Roger's Scenario Thread

RogerCooper

@board-3659 said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper ships moving 1 just makes no sense imo b/c even back then ... they weren't 2 knots per day.

In Ancient times, fleets were faster than armies.

board 3659

@rogercooper true it just so inaccurate and it makes naval combat so painful. I also think they make the elephant a tank unit when it was more like a terror unit and should have reduced enemey stats (especially calvery) but not be a strong unit on it's own

RogerCooper

@board-3659 What really matters in naval warfare is bases. A speed of 1 would be OK, if bases gave you a boost to 2 or 3.

board 3659

@rogercooper true ... I just thinking that if your game has no bases, you should increase speed of the boats then

RogerCooper

Name Age of Tribes: Renaissance
Description Struggle for control of Europe with Civilization-style tech
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Age_of_Tribes:_Renaissance

Good Points

Lots of unit types to develop

Bad Points

Units are often too similar
Uninteresting East vs West alliance

RogerCooper

Name WW2 Path to Victory
Description World War II starting on 1941 on a modified version of the Global map with modifications to improve balance
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/WW2_Path_to_Victory

Good Points

Balanced
Lots of interesting rules tweaks

Bad Points

AI has trouble with handling the Chinese guerillas rule

Note: I my opinion this is the best World War 2 scenario

RogerCooper

Name New World Order Variant - Neutrals Unassigned
Description World War II in Europe starting in 1939 with many nations neutrals that will defend themselves against both side.
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/New_World_Order_Variant_-_Neutrals_Unassigned

Good Points

A good selection of units

Bad Points

The AI gets distracted by pointless attacks on neutral nations

RogerCooper

Name Great Northern War
Description The Great Northern War
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Northern_War

Good Points

Not just another WW2 game

Bad Points

The Swedes have little chance
No sense of the realities of 18th century warfare or the tactical skill of Charles XII

RogerCooper

Name Napoleonic Empires
Description The Napoleonic Wars

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Napoleonic_Empires_(Main_Scenario)

Good Points

Conflict all over the map
Reasonably balanced
Pretty Units

Bad Points

No sense of actual Napoleonic War operations and tactics
None of the diplomatic points of the war

Cernel

@rogercooper I'll add that a Napoleonic scenario simply cannot be a two-sided (1v1) game unless it both starts very late (like in 1812, at the start of the invasion of Russia) and has 1940-like delays for factions actively to join in the war. A simple two-sided game would work for the Hundred Days (War of the Seventh Coalition).

Having an early Napoleonic game as a simple 1v1 with no delays and no politics makes no sense: it needs to be a FFA or at least a game with many sides.

RogerCooper

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper I'll add that a Napoleonic scenario simply cannot be a two-sided (1v1) game unless it both starts very late (like in 1812, at the start of the invasion of Russia) and has 1940-like delays for factions actively to join in the war. A simple two-sided game would work for the Hundred Days (War of the Seventh Coalition).

Having an early Napoleonic game as a simple 1v1 with no delays and no politics makes no sense: it needs to be a FFA or at least a game with many sides.

This was one of the first TripleA mods. Now, there are tools that could handle some of the politics of the Napoleonics Wars, as well as some of its operational characteristics (give Napoleon the ability to increase the movement of units stacked with him). However, if I want area movement Napoleonic Wars, I could play Victory & Glory..

RogerCooper

Name World War 2- Zombies
Description Based upon the game Axis & Allies & Zombies
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Zombies-World_War_2

Good Points

Randomly appearing zombies keeps the player on their toes
One turn limit in ground combat, keeps the game at a more measured pace
Infantry-only factories in Asia are interesting

Bad Points

Doesn't implement many of the rules of AAZ
The AI has trouble handling many of the rules

RogerCooper

Name 300BC
Description The Mediterranean in 300 BC
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/300_BC

Good Points

Nice unit images
Not another WW2 game

Bad Points

No feel for the realities of ancient warfare
Strongly favors the Romans

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Strongly favors the Romans

How did you come to that conclusion? I've never played it, yet I would rather say that the game is quite clearly in favour of Anti Roman if only because here Anti Roman is relatively much more powerful than in 270BC as a matter of starting quantities, because "warelephant" is both more powerful and less costly and because ships with movement 2 instead of 1 over-advantage Anti Roman even more if nothing else.

