General Information
- Name of Scenario : Afrika Korps
- Final Score : 17.1/30
(Breakdown: 0-10 terrible /11-15 Average/ 16-20 Good/ 21-25 Excellent/ 26+Best possible) - Type of Scenario : Historical
- Name of Author: John Petroski
- Name of Reviewer: SunTzu
Summary of Scenario
| This scenario covers Italian ambitions to make the Mediterranean an Italian Lake. WW2 North Africa. |
Playability – Section Sub-total: 4
Were you able to finish in a reasonable amount of turns? (Score: 1 )
Did the scenario avoid being tedious or repetitive? (Score: 1 )
Did the scenario capture the essence of what it was suppose to portray? (Score: 1 )
Were you impressed with the overall sound effects? (Score: 0 )
Was the choice of and interaction between races appropriate? (Score: 0 )
Did you enjoy playing the scenario? (Score: 1 )
|
This scenario is very enjoyable. It isn’t boring like other scenarios. You have a list of options to fight Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey or the Allies. |
Units – Section Sub-total: 3
Were the majority of units changed from the default Civ2 units? (Score: 1 )
Were all of the sounds appropriate for the units in the scenario? (Score: 0 )
Was the scenario free of ‘unbalanced’ units? (Score: 1 )
Were there innovative combinations of special unit abilities? (Score: 0 )
Were Barbarian units appropriate when they appeared? (Score: 0 )
Any other unit related problems (like shield placement)? (Score: 1 )
| The units are somewhat fine. They’re well balanced. They could be better though. |
Research – – Section Sub-total: 1
Was the progression of advance to advance done properly? (Score: 0 )
Were advances properly related to new units and obsolescence? (Score: 0 )
Was the tech tree of a high level of complexity? (Score: 0 )
Were non-event messages amended to suit the scenario ? (Score: 0 )
Was the civilpedia properly updated? (Score: 1 )
Were there disfunctional improvements or useless technologies? (Score: 0 )
| The is no research. Its all original. |
Map & Terrain – Section Sub-total: 6
Were you impressed by the Map in general? (Score: 1 )
Was terrain properly adjusted to fit the scenario? (Score: 1 )
Was attention given to geography and historical details? (Score: 1 )
Were you happy with the city, fortress, terrain improvement graphics? (Score: 1 )
Were city names and the placement of cities correct? (Score: 1 )
Were there innovations used in relation to Terrain? (Score: 1 )
| The Terrain and Map were very nice. They were all correct and detailed. |
Care & Details – Section Sub-total: 4 1/2
Did you find the documentation adequate? (Score: 1 )
Was the events file sufficient for the needs of the scenario? (Score: 1 )
Were you happy with the improvement and wonder icons? (Score: 1 )
Did you like the changes to the player interface? (Score: 0 )
Did you find any very apparent errors in any category of the scenario? (Score: 1 )
Do you think a lot of effort was put into doing this scenario? (Score: 1/2 )
| The units were nice and I enjoyed the game, the only problem was the Global Warming that happened very easily, turning many plains and grassland into swamps. |
Originality and Technical Proficiency – Section Sub-total: 2
Were the sounds appropriate in volume and clear enough to understand? (Score: 0 )
Were the sounds unique and different in the scenario? (Score: 0 )
Did you discover many unit GRAPHICS not used in any other scenarios? (Score: 1 )
Is the theme of the scenario completely novel? (Score: 1 )
Were complex events used to carry the story line or enhance the AI? (Score: 0 )
Did the author deal with all areas which could be modified? (Score: 0 )
Any other innovations worth mentioning? Explain? No innovations
Overall Assesment and Other Points of Interest:
|
This scenario is another good John Petroski scenario. But like his scenario’s, he could’ve done alot better. Sounds would be a nice addition. |
END