Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[jsw363]

OneFootInTheGrave-

I have a couple of points about your post.

1. EU (or alternately Eastern and Western Europe)
Sounds good except for the Israel/ Turkey thing. Turkey is a member of NATO, so if you are doing political divisions then they should be with Western Europe. Israel gets most of its aid, technological support etc. from the US. I don't think the Europeans are as supportive of the Israeli agenda. Eastern Europe is an interesting choice since they would be in a hard position between EU and Russia. Not sure if this would work.

"2. US + Canada
3. China
4. Russian Federation
5. India
6. Sub-saharan Africa"
Do you include South Africa here? It might be interesting instead to create a civ made up of the Commonwealth Members (NZ, Australia, South Africa, Canada)

7. Latin America
"8.Islamic Nations (pakistan/ Iraq could go tho the rogue nation club)" I think that you can't include all Islamic nations (that would mean including Indonesia and Maylasia at least) We had discussed previously using the Arab League as a basis for this civ.

"9.Japan + Malaysian subcontinent & indonesia +Taiwan"
Does S. Korea fall here? Taiwan is ethnically and culturally Chinese, but within the US sphere of influence. Except for a brief period as the Japanese colony of Formosa, I don't really know that you should place Taiwan here in an expanded scenario. Will the other Asian tigers be here as well? If this is an economic division that might make more sense.

"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." Are you putting Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Tibet and Chechnya all together as one big rogue? That's a HUGE area. (Much bigger than India, which is an actualy civ) I wouldn't include Chechnya, Kasmir or Tibet as rogue nations. If anything they are points of conflict between civs (Russia & Arab League, India and Arab League) or provinces in revolt. The Chinese have a pretty good handle on Tibet right now and I don't think that the Dalai Lama is in the same catergory as Saddam Hussein, and Kim Il Jong as far as rogue leaders go.

I think a better list for a 16 civ scenario would be:
1. EU +Turkey
2. Eastern Europe
3. US
4. China
5. Russian Federation
6. India
7. Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa)
8. British Commonwealth (NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa)
9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and Bolivia)
10. Andean Pact and rest of South America
11. Central America and Carribean Basin
12. Arab League
13. Asian Tigers (from Indonesia to S. Korea)
14. Japan
15. Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iran
16. Rogue Nations

I believe that this would be much more balanced and create more interesting situations along civ fault lines. Opinions?

[Mahdimael]

Doh, I was thinking Seminole...my apologies...the brain got mixed up

--(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)

[Mahdimael]

How bizarre...I've never played Civ2:MPG... I only own vanilla old Civ2

Originally posted by 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

[OneFootInTheGrave]

About eastern europe firs, that would be a couple of countires Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, + Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, this is the area I am thinking of, it depends on the map space (if two cities possible).. you can have 1/2 of former Yugoslavia too.

As for the EU, it will eventually swallow present eastern europe. It is jut a metter of time, in 50 yrs for certain, but very likely within 10 years most of it. Than going towards Turkey and Israel. Turkey has already applied to become a member, but it has been suspended because of bad human righhts records, and some othe issues. Israel is supported politically by US, but culturally i think it has very strong ites wioth Europe, and if they are going ot go into an economical/ political alliance one day, I can bet it will be Europe. (Israeli sports clubs play in european championships already, and it has support politically from EU as well. UK gave them the land in the first place, etc... ) I dont think that israel will ever become 52nd US state . And it is closer/easier to defend as a part of EU. ...

i have to go now, I will comment on the rest later... but some good ideas, i like the britis commonwaealth civ

[Lonestar]

Well, I think y'all have some good I deas here, but personally I'm a big big fan of Alternate History, and think some alternate History Scenarios should be included.

