Historical Realism - Notes on Recreating History in Civ2 Scenarios
From SLeague
(by Morten Blaabjerg) (aka 'Hardjoy')
This article was originally posted at the Civilization Fanatics Site in 2001. It is being rewritten for this wiki. Please be bold and contribute your experiences to this text.
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
You have to know the rules, before you can break them. I do not particularly subscribe to these wise words, often uttered by people who have done nothing but disobeying such crude rules of engagement. Personally I've more often than not broken a lot of things, before I knew the rules. Often that was how I learned the rules. There's a lot of learning which comes from unemcumbered curiosity and tinkering, and which makes you much more knowledgeable in a field, than if you had spent your time 'learning' the rules from theory. In the particular case of Sid Meier's Civilization II, a lot of tinkering will get you very far. A lot of great design documents and reference papers will get you even further, in explaining the fundamental rules of Civilization II, and how to break them. I strongly recommend getting into these, before you continue reading this. You won't get any great technical advice or much helpful guidance on how to implement your ideas technically from this document. I strongly recommend reading Leon Marricks excellent manual on "Advanced Scenario Design" available at http://www.civfanatics.com and in other places, if you want a thorough explanation of the Civilization II engine's quirks and limits, which you will no doubt need at some time or another, if you wish to design scenarios for this game.
This document is a few thoughts on another set of rules in Civilization II (and in scenario design as such), which you need to know about, before you can break them; the unwritten ones. Those that may seem so obvious, that scenario creators tend to overlook them, or just take them for granted. But they are not granted. And they're much easier to deal with, if you give them a few thoughts before you start out building your creation.
What I am talking about are the rules concerning player motivation, and such a complex thing as realism. These two things are in fact closely interlinked. Player motivation and realism is about what players expect and want, and how they can get it. If your scenario is 'unrealistic' in a unreasonable fashion players will not be likely to play your scenario. Or they might just play it anyway, if they love your convincing arguments or built-in rewards. If you want to break the rules of the game, you may find the following helpful. If you are the ambitious type, who wants to recreate history with your Civilization II scenarios, you may find it particularly inspiring. It was written to inspire scenario designers and fuel their scenario designs with some fundamental bits of drama and history, from which many projects would benefit tremendously, in my opinion.
Hopefully you will find some inspiration for your scenario thinking in here, when you want to apply a historical situation in a Civilization scenario. It is no absolute rulebook. And go somewhere else to read the technical details. You may be able to use some of this too, if you're into creating history simulations on other platforms, or into science fiction or other types of scenarios.
[edit] Straitjackets and universes
There is a great deal of flexibility in the Civ2 engine, that allows simulating historical events in almost any time and space. The possibilities are endless. But playing many of the historical scenarios available on the net, I recognize a few issues, that if taken a little care of, would greatly enhance the playing experience of many scenarios around.
I often have experienced in scenarios, that the conception of 'historical realism' gets in the way of the player actually playing the game. There often seems to be a conflict in the scenario designer's head between presenting historical events 'as they really were', and allowing the player to actually play out his or her creation, like he or she wants.
In earlier years, the urge to implement a historical event in a scenario was sometimes interpreted as so simple as creating an 'if turn' type of event at a certain time during a game, i.e. at a precise historical time. The trouble with this solution is, of course, that it may quite often contradict the situation the player has created in the game by playing it, thus making the event slightly off, useless, or even absurd. In other cases, scenario designers have created rich universes, applied all kinds of historically precise details, like city names, units, technologies, etc. in order to really recreate the world at the time, but thought little about how the player fit into the picture. This typically leaves the player with a strange sense of being a witness to a game instead of playing it, which clearly is not the intention.
Some scenarios seem to me to be like a straitjacket. Events supply units regularly and small historical pop-up messages appear at the designated turns, which mark years of historical importance. Player actions relating to research, economy, government, unit access and strategies are constrained beyond the narrowest of choices. There's very little room to do anything. Why? Because then the game will not go the way the creator thought it should go, because then it would not be 'historically correct'. This kind of scenario can be a very frustrating experience, if you want to try out a strategy that may very well be historically justifiable, yet the creator didn't contemplate it, and disallowed abilities or options which could make the strategy work. This kind of straitjacket can also be used to cause a constructive frustration, if this frustration was part of what the creator was trying to simulate. But most often it is not so!
