Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[jsw363]

Timeline-

Have you read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? I highly recommend it for people interested in civ. But anyways, he defines at present six major civilizational groups:

1. Western civilization built upon Catholicism and Protestantism (Western Europe and North America);
2. the civilization built upon the Orthodox Church (Russia and Eastern Europe);
3. Islamic civilization;
4. Hindu civilization;
5. Chinese civilization;
6. Japanese civilization.

Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa exist as "candidates for civilization," with the implication that they have the potential to become distinct civilizations of their own. Five of these have their respective core state or states: for Western civilization it is the European Union (EU) and the United States; for the Orthodox civilization it is Russia; for the Hindu civilization, India; for the Chinese civilization, China; and for the Japanese civilization, Japan. There is no such core state for the Islamic civilization, nor for Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.

This way the civs fit nicely into your eight civ parameter, though I think this would radically change some parts of the game. The Orthodox civ becomes more powerful (with addition of Eastern Europe). Western Civ is obviously much more powerful (combining US and Western Europe). China becomes more powerful with the inclusion of some APEC countries. Islam becomes more powerful, since it encompases all Islamic countries (including Maylasia and Indonesia). So I don't know if this would be more fun, since that's your objective, but it's at least a different option that satisfies the eight civ limit.

You never responded to my India question. What would you do with that country?

Regarding the barbarians, I understand your points about the pros and cons.

1. Encampments: Obviously I can't speak about this since the game hasn't come out yet. Encampments vs. Cities, who knows?

2. AI: Obviously barbarian AI will be different than other civs. I think this is actually a good thing, because it would probably more closely mimic the behavior of these rogue nations. They are expansionist and not too interested in cultural development.

3. Treaties: There aren't so many treaties between countiries like N. Korea, Iraq and the rest anyways. As rogue nations they don't have many allies.

4. Diplomatic penalties: I would respond that this might be taken care of in the new UN feature of the game, but again who knows. I think that there haven't been too many diplomatic reprocussions for the EU sending a "peacekeeping mission" into Yugoslavia, or the US invading countries like Grenada. Today Cuba doesn't have great relationships with the Russians or the Chinese. In a Cold War scenario, they might have been included in one of these civs, but now they're pretty much on their own.

So I guess I still think that these countries can be adequately represented by barbarian civs and would improve gameplay if kept separate. I mean, otherwise who is going to take in these countries. Latin America would accept Cuba, but the Chinese and Jordanians and Egyptians would be much less likely to accept N. Korea or Iraq into thier civs.

Jeff-

Thanks for the contribution. Care to comment on our scenario?
With regards to yours, I am still unclear about the mountains. Do they bisect the large continent? Surround the large continent? Are the allies in the archipelago or on the continent?

[Timeline]

“Have you read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? I highly recommend it for people interested in civ. But anyways, he defines at present six major civilizational groups”

No I haven’t. Thanks, I will check this one out.

“This way the civs fit nicely into your eight civ parameter, though I think this would radically change some parts of the game. The Orthodox civ becomes more powerful (with addition of Eastern Europe). Western Civ is obviously much more powerful (combining US and Western Europe). China becomes more powerful with the inclusion of some APEC countries. Islam becomes more powerful, since it encompases all Islamic countries (including Maylasia and Indonesia). So I don't know if this would be more fun, since that's your objective, but it's at least a different option that satisfies the eight civ limit.”

Well, yeah, it fits, but I don’t think it would work very well for this scenario. US and EU in same civ? Come on! I pictured this scenario as representing a political breakdown of the world, not that of a religious one. Now, although I will admit many times they can be the same thing, many times they aren’t: The Hundred Years War, War of 1812, WWI, WWII, the constant clashing of Muslim factions - all examples of states of the same religion fighting because of political issues.

This scenario breaks down the world based on military or economic pacts such as APEC, CIS, or the Arab League. So, Rather than having Indonesia being a part of the “Islamic civilization”, or Australia being a part of the “Western civilization”, or Japan being a part of the “Japanese civilization” (as would be the case if we were grouping by civilizational similarities ) they will be part of very different groupings of nations. Any comments on what I’ve said?

Don’t get me wrong, it was a nice idea, just not quite what I had in mind for this scenario.

“You never responded to my India question.”


Well, actually, I did . Maybe you didn’t see it:

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

Later I said:

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" or something. 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.

