Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[Timeline]

Greetings,

I am not an editor, but my question is for all those who are:

Is anyone planning on making a scenario of the current world situation? They had one for Civ II a long time ago, and I was just wondering if there will be one for Civ III.

You can check out the one made for Civ II
here.

If scenario conversion is available for Civ II scenarios it may be possible to use this old one to get an initial layout of the cities and map, and then place new military units to balance things out where needed.

Well, just wondering if anyone had any interest or plans in doing this .

Thnx modders, and keep up the fine work!

[Alex 14]

It would proberly be too hard and take up to much time, plus i only like scenarios that are fun, and away from the actual Civ 3 game style.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Alex 14
It would proberly be too hard and take up to much time, plus i only like scenarios that are fun, and away from the actual Civ 3 game style.

I doubt it will be too hard. People do them all the time.

If it takes time, who cares?

Why wouldn't it be fun?

[Alex 14]

I don't know, i just don't share the same point of view as you.

[Timeline]

Does anyone have any plans to do such a thing? Because if the do I have lot's of ideas for them.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Alex 14
I don't know, i just don't share the same point of view as you.

That's fine, Alex, but you make it sound like nobody should bother.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Timeline
Does anyone have any plans to do such a thing? Because if the do I have lot's of ideas for them.

I think it's just too early to be planning for this yet. We don't know what the editors will be like.

I'm sure lots of people will be making lots of scenarios. Don't worry about that.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Timeline
Does anyone have any plans to do such a thing? Because if the do I have lot's of ideas for them.

There will be plenty of people making scenarios for Civ III just look at what many people have made here on the ACS hosted sites. Tons of scenarios in the different sites. Many of the same people will be working on the next installment of the game.

However, for it to be worth their time, they will be working on scenarios that are from their ideas not yours. If you want to see scenarios from your ideas, you are going to have to make them yourself. Although you can post your ideas and hope people do them anyways.

[Timeline]

Thnx for the candid answer tniem, i really appreciate it! I will keep an eye open after the game is released, and who knows, if I get some free time I may try my hand at this scenario design stuff.

So let me change this question a bit: would anyone be interested in *playing* a scenario like this?

If there is some interest, I will seriously consider undertaking such a project. I was going to do one for CTP2 but their editor was CRAP. If Civ3's editor is half as good as Civ2's, it shouldnt be that tough for me to do something like this.

[Alex 14]

I'm also not really planing for designing any scenarios, when the game is released and we see what its like, then it will be so much easier.

[tniem]

Timeline,

You asked if we would be interested in playing a scenario like this, but I am not sure what the this refered to. Without clarification I would have to say that I would be hesitant to play this scenario

[Timeline]

LOL tniem, do you give everyone such a hard time?

Okay, you ask a good question.

The Scenario for civ2 was quite extensive and extremely fun (for me). The turns incremented by months and the starting year was 1990. The world was divided into 7 generalized groups (this was because you could only have 7 civs in civ2). Here was the Description:

"This scenario presents the world at the end of the 20th century, dividing the world into 7 generalized groups. The situation is ripe for nuclear proliferation, and the superpowers still possess enough warheads to devastate the planet. Can you conquer the globe, given a reasonable representation of the modern world? The American Navy reigns supreme, but the European Union is in a very strong position and the Russians possess a formidable army. For a real challenge, try playing the Third World."

These groups were:

China: Beijing, Hongkong, etc.

European Union: London, Munich, Rome, Madrid, Berlin, etc. But also, the European Union in this scenario held Cape Town (Africa), Perth, Melbourne, Sydney (Australia), Reykjavik (Iceland), and Nuuk (Greenland)

India: Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, etc.

Middle Eastern: Baghdad, Tehran, Ashgabat, Ankara, Mecca, etc (Middle East). Cairo, Mogadishu, Rabat, etc (Africa).

Russia: Moscow, Kiev, St. Petersburg, Kirov, Volgograd, Nizhny, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Vladivostok, etc.

Third World: This was mostly comprised of South America and Africa - Mexico city, Brasilia, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Panama, etc (South America). Kinshasa Dakar, Lagos, etc (Africa). Antananarivo (Madagascar). Bangkok, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh (Indonesia).

