|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 9, 2015 17:45:58 GMT
After a hiatus of years, Poll of the Week is back for one week only!
About a billion years ago I asked about people's favourite ES campaign. How about the individual scenarios? Also, least favourite.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Nov 9, 2015 18:59:55 GMT
This is much harder than I first thought. Purely nostalgic value: The first Montezuma scenario. For more than a year I only had the TC Demo, and I played this scenario countless times, often making up long-winded stories about some Eagle Warrior's adventures or ridiculous twist endings where an armada of hot air balloons would come from off the map to help me in the fight over the relics. Looking at it now, the scenario's one of the duller ones from the campaigns. Favourite: I always loved the first El Cid scenario, the main reason being the starting tournament, but it's a hard choice. The first scenarios of Joan of Arc, Attila and Genghis Khan also come to mind. Least favourite: the final scenario of Barbarossa, because I could never win it.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 9, 2015 19:33:26 GMT
I'd say Joan of Arc 1 for simple nostalgia value. I really liked how the bits of dialogue and the events made it different to scenarios in the original AoE.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 9, 2015 19:55:59 GMT
Favorite: Hastings. I adore the historical subject matter, but also enjoyed the map for the (for the time) balanced and challenging combination of water and land warfare, invading and defending. The cutscene with Stamford Bridge is also pretty neat. The historical accuracy of the scenario is at times very questionable, but I felt that in those situations the deviation from accuracy in favor of enhancing the gameplay was a good call.
Honorable mention: Attila 1, 5, 6, El Cid 4, Montezuma 2, 5, Manzikert, Genghis Khan 1, 6, Joan 3, Barbarossa 5, Saladin 6
Least favorite: Probably Genghis Khan 3. Going 1v4 with 75 pop against 4 fully-developed enemies (one of whom builds a wonder) was not very fun back in the day. Nowadays it's far more easy to win because the AI isn't very strong, but it's one of those scenarios that tends to force the player down a specific path without allowing them much choice. You do the same thing every time - attack the engineers, scramble to destroy the Jin wonder, and barely scrape by until you're able to pump Elite Mangudai, Hussars, and Siege Rams and destroy your enemies.
Honorable mention: Joan 4, 5, Saladin 5, Barbarossa 1, Montezuma 1
In general the ES scenarios tend to follow the formula of giving the player a severely disadvantaged start so they have to scramble and relying on that for the challenge. Once you hit a critical point where your economy is booming and you can sustain military production, you pretty much know that there's no way that you can lose, which is pretty boring. Only rarely is there an exception to this model, and that exception usually comes in either FF scenarios or when faced with the ultimatum presented by a pending enemy wonder/relic victory. Thus I find the first 20 minutes or so of many ES scenarios rather fun, but after that it gets a tad boring when I realize I can mass an army of 60 paladins and annihilate the enemy with zero resistance.
This experience influenced me a lot when designing some of the B&D scenarios for AoF/AoAK, actually - in those, the start of the scenario is generally more fair, but the AI is competent enough to give the player a sustained challenge, and there's usually some sort of catch (such as being limited to the Castle Age, being low on gold, not being able to access heavy siege, etc) that shakes things up a bit.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Nov 9, 2015 21:02:46 GMT
Hmm. The whole Saladin campaign, but especially the last one I think. I also loved vinlandsaga, and yes, mostly for that one moment when you look at the minimap and see the serpent.
Joan of Arc 1 is the most classic though I think. Montezuma 1 sticks out in my mind as well.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 10, 2015 2:58:20 GMT
In general I liked the scenarios which included choice (beyond which essentially identical enemy to attack first) and little side elements. Vinlandsaga has the incredible serpent graphic - something that has never been matched - but also a lonely hermit somewhere out in the west. Atilla 1 had a mind-boggling array of choices at the start.