Hope this answers your question.

“I guess I still think that these countries (rouge nations) can be adequately represented by barbarian civs and would improve gameplay if kept separate.”

Well, if we get 16 civs, they *will* be separate from major powers, lumped into their own alliance, we will call them “trouble makers” LOL. It would be much easier to edit and control them if they are a valid AI computer player rather than barbarians. Then, It becomes possible to edit their techs, personality, playing style, etc.

“I mean, otherwise who is going to take in these countries. Latin America would accept Cuba, but the Chinese and Jordanians and Egyptians would be much less likely to accept N. Korea or Iraq into thier civs.”

Well, um, correct me if I am wrong, but I am almost 100% sure Iraq is in the Arab League. If we are limited to 8 civs I think N Korea could go quite nicely in with China, why not? After all if they are barbarian-AI they would be attacking China most likely, and the U.S. or China would absorb them quikly. Cuba, well, they could go to Latin America I suppose. Iran and Afghanistan could go to Arabs, and Pakistan could go to India ERRR I mean China (hehe).

Hopefully it won’t come to that, HOPEFULLY the "trouble makers" can be independent.

Now, you, sir, did not answer my question

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

What are your thoughts?

“Jeff-

Thanks for the contribution. Care to comment on our scenario?
With regards to yours, I am still unclear about the mountains. Do they bisect the large continent? Surround the large continent? Are the allies in the archipelago or on the continent?”


I know you addressed this to Jeff, but maybe I can help. There are four players on the left that can build planes, and four on the right that can build ships. If you are a Right player, and want planes, you need to make an alliance with one of the Left players to do so (to gain the right materials). Also, I am not sure but I think the “buffer and wall of mountains” is down the middle of the map, as he said “The map is divided down the middle.”

He also said “I'm hoping that we'll be able to lock the horizontal wrap.” So, maybe the “small chain of islands on the far left” will connect to the big Island on the far right?

Hope this helps.

[Eli]

Being part of the US is far better than being part of the Arab Nation.

[jsw363]

Timeline- I apologize. Bad post on my part.

First to the Jeff question. If there's an archipelago on one side and a continent on the other side there must be ocean between them, yes? or am I misunderstanding? So my question was how do the mountains appear between them if there's only ocean between them. Is there a long mountinous island between them?

Secondly, don't ships and planes both require some of the same basic materials? (I am not knowledgeable about this) Are the civs trading for other essential materials?

Thirdly, I assumed that the horizontal lock option was the opposite, that you wouldn't be able to sail around the world, but that it would be a flat world.

Now on to this scenario....

I know that the altenative proposed by Huntington isn't political. That's why I suggested it as an alternative. I was thinking that since all the major players that we were talking about previously would be stronger (China, Russia, West) it would be another option to explore. I didn't expect you to accept it, but I thought it would make an interesting possibility. And the breakdown isn't neccesarily religious, though religion is the largest fissure between civs. I guess that though I assumed that you hdan't read the book that you would understand the premise behind it. Huntington's thesis is that the Post Cold War World (where the US is a hegemon) will be increasingly defined by these civilizational distinctions. Now obviously he has a lot of critics, but I was thinking that if this becomes the new rubric for the world, that the scenario should reflect it. I don't want to get too philosophical or into political theory, (because I am no expert), but I thought that it would be a viable model for the modern world.

I've always though that religion was important, even in this increasingly secular world where cultural ties still bind us.

Yes, you can scoff at the fact that the US and Western Europe would be grouped together. They would have many advantages, but also face many challenges. In terms of demographics, many Western European countries have declining birth rates (more people dying than being born). In the US many baby boomers will retire, taxing the economy and contributing nothing to production. I think that there are ways to compensate for their percieved dominance. Balancing the game would be difficult, but I think that it's doable.

OK, now on to India. I am still going to assume the 8 civ max. because otherwise we would be dealing with 16 civs and that would get out of control.... at least for the moment. Once we come to some consensus with 8 civs, then maybe we'll tackle 16.

I guess that you probably know that I would object to some of the underdeveloped nations being put together without others. You can't just group L.A. and Asia since the countries are underdeveloped. First you exclude the African nations who are underdeveloped, secondly you exclude India, which is also by most definitions a "democratic neutral". I guess it depends on what you mean by democratic, since Vietnam is hardly democratic. And neutral in terms of which conflict? Because while Latin America might be neutral in a Sino-russian conflict, they would most certainly not be neautral in a Sino-American conflict. So I don't really like this arrangement, though it is creative.