Is it that you actually believe that 270BC favours Roman even more strongly that this one?

I would also add "bad units balance for some of the units" amongst the bad points.

Do you ever buy "horsearcher" here? Beside horsearchers, other units (like "hoplite", "chariot" and "cataphract") are seriously under-powered (or over-priced).

RogerCooper

@cernel I played 300BC both as a human and with the AI taking all sides. The problem is the isolation of the Seleucids. They start facing both Parthia & Egypt. Numidia is too weak and Carthage too distance to put enough pressure on Egypt to divert them from the Seleucids. Once the Anti-Romans rule the East, Rome is too behind in the income game.

270BC has the same problem. It can be interesting the play as the Romans against the AI, where a human player can generate enough momentum to make for the loss of their eastern ally.

The units are not well balanced and are not sufficiently differentiated between the nations.

There is also almost no strategic feel of pre-industrial warfare. Take a look at Greyhawk Wars for a game that does it right (within the limitations of the TripleA engine).

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

There is also almost no strategic feel of pre-industrial warfare.

Since I'm making a game set in 1176 Europe, West Asia and North Africa (the year of the battles of Legnano and Myriokephalon), I'm curious in what is your list of things which should be part of a TripleA pre-modern game and what you believe should also be part of the same but is not possible in TripleA.

On 300BC, I'm at least as sure as I can be (without having played it) that that game is a lot more in favour of Anti Roman than 270BC, so I much doubt that it can be unbalanced in favour of Roman. It may be that you just didn't figure out how to play Seleucids very well, capitalizing on those offence/defence 1/1 and cost 2 units (the most cost-effective units in the game).

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

270BC has the same problem. It can be interesting the play as the Romans against the AI, where a human player can generate enough momentum to make for the loss of their eastern ally.

I assume that here you got confused and actually meant "play as the Anti Romans", correct?

RogerCooper

@cernel No, as the situation is biased against the Romans, playing the Romans is interesting. If played correctly, the Romans are knocking out the Macedonians before the Seleucids fall.

RogerCooper

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

There is also almost no strategic feel of pre-industrial warfare.

Since I'm making a game set in 1176 Europe, West Asia and North Africa (the year of the battles of Legnano and Myriokephalon), I'm curious in what is your list of things which should be part of a TripleA pre-modern game and what you believe should also be part of the same but is not possible in TripleA.

Doable in TripleA

Upkeep costs - Keeping armies in the field was expensive for all pre-modern states
Stacking limits - The ability to keep armies fed limited their size
Local forces - Under a 'feudal' system, forces were available locally for effectively no cost
Fortifications - The difference between siege warfare and field warfare was important.
Command Limits - Limiting the number of units that can be moved (which can mess up the AI)

Not doable in TripleA

A more sophisticated combat model like in "Block" games
A better consideration of events like in Card-driven wargames
The way that mobile campaigns could sometimes be conducted
Flexible rules for diplomacy and alliances

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@cernel No, as the situation is biased against the Romans, playing the Romans is interesting. If played correctly, the Romans are knocking out the Macedonians before the Seleucids fall.

I'm not sure I'm following you any longer or ever. Regarding 300BC, you said

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Strongly favors the Romans

How can you say that 300BC strongly favours the Romans and then say that 270BC is biased against the Romans (if this is the case)? If anything, I think it is very clear that the Anti Roman Alliance is much better off in 300BC than in 270BC (for the reasons I've explained), that is I think that it is clear that the Anti Roman Alliance got "nerfed" going from 300BC to 270BC.

I originally assumed that by "the Romans" you meant the Roman Alliances (name changed to "Roman Alliance" in 270BC). Were you instead talking about the Roman Empire (name changed to "Roman Republic" in 270BC)? Are you now talking about the Roman Alliance or the Roman Republic when you say "the Romans"? Are we now talking about 270BC or 300BC?

I suggest avoiding using the name "Romans" in favour of the "Roman Alliances", the "Roman Alliance", the "Roman Empire" or the "Roman Republic". If you can backtrack and tell me what of those four were you referring to in the previous posts whenever you said "Romans", that is likely going to be helpful for me to understand you better.