United States: Washington, New York, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Toronto, Winnipeg, Quebec, Anchorage etc (North America). Tokyo (Japan). Jerusalem (Middle East).

These, of course, are not all the cities each nation held. The national leaders were:

D. Xiaoping - Chinese
Helmut Kohl - European Union
Boutros-Boutros Ghali - Third World
G. Bush - United States
Saddam Hussein - Middle East
Rajiv Gandhi - Indians

I think if I were to design something like this the national breakdown would be for 1995 as
follows:

North America: USA, Kuwait, Philippines, South Korea, Panama - United States President Bill Clinton
European Union: Europe - Prime Minister John Major

Commonwealth of Independent States: former USSR - President Boris Yeltsin

Arab League: Arab Nations of Middle East + Egypt - Jordan King Hussein

China: China - Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin

Latin America: Venezuela and South to Argentina - President Fernando Henrique Cardoso

Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) (or another name): India, Australia, Indonesia, Taiwan, New Guinea - Austalian Prime Minister Paul Keating

African Alliance - Africa minus Egypt - State President Nelson Mandela

Neutral Powers: Canada, Mexico, Japan, Israel (Omni God stated that some might take offense if Israel is in the Arab league)....

I am not sure if the neutral alliance thing is a good idea. It may be better to lump Japan and Israel in with the USA, lump Mexico in with Latin America, and make Canada a separate country, any thoughts on this?

Well, does all this sound interesting to anyone? If I get some positive feedback I think I will try to contact the original author to see if he has any plans to update this for Civ III, and if not, then to get permission to use his scenario as a template.


Timeline

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Alex 14
It would proberly be too hard and take up to much time, plus i only like scenarios that are fun, and away from the actual Civ 3 game style.

All depends on Fireaxis - if it is true what say said (great scenario editing options), then I have no doubts that we see a lot of good scenarios. I definately will make scenarios for the new Civ3 if the options are at least as good as for Civ2...

[tniem]

If you need to combine some stuff - Canada and the U.S would seem to merge pretty well together. Just a thought.

Let me know when your scenario is complete and I will take a look.

[Timeline]

Ok tniem, I will do that.

If anyone would like to offer ideas, suggestions, comments or opinions, now would be a good time to do that. At this point it looks like no one except for me is planning on developing a scenario like this. This something I have always wanted and dreamed about for Civ 3 and you know what they say “if you want something done...”

Err, so anyway, I *will* be developing this project and again any comments or suggestions are welcome and could go a long way into the final outcome of this product.

[lord of the mark]

Timeline:


My sense of the scenario community(scenario league in particular) is that it is a fairly open place, where input from many is welcome, not just scenario designers. While there are certainly more ideas than designers (i think) no one would reject a good idea out of hand. Certainly you have more credibility if you have contributed to the community, but there are many ways to contribute, not just full scenario design - unit graphics, maps, tech tree design etc. ( I am currently working on 2 projects and neither is actually a scenario) In fact many of the scenarios "out there" are in fact colloborative projects of one sort or another. I would suggest lurking on the scenario league forum for a while, contribute helpfully to discussions, and then become more visible. It would be great place to ask about existing "contemporary world " scenarios, planned ones, and other resources. Of course until people know what things (maps, graphics, whole scenarios, etc) will transfer to Civ3 it will be hard to give clear answers, but thats a good place to get started.


LOTM

[Timeline]

Thnx LOTM. Do you have the address to the scenario league? And also, do they design scenarios specifically for Civ games, or do they do other games too?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Timeline
Thnx LOTM. Do you have the address to the scenario league? And also, do they design scenarios specifically for Civ games, or do they do other games too?

sleague.apolyton.nethttp://sleague.apolyton.net

they can also be reached from the Apolyton main page.

Im pretty sure they only do and discuss civ2 scenarios. I dont think they even do CTP or SMAC scenarios let alone other games (AOE, TOAW etc) There are other resources for those games.

LOTM

[DarkCloud]

Well... If I were to do what you did, I would eliminate the Neutral powers and split the arab league into the Two Muslim Factions, Iran and Iraq.