Regarding the "trouble makers" and the 16 civs again. Yes, ideally we would be able to include them in such a scenario, but I want to deal with the basic scenario first.

So about splitting up these "trouble makers" if you don't want to make them barbarian (which, though it has drawbacks is still my first choice). If they're really rogues though then they should be kept apart so they can be erratic and attack people at random. Does Iraq really care if they attack the Arab League (Kuwait) or the Russian Federation (maybe because of the Kurds or something). They're willing to attack just about anyone as I think most of the rogues are. You are correct, Iraq IS part of the Arab league, but has an extremely different global agenda than many of the nations in the League. I guess though that since we already lumped Lybia in there with the moderate Arab nations that we could do this.

Cuba to L.A. is fine.
Afghanistan to Arab League is fin.

Iran to Arab League is also problematic because of Iraq. Again I think you can't really put Iraq and Iran in the same civ because of historical conflicts.

Pakistan also can't go to China. Just because they are allies doesn't mean that they should be in the same civ. They are better placed with the Arab League, though I am not completely satisfied with this either.

Wouldn't be bad to create an "Independent Arab Nations" civ if there were more options, but again more on this later.

I guess that my alternate solution to give India their own civ would be to merge Africa and L.A. and leave APEC alone. Seems like they are more distinct from the others because of technological advancement, more industrialization etc.

So that would make it:
1. EU
2. US
3. Russian Federation
4. China
5. APEC
6. Arab League
7. India
8. Developing Nations

I am not wholly satisfied with this, but I am going to think more about it. In the meantime, I strongly urge you to at least consider the Huntington proposal before rejecting it outright. I know it's not what you were expecting and is revolutionary, but that's what makes it interesting.

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

On your first question, the mountains would simply be an artificial barrier to player's 'backdooring' each other. Second, I forget of the top of my head, but the editor allows the customization of resource requirements. Last, that's right. No left-wrapping-to-right and vice versa.

Jeff

[Timeline]

Jeff - Care to comment on our scenario?

- question by jsw363

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

Just make it fun.

Jeff

[Timeline]

Ok, we'll give it a shot


Hey Jeff, you couldn't tell me how many civs are available by using the scenario editor could ya? I would much Appreciate it



P.S. Please don't say if I told ya I'd have'ta kill ya

[Timeline]

“And the breakdown isn't neccesarily religious, though religion is the largest fissure between civs.”

I understand that. I didn’t mean to sound as though I thought it was entirely based on religion, he obviously accounted for other factors.

“Huntington's thesis is that the Post Cold War World (where the US is a hegemon) will be increasingly defined by these civilizational distinctions.”

Interesting, and quite possible, I suppose.

“Now obviously he has a lot of critics, but I was thinking that if this becomes the new rubric for the world, that the scenario should reflect it.”

Well, yeah, definitely, IF it becomes the new rubric for the world. Do you think his philosophies are the ‘rubric’ of the world today? If your answer is no, then, unless these civilizational differences become much more distinct in the next few months, why group nations by them?

“I thought that it would be a viable model for the modern world.”

It still can be, even the way I’d like to do it. Hear me out for a second, you said:

“You can scoff at the fact that the US and Western Europe would be grouped together. They would have many advantages, but also face many challenges.”

And they still would have many advantages and challenges, even if they are not the same civ. Think of it like this, the US and EU might not be the same civ, but they still will work closely together to overcome the challenges of their distinct culture. They will be in alliance, and in effect, they will have every advantage of being in the same civ.

Perhaps if we do this scenario right, it my subtly mimic the social patterns you have outlined (LOL, okay maybe not, depends on how good Civ3 is). But perhaps, perhaps, the best to implement your plan is indirectly and discreetly. Just a thought.

I know this probably all sounds crappy, but it is because I don’t have much time.

“I guess that my alternate solution to give India their own civ would be to merge Africa and L.A. and leave APEC alone. Seems like they are more distinct from the others because of technological advancement, more industrialization etc.”

Yep, I agree with everything you said about the “developing nations” stuff. I wasn’t really thinking too hard about the democratic neutral thing, but your right, it won’t do and I like your idea.

I’ll read the rest of your post later and comment on it .