Other scenarios are huge, with a large map and a zillion cities to simulate the whole world at the time, but little or very limited focus as to what the player is expected to do. Sometimes these end up in bare confusion, because there's so much to do, that it is overwhelming. In number of cities, many new different unit types available, many (often irrelevant) tribes. Why ALWAYS have seven tribes in a game? Why play on the same tedious Europe Map, when the war you're simulating is taking place in France? (the hundred years war, for instance). Why not concentrate on a map of main France, with England, Spain and others at its borders? -The full-scale setup can of course also be profitable, in the way of a whole world coming back to life from the past. But ONLY if the player has some idea of what course of action to take in this huge chaos. Otherwise he will surely quit after a few turns... And all this work will be in vain.
Sometimes both these types are combined, to make things even worse, in terms of heavy constraint AND lack of focus. I know it sounds contradictory, but I've felt it. HUGE scenarios where goals are so far from obtainable that you might as well give up, because you can never do it. This is a sure killer.
I might add that I've enjoyed many of the scenarios that I've been playing. As it is, most scenario creators put a lot of work into their creations, with great looks, great attention to historical detail and a lot of research put into it. Which is good. BUT, all this will be in vain, if the player simply is frustrated beyond reason, or confused and lost in the pure scale of it. I think scenario designers -which means YOU, the scenario designer- need to make very clear to themselves what they're trying to tell to their players. All this work will be much more appreciated by players, if a little more thought is given to the basic playing premises of it all.
Well, "historical realism" -if there ever was such a thing- is not about events happening at exact dates. If you wanted this, you could read a history book instead. And it's not about constraining players in almost every aspect of the game engine, so that things can go the way they really did. Nor do you need to show off the entire world at the time, or alter every single game aspect in a "historical" manner, in order to make players get the picture. What's needed is a little care for the simplicity of it all.
A little thought to the basics is really in place. The basics of drama, of history, and of player motivation. Closely and inseperately interlinked. And how these can be applied reasonably within the limits of the Civ2 engine in a scenario.
[edit] THE DRAMATIC PREMISE
What is it basically about?
Player A want this, and he can't, because player B is giving him trouble. Therefore, player A has to make war with player B.
This is an illustration of a simple dramatic premise. Excitement is caused, because we all want to see if player A is going to get what he wants, or if player B can obstruct this. This simple premise can be used, and it is actually used in many well-working scenarios. Some more simple than others, but basically, it works, because Civ2 as a game is very well set up to deal with premises like this one. Think about your typical Civ2 game, and think about how the game is really a long chain of situations, where you'll recognize this pattern of thinking. How many times have you not wanted a tech or city, contemplated how to do it, and how to bring it about? And how has the other players every so often prevented (or less likely, helped) you to accomplish this?
Historical situations are usually more complex, but they can and might very well be as simple as this. I guess the reason why history is so exciting to many of us, is the great epic drama unfolding before us.
This kind of drama is what you need to get into your creation! Everybody likes to be heroic. And occasionally, everyone likes to play out the bad guy, who they're not allowed to be everyday. So go ahead and ask yourself, what's the drama in this situation, which you are so obsessed with, that you willingly want to spend months digging in books and sitting at your computer to make it happen in Civ2? Who is the villain, and who is mr.niceguy? What kind of situation are they in? -What do they want, and why do they want it so bad?
WHY is the key question here.
It doesn't have to be complicated. You can easily downgrade almost any historical situation to a very simple premise, where you settle the "major" motivations of your scenario. If you can put this into a single sentence like the one above, you're way ahead, and you can begin setting it up. Then, along the way, you can always begin expanding on your premise, build in subplots, things players need to do, before they can get going with the major objective. But if you start out simple, the easier it is for you in the process to see what is needed in the groundwork, and what is just cream and filling.
[edit] UNBALANCING
The "characters" or tribes ought to have really good reasons to go somewhere, or the player won't feel like it is very important. The better the reasons, the more dramatic it will be, and the more exciting to play out if they'll succeed, and how they will play it out. Who will fall behind, and who will be victorious? -Basically all of this is what drama is about, and you'd benefit enormously from this kind of thinking, when you set up any kind of situation in your scenario.