Split Latin America into Russian, Chinese, and American holdings.

Then you can have Israel and Turkey unite (Yes, perhaps that is unreasonable, but you could say that Israel controls all of former Yugoslavia and Turkey )

Put Japan into APEC
-
This way the political situation could be more volatile

Israel vs. Russia/Iran/Iraq
Iran vs. Russia/Iraq/USA/EU/APEC

-Just Ideas

[jsw363]

Could you make "rogue nations" or "states of concern" all barbarians? (Yes, I know it's a little closed minded) That way, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, etc. would be separate from their neighbors and also quite independent.

I think that Canada should be within either the US or the European sphere of influence.

Mexico should definitely be part of Latin America. (I would also include Carlos Menem as the president instead of Cardoso)

You could include Israel under the US sphere of influence, but I have no idea how the Israelis would react to this. I'm sure it would be better than grouping them with the rest of the Middle East.

Is North Africa also going to be included in the Middle Eastern civ?

India is also a difficult issue since I think it's difficult to group them with the Pacific Rim, but there really is no where else for them to go. The Phillipines should also be grouped here and not with the US.

Sounds like an interesting scenario though...

[Ecthy]

I think most, if not all of the scenario work should be doen by players and fans. CIV 2 has shown that game designers are poor scenario designers, at least in the first instance

the Rome scenario sucked, so did the WW2 one. The CiC scenarios are cool, but I think they only make such a big impression because they were the first good ones with changed rules and graphics. well, that impression just won't get out of our heads . the FW scenarios were also OK, just a bit.... 'overcharged' if you get the point
the WW2 scenario for TOT was just another piece of turd. anyway, the best scenarios we've seen are user scenarios, and it won#t change... the more good dieas you suggest for Firaxis to make scenarios of them, the less fun we will have, because all our dreams will be destroyed by Firaxis.

Trust me, their scenarios will suck

[Timeline]

Dark Cloud: Ok, good idea about separating Iran and Iraq. The Arab League will consist of it’s modern day counterparts, that being: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, (these are African nations, but they are Islamic states and are members of the Arab League) Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Iraq ( These are middle eastern nations). Now, my question for you dark cloud: Who should Iran be grouped with, and what should we call the grouping? For example: If we group Iran with Afghanistan and Pakistan, what would call the alliance? And also, these three nations don’t really have anything in common, do they? I don’t want to group Iran with Russia or any major powers, although I may consider grouping Pakistan with India (as they work together closely on nuclear weapon development).

“Put Japan into APEC”

Yep, good idea.

Israel will go to US I’m afraid it is just too small to be independent and unrealistic to group in with anyone els.

Turkey will go to the EU.

Jsw363: Great post!! I’m sorry I don’t have to respond to it now, but I will be back. There is one thing you said I want to comment on now though: “India is also a difficult issue since I think it's difficult to group them with the Pacific Rim, but there really is no where else for them to go.”

I just found out 16 civs will be available for the scenario editor in Civ III. India can be its own country now.

I’ll be back!!

[jsw363]

Timeline-

Sorry, you absolutely CANT put India and Pakistan together. "They work closely together on nuclear issues." (Don't want to be rude, but please tell me that was a joke)

India and Pakistan are mortal enemies. Pakistan is muslim and India is secular and they're in a war over Kasmir because it's important to both countries since it's muslim (India needs it to prove it's secular; Pakistan needs it because it's another muslim state) They detonated nuclear weapons in tests because they wanted to prove to the other that they had the capability. Pakistan was allied for a while with China (and still recieves technical support for thier nuclear program) to balance against India.

In short, it would be completely unrealistic to put these enemies under one civ.

[Eli]

The dream is a very detailed Middle East scenario about the present situation. I want it to be more similar to the truth rather than enjoyable to play for an average player.
The big maps Civ3 will have are very good for this purpose, I hope to have at least couple dozen cities for each country.
But since I'm not a scenario maker it will probably stay a dream unless I get some serious help.

[Timeline]

"Sorry, you absolutely CANT put India and Pakistan together."