[Timeline]

“Does Iraq really care if they attack the Arab League (Kuwait) or the Russian Federation (maybe because of the Kurds or something).”

Hm, you have a pretty good point there. So let me ask you, if we did do barbarians, then Iraq would go in to it? And where would Iran go, the Arab league? Or perhaps, the other way around?

This is getting complicated enough that I am ready to start putting this down on paper, and get a rough draft of the layout for this scenario.

“Pakistan also can't go to China. Just because they are allies doesn't mean that they should be in the same civ. They are better placed with the Arab League, though I am not completely satisfied with this either.”

Could Pakistan go into barbarian civ?

I think it would help if you listed for me all the nations/states that you think should go into the “barbarian civ”. Do this for me and I will be very happy .

Congrats on your promotion . I just noticed you are a chieftain now .

- Timeline

[Timeline]

Jeff, it really would help alot if I knew how many civs we will have to work with. Firaxis has already released that information so there is no reason why you can't tell us, is there?


please?

[Alexander I]

What about plans for a proper CivIII - WW2 scenario? CivII's scenario was weak, partly because you just couldn't make the kind of diplomatic agreements in CivII that you can in CivIII.
Also, what year would you start in? 1939? 1940? 1941?
How about these Civ's.

Scenario Civ/Civ used/color/UU/Gov't/Leader

Germany (Germans) - dark blue - Panzer - Nationalism/Hitler
USA (Americans) - light blue - F-15? - Democracy/FDR
Britain (English) - ? - Man-of-War (obsolete) Make a new one? - Republic or Democracy/Churchill
USSR (Russians) - grey - MiG? - Communism/Stalin
France (French) - pink - Musketeer (obsolete) new? - Republic?/Petain?
Neutrals? Is it a good idea to have a Neutral civ?
Poland? Spain? Turkey? Finland?

With 8 Civs available, which should be chosen to make this a good CivIII scenario? Better yet, how will you do this one, Firaxis?

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

WWII is an attractive subject for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that exacting 3D models already exist in commercial packages (read: fast development). The scenario I floated before was basically an un-pearl harbor'd battleship-centric US fleet vs. entrenched japanese airpower. Apparently that's what the think tanks at the time thought the pacific theater would play out as.

Jeff

[Shadowstrike]

Any chance of getting some of the best Civ2 scenarios made by the community packaged with Civ3 (and upgraded for Civ3?) I'd love to play say, Second Front with the Civ3 interface. It could get tricky though, as some of the "functions" would go wrong because of the interface changes.... Just an idle thought.

[Timeline]

Jeff, how many civs will we be able to have for our scenarios?

I don't mean to be rude by asking so many times, but maybe you missed my question.

If you aren't going to give me the answer, at least tell me you won't.

[Alexander I]

Another idea is an ancient empires scenario dating around perhaps 400 BC.

Persia (Persians?) is the dominant power and a strong military but somewhat limited resources.

Rome (Romans) is a relatively small civilization with lots of iron and room to grow.

Carthage (?) is a civilization with lots of space between its cities. It perhaps wants to grab resources that are near Rome to spark a Rome/Carthage conflict.

Greece (Greeks) have a good amount of resources and are just about to spark the Persian powderkeg.

Egypt (Egyptians) have lots of resources but a weak military (what's their unique unit, Jeff?) leaving it open to invasion by Persia, Greece, Rome, and anyone else interested for the resources. It has strong culture though, so the people may stay Egyptian through all the conquests.

There are 3 other civ slots to be filled. Any ideas anyone? Babylon would be an interesting addition but we aren't sure if they're even in the game. (The same is true of Persia.)

Jeff, do you know if these two are in? Any ideas as to how to spruce up this idea?

[Timeline]

Wow, I can't believe this got pushed back all the way to the second page

At least that means this is a busy forum

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

Both Persia and Babylonians are in.

Jeff

[Footie Mad]

And those few words end a very long discussion, the power of FIRAXIS in action

[jsw363]

Timeline-

So for our modern world scenario would include:
1. EU
2. US
3. Russian Federation
4. China
5. APEC
6. Arab League
7. India
8. Developing Nations

I was just wondering what to do with the former Soviet sattelites which still aren't part of the EU. Guess they could go to either Russia or EU. Any opinions?

Iran should definitely be in the Arab League though it's not a member because of its leadership role in the Muslim world.