Example : Techs to DIE for. "If we don't get "TECH" we will surely not last long!". Powerful units with fatal weaknesses. Gross cities with hopeless defenses. A rich bundle of victory points in a small space. Tribal attitudes that range from hatred to pure love at first sight. Ships that move extremely fast and can strike several times on the same coast on the same turn.
It's really the "unbalancing" things of your situation that will make it interesting, from the outset. Because it creates hazard, and a sense of thrill. -"How on earth will they survive with such weak defenses?" -And a player response. "-Build CITY WALLS!". This need could provoke a wish for a better economy, because city walls are damned expensive. This in turn could provoke a wish for a change in government, because economy is too constrained in a despotism. And so on. Instantly you will find yourself setting up exciting circumstances, if you take the dramatic aspect into consideration. And your scenario will end up being a long chain of dramatic situations, that instantly provoke a dramatic response. This was what Civ2 was made for, and what makes it so great.
Now, if you don't think about this, you might too easily restrain the player from his initial response. Bad economy; "I should change to a democracy!". If you've restrained the player so that government changing is not possible, you better provide him with an excellent alternative for the time being. Which could be... trade routes. And then you're going down that alley. Then, if the player has not invented "Trade" or the equivalent, the major goal for this player could be to reach a point where he can get to build caravans. If he can hold out for so long with this bad economy, that is. A bad economy demands an instant response, and lays quite a strain on player patience. -Because without economy, you cannot do anything in Civ2. You cannot wage wars, you cannot build things. And all the fun is gone, except for the most patient players, who really likes a different (tough!) challenge. This challenge -getting Trade- could be wholly acceptable as a scenario theme, if you provide players with a well-thought about alternative response to the initial dramatic situation you've set up. In this case, a bad economy. If you do not think about this, chances are that players will give up and wander away to play something else.
Access to KEY TECHS is one of the main driving motivations in the classic Civ2 game, and often is too with great effect in historical scenarios. What you need to make sure of, is that the urge for change is constant, and rewarded, if not instantly, then with some effort. Ideally any immediate solution to a problem, should create new problems and challenges. So while you solve a production capacity problem by building factories, you end up with a new problem like pollution, for instance. Or when you get gunpowder, you can begin producing musketeers, but hey, all your barracks are sold, and you're faced with rebuilding all of them. It doesn't hurt, however, to reward players for their hard effort. By bringing in more powerful units, that really ARE more powerful. By improvements that really solve problems. By cash bonus upon the taking of important cities.
Give them too much, and they'll start feeling lazy. Give them too little, and they'll be put off. The world is complicated, and players are a difficult breed. Hopefully, you'll find the balance that suit your needs.
There are a bunch of other ways to do all of this. It all depends on the theme of your scenario, and your basic idea; which you should try to formulate into a working dramatic premise.
[edit] HISTORY
If you're doing a historical scenario, I suppose there is something in this historical situation that fascinates you, and makes you want to do it. Like someone making a fantasy scenario is fascinated with dragons and alternative magic worlds.
What you need to do, which is of course easier said than done, is implement this fascination, and set up a situation that actually gives the player that same thing, as had you so fired up about it. The dramatic premise is your practical way of formulating this fascination into a simple, working dramatic situation that a dumb thing like a computer game can understand. And will appear obvious or instantly get through to the people playing your creation.
What is it about this particular war or situation that compels you to all this work? Is it the "mood"? The glory of a nations rise and fall? The great discovery? The development or empire-building? The more concrete the better, the more you can focus on simulating exactly that problem or situation. The simpler, the better. The less work for you, my friend.
Here's where the research comes in. You need to get a few books together, if you haven't gotten hold of them already to fire your imagination. These books can tell you something about the historical events, which is important and exciting enough, but what you need, is the kind of books that also include the REASONS for the historical events and changes, that you're into. What I've learned so far in my life as a history student, is that you can learn all (or most) about the events in world history in the course of 3 years, but explaining the REASONS for these events can take forever. And that is why history remains an exciting subject.
These reasons, whatever they be, might be fairly complex, and one authors views might differ from the next. This is quite natural. Because, and now comes the shocking news, history does not exist. It is one of the few subject matters that simply do not exist and never will. It exists only as a context in your imagination and conscious mind. It is nothing but memories, collected by historians, because this is what they do. And implemented in your mind as fact during your upbringing and education, and from TV shows on the discovery channel.