I didn't much like losing so anything that was difficult didn't really appeal to me. The Genghis Khan scenario with the Chinese wall was one, and the Saladin scenario with three crusader cities including one which builds a wonder was another. It was only when I went back through the ES campaigns years later that I won the last few scenarios I had originally skipped. There are one or two that I beat originally but rather cheaply and have never done properly, such as that capture the flag Barbarossa scenario where I got at least one flag right at the start by sending a suicide scout.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 10, 2015 18:21:31 GMT
On a side note, I've seen a number of attempted remakes of the first Joan scenario over the years. One was CK's entry to the ESRC12. Another is Dark_Reign's current project. Yet another is an interesting remake by Jernside that allows for both singleplayer and co-op modes - I helped him translate it from German to English a little over a year ago, but I haven't heard much of it since then. I guess that speaks to the influence that the first Joan scenario has had on the designing community. That and the first Genghis Khan scenario have a ton of features/aspects that often are recurring themes in many custom scenarios. The first Sforza scenario that CK designed for AoF draws a lot of inspiration from Genghis Khan 1 in particular. This is a fun one. The Saracens are one of my favorite civs to play, and most of the scenarios were pretty interesting. I really enjoyed the voice acting in that campaign, and the slides were well-written to boot. One of my favorite lines: "She [Egypt] is fabulously wealthy, yet governed by an ineffectual fool." How they drew that is still beyond me. I'm guessing they didn't have any sort of image-scanning tool, which means some fellow probably painstakingly drew it by hand. Quite impressive to say the least. I also always used to go and convert the lonely hermit, who I'm guessing was meant to represent one of the Papar, the Irish monks who pursued a so-called "white martyrdom" by sailing off into the unknown.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 10, 2015 19:58:18 GMT
Back in the olden days of AoKH the Vinlandsaga serpent was one of the quirks which led people to believe that ES had access to a different and better editor. Since all the other supposed evidence has fallen by the wayside I think it must be an urban legend. I guess the serpent was someone's pet project, and I imagine it was done by getting a serpent graphic with a suitable number of pixels and then using that as a map to colouring tiles. In case you are curious I have dug up a couple of threads dating from the era when things were not understood and people banged rocks together so that the gods would not be angry: The Hun Commander and Object Has Target Thread. I've never checked the alleged Object Has Target trigger in Manzikert, but I assume it is actually an Objects In Area trigger that includes detection of projectiles. Question 14 supposes ES had a different editor. In reality, I think it must simply be that the Monk with Relic unit previously was marked in the data file to appear in the editor but was subsequently hidden - like various beta units. Crazy theories about mills. Obviously the answer is the mill used to be 3x3, was changed to 2x2 but remained centred where it was before.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 10, 2015 20:25:55 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if someone eyeballed it from a template or did something like you suggested. The map itself is rather impressive with regard to the detail on the minimap - the outlines of Greenland and parts of Newfoundland and Labrador are easily discernible and seem reasonably accurate, and the outlines of Scandinavia and the British Isles aren't half-bad. The only odd thing is that for whatever reason Iceland is completely omitted from the map
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 24, 2015 19:25:06 GMT
Do any of you remember scenarios from the original AoE? There were one or two I have particularly strong memories of, such as the couple where you start off with a base that is being destroyed and have to run away.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 24, 2015 21:11:04 GMT
I've actually never played AoE1, though I've watched some youtube playthroughs of the campaigns out of interest. I've thought about buying it a few times, but from what I hear the editor is not very advanced, which is a bit of a turn-off.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Nov 25, 2015 14:40:03 GMT
The priest that has to convert a villager and then run away was a classic opening.
In some ways I always liked AoE1 more. I played it first, and I much preferred the art, as it was more real and less bright and cartooney. I remember how ugly I thought the aok gold piles were. The aoe wildlife was fascinating at the time too.
And there was something truly classic about those original stone age town centers made from mammoth tusks. But it had no triggers which is why I never got into SD for it, and no formations, which is why multiplayer became a total chore.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 25, 2015 20:33:01 GMT
Objectively, AoE is far inferior to AoK. I know what you mean, but I'm not sure I even agree that it's less cartoony. The buildings are out of proportion with the units and most of the graphics are less intricately detailed than in AoK. Then the lack of triggers, terrible path-finding, and lack of micromanagement tools are crippling flaws in comparison to AoK.