The "barbarians" would include: Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Yugoslavia definitely.

Other possibles would include Pakistan and Afghanistan (the more I think about it, the more I like having a little barbarian center in South Asia. They would be at the intersection of Russia, Arabs, Chinese and Indians. Should make for interesting gameplay), Colombia, Congo (both war zones). I think that these last two are best left with their respective civs. The barbarians are just supposed to create a little uncertainty. (Latin America and Africa have enough problems as it is) Are there any countries that I'm forgetting?

Thanks- I'm finally not a settler All because of this thread...

[jsw363]

Alexander-

Ancient Mediterranean Scenarios are always popular.

You listed the following as possibilities

Persia
Rome
Carthage
Greece
Egypt

I was wondering what kind of timeframe you were thinking of since the structure of the game would really depend on this as well as the civs included.

I was thinking at least tentatively that you could include the Gauls as a civ and have them in Hispania and north of the Italian peninsula. Again totally depends what year we're talking.

[jsw363]

Alexander-

I was thinking that the best time to start was right after Munich, but then you might want to avoid pre-emtive entry by the US and the other Allies, so maybe later is better.

Scenario Civ/Civ used/color/UU/Gov't/Leader

Germany (Germans) - dark blue - Panzer - Nationalism/Hitler
USA (Americans) - light blue - F-15? - Democracy/FDR
Britain (English) - ? - Man-of-War (obsolete) Make a new one? - Republic or Democracy/Churchill
USSR (Russians) - grey - MiG? - Communism/Stalin
France (French) - pink - Musketeer (obsolete) new? - Republic?/Petain?
Neutrals? Is it a good idea to have a Neutral civ?
Poland? Spain? Turkey? Finland?

Need to include Italy in the scenario as the Germans' ally. I think that Poland was pretty much split between the Russians and Germans in 1939 after the Ribbontrop-Molotov agreement. I don't really think it should be included. Switzerland should definitely be neutral though.

The Russian unit shouldn't be the MiG since that wasn't available at the time. I don't know enough about WWII history to come up with the specific units by myself.... (sorry)

And to everyone, I apologize for the double post. My computer's being screwy....

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by jsw363
Neutrals? Is it a good idea to have a Neutral civ?
Poland? Spain? Turkey? Finland?

As uncomfortable to say this is, Finland was actually, after surviving the attack of USSR, an ally of the Reich. So I wouldn't have Finland as a neutral nation, because it simply wasn't one.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well I am sure that it was mentioned by Firaxis, some time ago that thewre will be 16 civs avaialble for scenarios...

so here is my modern world 16 civ situation as of the beginnig of 21st century which could represent the sphere of influence/economic style that major cultures have today.

1.EU (in the future they will be the western +eastern europe, going towards Turkey and Israel) - could be broken in two theree of four (Western Europe, eastern europe, turkey, and Israel - Israel would go with Western Europe in teh cse of a three civ situation)
2.US + canada
3.China
4.Russia+former USSR republics (excluding the three baltic ones they go to eastern Europe and with EU)
5.India
6.Sub-saharan Africa
7.Latin America
8.Islamic nations (pakistan/ Iraq could go tho the rogue nation club)
9.Japan + Malaysian subcontinent & indonesia +Taiwan
10.Australia + polynesia
11.rogue civ (located at Afganistan, Cuba, Iraq, Kashmir,Tibet, Chechenia, Yugoslavia, Columbia, Kongo) which are present places of war and would give all major civs some trouble to sort out and occupy.

So we have a 11 civ option, a 16 civ one could be
EU becomes three civs.
1.Western europe +Israel
allied with
2.Eastern europe
3.Turkey
4.US
allied with
5.Canada
6.China
7.Russia
8. Rogue Nations
9.India
10. Sub saharan Africa
11.South America
12. Arab League
13. Iran
14.Japan
15. Malasyan subcontinent + Indonesia
16. Australia

This should be bone on one of those ultra gigantic maps, to give the game good proportion and to give each civ a few cities and the ability to develop. game balancing this would be interesting, but first we have to see what Civ III has on offer. Culture could fit nicely to help balance the game

[OneFootInTheGrave]

double post

[hetairoi22]

A (GOOD, for once) WWII scenarion would be nice.

Originally posted by jsw363
I don't know enough about WWII history to come up with the specific units by myself.... (sorry)

The Russian UU should definitively be the T-34 Tank, which was one of the strongest/best tank around WWII.

