[Michael Daumen]

Originally posted by Boco
Even if you know the history behind them, how do you compare scenarios about the battles of Granicus and the Bulge? There's too little common ground. It's comparing apples and spaceships.

And spaceships would just fly right through apples.

[DarthVeda]

Perhaps it should be a rule that the scenarios submitted must not have been under construction before the contest's start date?

I'd still like a ww2 theme...

[Dr. Nick]

Ditto mordhiem too!

[St Leo]

How about the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05)?. It's Asian, industrial, 2 player, cool, and it's never been done before.

IIRC, Russian fleet circumnavigated the Old World, got solidly thrashed, and sailed back. End of War. No?

-bribery scenario
-ww2
-ancient through medieval Asia
-duel scenario
-replacing topical contest with general awards
-famous battles
-wars of The (20th?) Century
-alternate history
-Russian invasion of US

Now, let's put that all together. We are doing an alternate history scenario where a US that was formed in medieval South East Asia is dueling it out bribe-wise with Russians in what pundits are calling the Wilderness War II.

[Dr. Nick]