But for those of us who played it first it will always have a certain appeal. The very first scenario I played was Babylon 1, which is the one you mention about the priest. Wandering north to the river crossing and deciding whether or not to cross with my single priest was a gameplay experience that really struck a chord.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 25, 2015 23:05:01 GMT
Were the AoE1 campaigns any good? I've heard of some rather interesting tricks and gameplay ideas like the ones you guys have mentioned above, but I'd imagine that it must be rather limiting to have to work in an editor without triggers. Heck, I'd have a terribly difficult time even going back to the non-userpatched AoE2 scenario editor at this point
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 26, 2015 7:57:08 GMT
They're a different kind of thing. There are typically more scenarios in each campaign (the learning campaign is enormous), there is much less story-telling, and not much in the way of developments within a scenario due to the absence of triggers. As a result, you don't get anything like Genghis 1 or Atilla 1 - which is probably a large part of why those scenarios are so memorable for me.
On the whole though, I would say they are good within those limitations. There are some forgettable scenarios where it's straightforward land-based B&D, but I reckon there are more scenarios where the setup itself is interesting than there are in AoK. Most of us like El Cid 1, for example, but apart from the effective cut-scene at the start it's straightforward. Playing a few AoE scenarios back in 2008 or so significantly increased my appreciation for simple, well-crafted scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 26, 2015 15:35:41 GMT
I found that tournament cutscene particularly iconic when I was younger. Back in the day, I probably had designed about 4 different scenarios including a similar mechanic. Come to think of it, several of the ES scenarios have features that manifest themselves in scenarios to this day, such as the sandbox quest-based gameplay of Genghis 1, killing enemy defenders to take control of a town (Genghis 2), or the looting mechanic of Attila 3.
Funnily enough, there's an exploit in Attila 1 where you can simultaneously activate all three trigger systems controlling the mechanics behind killing Bleda. If you pull it off properly, then you can get all of the tarkans, the archers, the villagers to the west, and 3 separate tributes of thousands of resources upon killing Bleda. The other interesting thing about Attila one is that the starting area is actually fairly well-designed, even for today's standards.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 26, 2015 23:20:30 GMT
One we haven't mentioned is the El Cid scenario against the Black Guards (I think it's El Cid 3 or 4). I really like that bit at the start where your army walks in off the edge of the map and then you have to "hurry" to assist King Alfonso; you fight off the first wave but then another wave comes and you have to retreat to a base. Later on you can also send a monk to study at a mosque and get technologies for free - but it's bugged and you keep getting the technologies even if your monk dies.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 27, 2015 2:42:37 GMT
Ah, I know the one you mean. Both those tricks were cool, though in my mind the latter was a bit gimmicky. The triggering of your army appearing off the edge of the map at least made for a cool intro, but the trick with the monk studying at the mosque didn't really contribute to the gameplay at all. The player has no motive to employ lots of monks in that scenario (especially considering that your enemies make tons of light cavalry) and the enemy doesn't make any monks either. It's a nice touch, but I would have preferred to see it in a setting where it has more of an effect on the gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 27, 2015 21:42:55 GMT
Isn't it precisely the situation where you wouldn't otherwise be tempted to make monks that giving you free monk bonuses is most appropriate? That seems arguable, anyway - although I'm sure that there wasn't a huge amount of thought given to scenarios that must have been thrown together in a short space of time.
What I was particularly praising was the idea of having to rush to assist an army that was in the course of being defeated (although in actual fact it was a lie and you could take as long as you wished). So far as I can remember, only Ulio has anything similar, and the tension there is rather lessened by the fact the battle is right next to you. The idea that elsewhere on the map something is going against your favour - with permanent effects - while you faff around is untapped potential. It's fundamentally flawed design that sitting around while your heroes heal or while you chip away health points with hit-and-run is ever the optimal strategy. Yes, I am guilty of this too, but I think it's undeniable. While the community of designers has been excellent at investing time and doing stuff that requires an impressive amount of effort, we have tended to be no better than mediocre when it comes to the basics.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 27, 2015 23:28:55 GMT
My guess is it was more in line with the recurring religious theme in that campaign. If I'm remembering correctly, every scenario either had a religiously-themed objective (like collecting the relics in the second mission), some sort of hidden monastery with monks who would drop a line about El Cid's piety, or that sequence with the mosque in the 4th mission.