The Americans could have a unique bomber? (B-52)

I really like the 400bc scenario (idea)!

Here's some changes I would do to it (Yes, I know. I allways have to complaint )

The Greek civ should be split into the Independant Greeks and the Macedonians (Led by Alexander the Great or, his father who reformed the army, Phillip II). The Macedonian UU would be the Companion Cavalry (the strongest cavalry around, in that time period, which was actually made up of aristocracts!), and/or the Macedonian Phalanx (a reformed phalanx type with very long spears (ca. 5 meters) called sarissas).

The Independant Greek UU, would be the normal Phalanx unit.

The Persian UU would be the Ten Thousand Immortals (Probly shouldn't be rebuilt efter destroyed):

About the immortals:

The Ten Thousand Immortals:

in Persian history, core troops in the Achaemenian army, so named because their number of 10,000 was immediately reestablished after every loss. Under the direct leadership of the hazarapat, or commander in chief, the Immortals, who formed the king's personal bodyguard, consisted primarily of Persians but also included Medes and Elamites. They apparently had special privileges, such as being allowed to take concubines and servants along with them on the march. On coloured glazed bricks and carved reliefs found at the Achaemenian capitals, such as the Palace of Artaxerxes at Susa, the Immortals are often represented standing stiffly at attention, each soldier's wooden spear with its silver blade and pomegranate insignia held upright and resting firmly on his toe. They wore elaborate robes and much gold jewelry. An elite 1,000 of the Immortals were further distinguished by having gold pomegranates on their spears.
Encyclopædia Britannica: Ten Thousand Immortals @ http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=73525&sctn=1#s_top

Just some ideas/info

A

[Mahdimael]

Interesting stuff. You know, with the resources and all, you could make a very interesting and cool Colonization-esque scenario, with the normal players:
English
Dutch
French
Spanish
Portugese

and native peoples

South American Native Tribes (aztecs, incas)
Southern Tribes (Creoles, etc)
Northern Tribes (Iriquois, etc)


Also, I would love to see a "scenarios" folder where we can put our different scenario folders (or mods). A lot of the mods for civ2 had us copying over the units and rules...something where civ would detect which files are in the scenario directory and use those over the standard ones would be very very nice

[jsw363]

Mahdimael-

Your scenario is a great idea. Would like to play a colonization type scenario. Here are my suggestions:

South American Tribes-
Incas
Guarani

North American Tribes-
Aztecs
Maya (perhaps a few small outposts, as they were almost gone as a civ by the time of European arrival)
Iroquois
Inuit
Souix
(Note: Creole are not a tribe. Briefly, they are people descended from French/Spanish blood who lived in Louisiana area or alternately mestizos of mixed ancestry)

As for the Europeans, I would also include the Russians who had significant holdings in the west all the way down to present day California. There are other minor European countries who also got into the colonization game, but I don't really think that Sweeden etc. were big colonial players. (This is disregarding the Viking voyages across the Atlantic). I think it should be restricted to the "classic" era of colonization.

hetairoi- Thanks for the input. If the Greeks get the Phalanx, then what unit would replace it for eveyone else?

In WWII what should the British UU be?

[Timeline]

“Also, I would love to see a "scenarios" folder where we can put our different scenario folders (or mods). A lot of the mods for civ2 had us copying over the units and rules...something where civ would detect which files are in the scenario directory and use those over the standard ones would be very very nice ”

I have ME (Civ2 Multiplayer Gold Edition) and the way it operates scenarios is *exactly* the way you described. And yes, it is very very nice

[Timeline]

“Well I am sure that it was mentioned by Firaxis, some time ago that thewre will be 16 civs avaialble for scenarios...”

I am 99% sure of this too. Now after you say it I am 99.9% sure, but I can’t be 100% until I see the quote where they said it.

“1.EU (in the future they will be the western +eastern europe, going towards Turkey and Israel) - could be broken in two theree of four (Western Europe, eastern europe, turkey, and Israel - Israel would go with Western Europe in teh cse of a three civ situation)”

Question: Which countries shall goto eastern europe?

“4.Russia+former USSR republics (excluding the three baltic ones they go to eastern Europe and with EU)”

The Baltic states being who? Poland, Ukraine, and someone els?


Some great thoughts guys. I too like the Colonization Scenario.