OK, here's the deal. What you need to do, and this is also not as easy as it sounds, is to make clear to yourself, what YOU believe happened, and WHY. You can base this on the works of others, rely on popular or academic sources, most people do this, because they haven't got the time to recreate all of history in their minds all of the time. BUT, you need to clarify these reasons for yourself, if you want to implement them in your dramatic premise. And not less importantly, to convey this specific theme to your players, so they will get a unique experience playing your creation.
The reason why the reasons for historical change are so damned important, is because, your reason for historical change in your scenario, actually lies with the players. No surprise. It is actually out of your hands. It is his or hers player responses that bring about change in history, in Civ2. So it is crucially important, that the reasons you provide for players, lies in the same direction(s) as you want to take them. If it doesn't matter, don't bother making a scenario. Isn't it your urge to make things a little different than the original Civ2 game? To make it a little more "realistic", simulating exactly that historical situation? OK, so if you want to give players a feeling of this particular situation in world history, provide him with the same reasons for action, that players historically had. Or you think they had.
So I guess what I am asking of you, is that if you want to recreate history in Civ2, as a player I want to know, or more appropriate, EXPERIENCE what YOU, the scenario creator, think was the reasons for these changes. What are my motivations to get involved in this? What is my reward? What is the fatal consequences if I fail? How can I possibly bring it about?
It doesn't need to be easy. But I need to want it so bad, that I'll try really hard to accomplish it.
If I am given a great empire from scenario outset, why should I, as a player, go to war? -If it is a war scenario, you're doing. A popular answer is, besides the simple fun of it, because it happened historically. But given this is pissing me off, and I'll spend the rest of the scenario trying to get anywhere else I can. Because then I feel like I have to, just because "this is history", and nothing bores me more than things I am obliged to do.
I want more than that. I want YOU, the scenario creator to set up a situation so that I can understand why WAR is necessary in this situation. Someone on my back, a threatening enemy, a tiny advanced tribe getting on my nerves, attractive wonders (-in enemy possession-), that can solve all my immediate problems. Stuff like that.
[edit] CONTRAFACTUAL HISTORY
There is another approach to history in Civ2 (as well as other places) which is a little different than the common historical scenario. It is those scenarios that from the outset openly declare that they are not historical, but playing around with the "what if" question.
What would have happened if the French Dauphin had not trusted Joan of Arc? Would France have fallen to the English, and would France today be a province of England? What a frightful idea! Or what if the Spanish Armada hadn't failed in 1588? We would probably all have Spanish as our second language (or first) this very minute! This is normally termed contrafactual history (or "what if"-history) and it can be very amusing and rewarding in Civ2 scenarios, because you get to play out the alternatives.
Even if you want to simulate a "traditional" historical situation, you'd probably benefit from this approach anyway, in allowing for alternative player action in your thinking, even if you try to set up a "realistic" historical situation from the outset. If you think about it, you can probably come up with some alternative routes of action which might be unusual but feasible, and it'll be doubly rewarding for the player who boldly go along with this string, if he finds out that you've actually thought of this, and implemented a reward of some kind.
[edit] SOME BASIC HISTORICAL REASONS
If you think about it, there are two extremely fundamental concepts which are appropriate for history as we know it, as well as Civ2. They are actually well covered for in the Civ2 game mechanics, so it is perfectly easy to implement stuff like this. They are the framework on which our world is built. Without these, there would be no civilization, and there would probably be no history. I am talking about GEOGRAPHY, and ECONOMICS.
A subject so easily skipped as boring and tedious, is the art of map-making. Unrealized by most people to be among the most important steps in the recreation of any historical situation. Somewhat more recognized is the influence of economics, since this is sometimes seen as simple as typing in a different (usually higher) number into the "gold" slot. But these two things are actually closely interlinked. Without productive terrain, your tribe is going to suffer and die. Without water, you cannot make overseas trade routes. Without mountains or hills, you won't be able to produce anything, because you can't build mines. Without forests, you won't get the best of two worlds.