Okay, calm down! I won’t!!

"They work closely together on nuclear issues." (Don't want to be rude, but please tell me that was a joke)

Umm, no it wasn’t a joke. I realize they have some issues to be settled . No seriously, I know they are involved in some conflicts over territories, I was just covering all possibilities.

“In short, it would be completely unrealistic to put these enemies under one civ.”

Alright, so let me ask you jsw363: who do you think we should put Pakistan with? And how should we handle Iran, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and the rest?

P.S. Where you live jsw? I live in New York State, do you live over seas from me? The reason I ask, quite frankly, is that you seem somewhat knowledgeable on relations over there in the Middle and Far East, are you interested in the subject, or do you live over there somewhere?

[jsw363]

Am I supposed to assume that there are only eight possible playable civs (in terms of information screens as indicated by Fireaxis)? Or am I dealing with unlimited civs?

I am going to attempt to work within the eight civ constraint (for now at least)

So there would be:

1. United States
2. Russian Federation
3. China
4. European Union
5. Latin America
6. Africa
7. Asia/Pacific
8. Arab League

and perhaps rogue nations classified as "Barbarian" nations for a quasi-ninth civ (Obviously I don't know if this would work since I haven't seen the game and I don't feel it's really my place to classify countries as barbaric.)

Afghanistan fits into the rogue nations catergory and with this new Gen. Musharraf military dictatorship Pakistan is moving in that direction. I think that these two could conceivably be grouped together since there they DO consider themselves allies, even though there have been tansions as of late.

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/mag...ak.afghan.html

I am hesitant about putting Pakistan into the rogue nation civ however. I think they are also a potential candidate for the "Arab League" civ since it does have informal ties to the League.

As for Iran, they could fall into either the "Arab League" civ (despite being niether Arabic nor part of the League) or into the rogue nation civ. Iran has become for some the model Islamic Republic and for others -- especially in the Arabian Gulf -- a threat.

It could be interesting to put these three countries into a "rogue nation" civ together which would then have a power base in southern Asia.

Alternately if you include them all in the "Arab League" civ, this would increase this civ's power much more than is realistic, but it would balance the game more. So I guess it depends if you want a more realistic scenario or a more playable one.

The Balkans should probably just be a rogue nation even though they aren't even a nation, much less a rogue one. I think that with the superior EU power in the region that they will quickly be taken care of in most scenarios. So I would suggest just one city (probably Sarejevo) which is weak and disordered.

As for India, I was waiting to see what you were going to suggest. I don't really know what to do with them. They don't have that many ties to the Asian Pacific Region; they aren't a rogue nation (despite that nuclear test); and they shouldn't really be associated with Europe (because of their colonial history) or the US. Don't know what to do with them. What do you suggest?

As for me, I'm kind of a nomad, but I am in BA, Argentina right now.

Hope this was helpful.

[Inverse Icarus]

i think it would be fun to have the middle east charging the US a ton of cash for oil, and the americans have the options to build COLONIES in alaska

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

Here's one of my scenario ideas.

This is a 2-8 civilization scenario. The map is divided down the middle. On the left half, there is a web of archipelagos and a small chain of islands on the far left. On the right half, a large, empty body of seas with one large continent on the far right. A buffer and wall of mountains will restrict movement (though I'm hoping that we'll be able to lock the horizontal wrap). Strategic resources will be distributed to promote an air unit composition on the left and naval unit composition on the right. You start with a settler, a worker and a single infantry. The tech tree is cropped to solely the industrial era, removing prerequisites from the previous eras improvements and units. It also has reduced industrial era improvement and unit prices so that you can actually build a warship/plane in first 20 turns. The addition of allies for both sides offers interesting possibilities, such as handicapping the AI or player, treachery, and coordinated attacks. Conquest victory only.

Jeff

[Timeline]

Okay, let me start off by replying to your first post .

“Could you make "rogue nations" or "states of concern" all barbarians? (Yes, I know it's a little closed minded) That way, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, etc. would be separate from their neighbors and also quite independent.”

This is something I have thought about for a very long time.