The idea about rushing to save an army is a good one. I'd be curious to try out a setting where you had to travel across the entire map (as opposed to the short distance in the 4th Ulio mission), encountering opposition and sidequests along the way, but simultaneously racing to reinforce an army in the middle of a battle. Something like that might provide the player with some interesting choices along the way - do you complete sidequests to gain more troops and upgrades for your reinforcement army while knowing that your beleaguered army far away is slowly getting whittled down, or do you rush to their location as quickly as possible, foregoing the opportunity to swell your ranks or upgrade your weapons?
To me, ranged units are the achilles heel of the game in more ways than one. The nature of AoE2 is that an army with greater range and greater speed than its adversary will inevitably win. Also, they have an unrealistically high firing rate. A good medieval archer could accurately shoot 5-6 arrows per minute, while a good crossbowman could accurately shoot 1-2 bolts per minute (and they could run out of arrows, of course). In AoE2, the archer-line can fire off about 30 arrows per minute, giving them the ability to fire with high accuracy and retreat ad infinitum. In a match between two humans with half-decent micro skills, 30 crossbows beat 30 knights, which is just incredibly broken. If I were making a historical mod for AoE2, the first thing I would do would be to greatly decrease the firing rate of all ranged units.
To avoid this, you'd probably have to avoid giving the player ranged units and assuring that the enemy's units were faster than yours, forcing you to take the fight head-on instead of employing underhanded tactics. Heroes should be healed to full HP with triggers after a fight (similar to what Basse did in Rockspring Revolution) to make sure that the player doesn't have to sit around and heal, but should likewise be slower than the enemy units so that there's no way to land a few hits and then run, retreat, and heal over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 28, 2015 0:35:37 GMT
"Find me my ten lost horses and I will give you 100 gold!" "Um, no. We're on our way to reinforce our friends who are losing a battle right now."
It's difficult to prevent ranged/healing units making gameplay easy but boring, without leaving them out altogether. It can be done, but you can't give the player infinite time and room to manouevre. Yesterday and today I've spent a little while toying with the idea of a second Jafar scenario. My idea was that the objective would be to capture and simultaneously hold three convertible torches, in circumstances where you have fixed forces and the enemy replenishes, so that you have to execute three assaults at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 28, 2015 15:55:36 GMT
That sounds interesting. One scenario I particularly like is the mission in Kor's Chivalry campaign based on the Battle of Bouvines. The battle is triggered to follow its historical course, but the player only controls a fraction of the army at any given time, and the units the player is given are entirely melee infantry and cavalry. It's a very simple FF and it could go to have a bit more tactical depth, but the design eliminates the possibility of exploiting ranged/healing units, which puts it above a lot of other FF scenarios. I enjoy the Historiae Populorum scenario about the Battle of Tannenberg for similar reasons, and on top of that there is added tactical depth because the entire map is the battlefield and the player has to constantly decide where to deploy reinforcements - do you bolster your faltering left flank to avoid losing the chamberlain's banner, or do you concentrate your forces on breaking the enemy right flank in the hope of being able to make a quick strike at the Teutonic commanders?
On a related note, this is the sort of setting where I would seriously consider doing a bit of modding to enhance the gameplay. Decreasing the firing rate of ranged units, giving pikes +1 range, making sword infantry a bit tankier, etc could potentially add some more depth if the designer implements those sort of things properly.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Nov 28, 2015 18:33:28 GMT
The problem with those Marko Crnigoj scenarios is that what they're really about is not tactics or strategy so much as mobbing enemy heroes one by one with a little gang of your heroes.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Nov 28, 2015 19:00:35 GMT
That's a legitimate critique. I don't always agree with the system of jacking up the HP and attack of all troops, either. While it makes for longer battles (and is thus especially good for cinematics) and makes ranged units slightly less dominant, it can make the gameplay a little tedious if every unit has 2000 HP and takes forever to kill. The best Marko Crnigoj scenario was probably the one about Hattin - losing HP in the desert gave the player a sense of urgency, and sequences such as protecting the monk carrying the piece of the true cross from enemy cavalry while moving to the camp was nice. The downside of those types of scenarios, though, is that having to control 300 units at once isn't really fun.
|
|