The "reasons" for the course of the worlds great civilizations can actually be explained geographically, because geography shapes economy. And economy shapes culture. And culture shapes your mind. There is little sense in making war and conquer other peoples, if you have resources in abundance in the place you're in. And there's no reason to carefully cultivate the land, either. If on the other hand, you could yield a great surplus from a little cultivation, it might be worth it. And the same goes for immigration and conquest. If your lands does not yield sufficient food or production, this might provide perfectly good reason to go out and take what other people have. Especially if those other guys have weak defenses.
Examples :
- The Egyptians developed a rich and flourishing agricultural society, because of the fertile soils of the valley of the Nile, amidst great deserts. Egyptian culture was also heavily despotic, because the land and dense population was easily controlled by a single grand ruler, there was simply nowhere to run. Religion and culture in Egypt can probably best be understood in these terms. Flourishing, inescapable. The Egyptians was no empire-builders, but conditioned to tend their rich lands in a neat, lazy manner.
- Accustomed to the vast, poor steppes of the far east, the Mongols developed effective means of horseback transportation and military tradition, in order to conquer richer lands, and in order to control the areas gained. Heavy discipline, and a "conquerors" mentality, was needed in order to accomplish this, rather than an obedient farmers mentality. Conditioned by geography in which agriculture did not make much sense.
- The many islands, creeks, rivers, and tough climate of Scandinavia, conditioned the proficient sailors and tough, independent warriors of the Viking era. Without ships, no nothing. The geography of the north made it difficult for any individual ruler to control this vast area, but easy for anyone in possession of ships to strike instantly at one place or another. Thus the Viking raids, and endless wars for the supremacy of the north.
Now these examples are my gross simplifications, but not very original and found in the works of learned scholars as well. You could very well have alternative interpretations, that you wish to carry through. The bottom line is, geography is an important key to understanding and shaping a specific culture.
OK, when you set up your map, you actually have a somewhat difficult task ahead of you.
- You need to setup geographical circumstances to suit your "productive" agenda.
- Which areas will be rich, which will be poor? The scenario is bound to be focused on the rich areas, which is where the great cities will be.
- You need to setup (at least partially) the strategic conditions on which your players are to act.
- Which is somehow interlinked with your productive considerations.
- Which areas/tribes will have access to the sea?
- Movement/defensive considerations
- Which areas will be difficult to protect?
- Which will be likely to be conquered first?
AND, finally,
- It should look a little like, what players would expect from this region or historical situation.
- Check with your popular atlas.
- but don't rely completely on it, because this is your scenario, so you could easily set things up differently, as long as you don't go too far off from what players will expect from your particular area.
If you set up your map according to your basic premise, including terrains, resources, sea access, and some degree of "military strategic" conditions, you're halfway there. That's how important I think this is. This is actually the groundwork, on which your players are to act. You can always make strategic adjustments to this along the way, when you leave the map editor and start doing the "real" scenario. So don't hesitate to make grand simplifications when working with the map editor. It is difficult to predict everything that you'll need. On the other hand, changing the terrain in the scenario editor (cheat mode) is a little awkward, so you might as well make it as detailed, as you can. Also remember, that river squares cannot be added once in the editor, so take special care to add these where you need them.
[edit] CONSIDERATIONS ON THE STRATEGIC SETUP OF THE MAP
More often than not, the geography of this particular region you're portraying, played an important part in the historical developments. Sometimes it didn't. Movement allowances and defense bonus can be really effective ways of directing and restraining player action. This is a simple way of getting players where you want them to go. Without motivation in the first place, there will be no movement at all. But once you've got that settled, geography is a subtle way of directing action towards important regions of the map.
Historical scenarios is not much thought of in the way of geography, landscape, growth, economy, population issues, famine etc. But these are some of the real fundamentals of history, which, if properly addressed, can provide not just a colorful backdrop for a scenario, but the historical reasons AND player motivations, for all the well-known stuff. For going to war, for development of new techs, units and improvements, for setting up trade routes, for political changes, for building cities and infrastructure, etc.
Where "properly addressed" means, in the first place, creating a solid map with terrains in somewhat compliance with your theme and dramatic premise. If you do this convincingly and dramatically, at least to some extent, you have to work much less to convince players to play the damned thing later on in the process.