Pros:

1. If we have to deal with an 8 civ limit, this would effectively increase it to 9

2. We could change the default civ name “barbarian” to anything we please, so they don’t have to be “barbarians”.

Cons:

1. I don’t think barbarians in Civ 3 will be the same as Civ2. I.E. instead of cities they have encampments. I could be wrong, they may have both.

2. AI for the barbarians is quite different than regular computer civs.

3. You can’t make treaties with the barbarian civ, at least in Civ 2.

4. Game Balancing Issues: Any nation that invokes no diplomatic penalty for being attacked, is basically a nation ripe for conquest. For example: If Cuba (barbarians) has no treaty with Russia or China (which it can’t because barbs can’t have treaties) there is nothing preventing the American player from getting attacking Cuba and getting a few extra cities. In most Civ2 scenarios barbs are basically future expansion territory, nothing more.

In this case, I decided a long time ago that the cons outweigh the pros.

“I think that Canada should be within either the US or the European sphere of influence.”

If we have an 8 civ limit, then Canada will be with the US. If we don’t, then why shouldn’t Canada be separate?

Mexico should definitely be part of Latin America. (I would also include Carlos Menem as the president instead of Cardoso)

Well, coming from someone who lives in South America himself, I would be stupid not to take this advice . Okay, Mexico is part of Latin America.

“You could include Israel under the US sphere of influence, but I have no idea how the Israelis would react to this. I'm sure it would be better than grouping them with the rest of the Middle East.”


Yes, Israel will likely be a part of the US. But I would like to hear if anyone has any thoughts on this.

“Is North Africa also going to be included in the Middle Eastern civ?”

Yes

“Sounds like an interesting scenario though...”

I think so too .

“Am I supposed to assume that there are only eight possible playable civs (in terms of information screens as indicated by Fireaxis)? Or am I dealing with unlimited civs?”

I have just finished searching Apolyton top and bottom for a post that I distinctly remember, in which a Firaxian member stated that “there will be 7 Civs, 8 including the player, and 16 available for scenarios, but not all screens will support it”. What this means, I have no idea. Does anyone remember where this quote is located?

I know for sure we will not be getting unlimited Civs

“I am going to attempt to work within the eight civ constraint (for now at least)

So there would be:

1. United States
2. Russian Federation
3. China
4. European Union
5. Latin America
6. Africa
7. Asia/Pacific
8. Arab League”

Yes, if we had to limit ourselves to 8 civs, they would most likely be the ones you outlined.

However, if we wanted to free up a slot to make India separate, we could do so by combining Latin America or Africa with the current APEC and changing the name to "Democratic Neutrals". I don't really care for this idea myself, but it would give us the following:

1. United States
2. Russian Federation
3. China
4. European Union
5. Democratic Neutrals
6. Africa
7. India
8. Arab League

Thus, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran would be part of the Arab League.

“I guess it depends if you want a more realistic scenario or a more playable one.”

Well, the designers for Civ3 said that when it comes to Realism vs. Fun/Gameplay, they would choose Fun every time. I personally feel that if we do this scenario right, we won’t have to sacrifice too much realism for it to be fun .

If we get 16 civs to play with why not group Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan and call them “Independent Islamic States” or something?

“I think it would be fun to have the middle east charging the US a ton of cash for oil, and the americans have the options to build COLONIES in alaska”

Oh, definitely UberKruX. The U.S. won’t have any on-hand oil deposits and will have to rely on imports from the Arab League and Russia. But they will have 1 or 2 deposits just outside their boarders up by Alaska, and will have the option of building roads and colonies out to them. But even those deposits are to be very small and won’t last long, and they will have a very slow replenish rate. If the US doesn’t want to be at the mercy of middle eastern nations for decades to come, then they will have to increase the culture rating in Kuwait to gain control of the oil ...... or take it from the Arabs by force.

[Timeline]

Here's one of my scenario ideas ....

This sounds pretty cool Jeff, thanks for the post! One question: would the planes have enough range to get from the archipelagos to the large continent on the far right? If the people on the left can't make aircraft carriers, they would be stuck unless they made an alliance with someone on the right.


Timeline