[edit] CLUES, LOOKS AND EXPECTATIONS
OK, I'll assume that you're now busy getting your act together. It's full of drama, the proper motivation, the historical conditions are quite where you want them, the map looks great. But before you get done, you might as well think about how to get the message through.
I want you to show me how to accomplish what I want.
What are the good units? What are the lousy terrains? Which areas are rich, which poor? Which improvements should I build? And which techs are better than the others? How can I get the good units, the good techs, which I need to accomplish my goals?
The most important way of showing players what you mean, is the most obvious. Graphics. Looks. Poor terrain should look poor, not rich. And if your terrain looks rich, it should be rich, if you haven't got a probable explanation of the opposite. Means of transportation, like sea, roads or rails, should look like means of transportation as we know it. Strong units should look strong. Weak should look weak. Defensive weapons should look defensive. Offensive should look aggressive. Need I say more? -This is not always so obvious to folks. But it is really the most simple manner of getting this thing through. Making it look like what it is.
Sounds are similar. If it sounds powerful, it probably is. If it's not, it's outright disappointing. Likewise should weak units be assigned "weak" sounds.
You can play around with player expectations, and have extremely powerful units, that look like nothing. And people will go "wow! those pygmyes are damn heavy!" -and this will create a legend with players for that unique experience, who will always forever after remember how many "riflemen" were slaughtered by those pygmyes. But don't overdo it. It should have some reasonable explanation, like the famous phalanx that sinks a battleship.
Names. Self-explanatory names of units and improvements work the best. If you recognize a unit or improvement instantly as what it is, no need to constantly check the Civilopedia. -And even better, but harder, to make those icons really make sense and give you a little something as to their usefulness.
The Instant Advice located in the ADVICE.TXT is a little gem, often neglected. This is where your city advisors live, and with a little imagination, you can provide them with personalities, humor, and -most important- proper advice, on what the units and city improvements are good for. It's so easy to do this, I can't believe how many scenarios I've seen that haven't done it, and where you don't have a clue what to build.
In addition, there are a dozen small ways to tell the player what the units are supposed to do. Defensive units should naturally be preset to fortify! Units about to embark on a boat should be preset to "board next ship". Units about to launch an attack can effectively be placed outside enemy cities, from scenario outset. Stuff like this will give the player strong clues as to his course of action. But it is only clues, that can make for a powerful opening. Like when a war scenario starts with the enemy conquering cities like domino pieces falling. The player motivation to launch an attack will obviously be stronger with a large force outside a rich city, but it will hardly provide all motivation there is. -Of course, a scenario theme could in this case very well be, to conquer this city far from home, and be able to support this beach head from abroad. Which could be quite difficult. But then it would need some considerable attraction on part of this city, like a wonder or so, to convince him to repeat the campaign, should he be thrown out. Otherwise, this hook won't work.
The Civilopedia can be updated to a lesser or greater extent. What you need is short, practical information about techs, units, and improvements. Not a load of historical "facts" -which you can always get in a book anyway, or in a supplementary readme-file. Some additional historical information can be informative, though, and give hints etc. to the course of action, but you might prefer to have this in the game, rather than have players digging around in the Civilopedia in order to understand anything.
[edit] UNITS
History in Civ2 is most often thought of in terms of units and relative strengths, and a great concern with giving units, improvements and cities the proper historical names, and supplying "historically correct" events. As well as something I have never completely understood : supplying the English with "English infantry" and the French with "French infantry". When all comes down to it, what's really the great difference? -it's all infantry!
Well, yes I know, it is supposed to make units look different because "they" looked differently from nation to nation at the time, although they mostly are the same. -In my opinion this comes from the same misunderstanding of history as the aforementioned obsession with "historically correct" events. It is a misunderstanding, because history as well as Civ2 is something abstract, it's not real life.
The reasons why you want to do it, though, is not because it is historically correct, because it can NEVER be, but because you want to create a superb illusion. So that players will instantly FEEL like it's the real thing, and get immensely absorbed into this world you've created. -In other words, it is all cheating and construction on part of you, the creator, to create a perfect illusion for your audience, your players. Units in Civ2 is not and can never be actual military units, but a mere primitive illusion of the resources at hand to the people in charge. The "tribal" or national differences in military power is reflected only by the techs accessible by different tribes. If one tribe doesn't have access to the armor unit, and the other does, then this clearly illustrates the differences in power there. No point made in giving the minor power a "lesser" armor unit then, just because they "did have one" historically. You could have other reasons to do it of course, if just to try and create the aforesaid superb illusion. But it will have little impact on the game, if the player is not provided with good reasons to produce this unit. -which, of course, could be the simple fact that it's the only offensive weapon he's got!
[edit] EVENTS
"Historical events" are most commonly misunderstood in terms of definite events that HAVE to take place at the same place and time, as they did historically. Putting in a "if turn"-event at a specific year, will firmly settle this historical incident in the scenario. But it is not so simple as that. If you want to do these events, they should be "in the line of fire", so to speak. Not just bogus events, with units or text messages magically appearing out of nowhere, but follow neatly along the way the rest of the scenario was set up. If the player gets the feeling, that they don't fit in with what's happening, they might just spoil the wonderful illusion you're trying to build up.
The way to implement a historical situation in a scenario has little to do with "what actually happened", but much more with the reasons bringing it about, because this is what Civ2 is set up to in the beginning.
What you have control over as a creator, is not the way the player will play the game, but the parameters and variables, on which he is to base his decisions. All in the rules.txt.
Historical situations can be very complex to simulate or recreate (even for a historian), not to speak of reducing them into a Civ2 scenario. It is a difficult thing. So make it simple from the outset, and easier for yourself. Make sure the simple mechanics of the scenario works first. Then gradually you can expand the situation with more techs, units, events etc. Your events will be more meaningful, if they fall as responses to player actions.
Events can be used as "preset" factors as well, but, please, NOT, as the misunderstood historical realism "taking over" the players hand. What is left for the player then? There's no fun in watching the computer play the game for you, if it's not in response to your actions.
There are really great possibilities with events to really enhance a given scenario. For instance, if you want to simulate the total underdog that always comes back, you can give them free units once in a while, reasonably explained. Or reward players upon a given conquest. Or even set up a whole avalanche of historical events, upon the fall of a great city, or the killing of an important unit. What I am objecting to is merely the misunderstood "historical realism" in events taking place "as they really did".
Events can even be used quite effectively to carefully "script" a given campaign or quest. Or even a grand war. The important thing is, that the player clearly knows the goals and the means, and the boundaries of the space within which he can freely operate.
Historical realism is much more about setting up the economic and strategic conditions for the specific historical events, to present the player for the options at hand, than force historical events to happen at preset historical dates. Player actions will fall naturally in place, if you've set up the strategic and economic conditions for the historical situation you're simulating.
No need for bogus events to force-create units at given years, then, because you've set up the scenario so that this course of action will fall quite natural as a player response! -And the bonus is that the player can be allowed to take other courses of action, if he so desires. -This way you can gradually expand the options available to the player, and allow for change in the rhythm, pace and feel of the game.
[edit] POINTS TO CONSIDER
To sum up a few of the key points worth considering,
- WHAT IS the specific historical problem or situation that your players are asked to solve or get into?
- WHICH OPTIONS will be available to the player? -in which ways will he be constrained? -how will he be able to solve the situation?
- HOW CAN this be set up scenario-wise? -so that the message goes through to the player instantly? -how can hints be given to the course of action?
Many historical scenarios would benefit enormously from just a little thought to these few points.
In what ways will the player be constrained, and in which ways will he be able to take a course of action? The player needs to be told, not in the readme or the briefing, but by the problems that OCCUR IN THE GAME, and the means he has at his disposal, which way to play your scenario.
If there's an economic problem, there should be an economic solution. If there's a war or difficult strategic situation, there should be a way to solve it militarily or in some other way. If the player is supposed to make an attack, he should have a good REASON to prepare for war. That is, you have to set up a threatening situation for him to understand. ...or strategically place a few cities with desirable wonders that he desperately needs to get his tribe going. There are many other ways to do this.
Hopefully these points of consideration has been of some inspiration for you. And hopefully they'll bring players to be involved much more deeply with your scenario, being given the real experience of reliving history with Civ2, rather than... just witnessing it. However, these thoughts were never intended to be conclusive. So go ahead and make it the way you like. I'll happy to hear your comments and experiences on this subject.