The Great war
Alternate WWI

Central Powers:
USA
Germany/Austria
Turkey

Allies:
Confederate States of America
Russia
Britain/Canada
France

So, a lot of the fighting would be in North America. If a Map of Europe and NA could be worked out. Note, there will be Barbarians in the CSA (marxist Negroes)
(yes, I got this from Harry Turtledove's Books)



The Russian Revolution

Reds:
Boleshiviks
German Empire ( who supported Lenin)

Whites:
Tsar's forces
Americans
Japanese
French
British

Mostly this is shelf explanatory, It's the Reds v. the Whites (Including interceding Allies)


WW3

1. EU (Including Australia, and South Africa)
2. North America ( including S.K., Taiwan, Japan, Jerusalem)
3. CIS (including Serbia, or the city of Belgrade)
4. China (Ponyang included)
5. Islamic nations (Including Chechnya, and Sarejevo)
6. India
7. The OAS (South America)

War would break out after the EU attacks Serbian bases. India would begin a border war with the Islamic Nations, who are also opposed to the CIS. N.A, is with the EU, of course. The Great neutral state would be the OAS.

Just some thoughts.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Timeline

Commonwealth of Independent States: former USSR - President Boris Yeltsin
Timeline

Yeltsin is a past. The leader od the Russia must be Vladimir Putin.

[Timeline]

Wow, so so many good ideas here. Sorry I have not been responding to many posts here, but I have been using most of my free time checking out all the new features in Civ 3 at the website and for a while I was locked out of the forum . But that’s behind me now.

For the most part a agree with everything you have said jsw and I pretty much have the same thoughts.

“Eastern Europe is an interesting choice since they would be in a hard position between EU and Russia. Not sure if this would work.”

This may be a hard thing to balance out and hard from a game design point of view. Question: Western Europe is the EU? And will W. Europe be allied with eastern (I am sure it will, but I just need to ask). I like the idea but how will we be able to simulate the EU’s growth into E. Europe? Making the West have high culture would work but would have it’s disadvantages. I won’t go into detail about this because it is far to early to work out such details - but I just want you to know that E. Europe may forever be stuck apart from the West, except for the alliance they have. Or maybe we can have them start out with a mutual defense pact and a good relationship and they can work towards alliance.

I’m not too worried about the position East Europe will be in (it being a hard position). Because if they are allied (or have defense pact) with the West, and the West is allied with the U.S., then if China, Russia attacks them it’s world war 3 . In other words, they would be in a hard position if world war 3 breaks out, but they have as much deterrent as anyone els (except they won’t have nukes). This is all realistic IMO, and the more I talk about it the more I like it.

“About eastern europe firs, that would be a couple of countires Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, + Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, this is the area I am thinking of, it depends on the map space (if two cities possible).. you can have 1/2 of former Yugoslavia too.”

Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria - out of these will most likely use: Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest. Like you said, depends on size, but in the Civ2 scenario I am working from, these are all that will fit. Maybe Civ 3 world map will be bigger .

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - shouldn’t these go to the C.I.S.? Really, the only city we will use in these will be Murmansk.

“Do you include South Africa here? It might be interesting instead to create a civ made up of the Commonwealth Members (NZ, Australia, South Africa, Canada)”

“I like the britis commonwaealth civ.” -one foot in the grave

I like the idea too. But how can you have the Commonwealth without Britain?

“9.Japan + Malaysian subcontinent & indonesia +Taiwan" Does S. Korea fall here? Taiwan is ethnically and culturally Chinese, but within the US sphere of influence. Except for a brief period as the Japanese colony of Formosa, I don't really know that you should place Taiwan here in an expanded scenario. Will the other Asian tigers be here as well? If this is an economic division that might make more sense.”

An economic division, such as APEC? If so, we could throw Japan into this one.

“I wouldn't include Chechnya ... as [a] rogue nation. If anything [it is a] point of conflict between civs or provinces in revolt.”

In Civ2 the barbarians were used to symbolize Cities that had revolted. So, I don’t think it would be too far off to make Chechnya a rouge faction.

“Rogue civ ... would give all major civs some trouble to sort out and occupy.” - one foot in the grave


I think this is a cool idea. Opinion on this comment jsw363?

“Israel is supported politically by US, but culturally i think it has very strong ites wioth Europe, and if they are going ot go into an economical/ political alliance one day, I can bet it will be Europe. (Israeli sports clubs play in european championships already, and it has support politically from EU as well. UK gave them the land in the first place, etc... ) I dont think that israel will ever become 52nd US state . And it is closer/easier to defend as a part of EU...” - one foot in the grave

Nice thoughts, it goes to W. Europe then? I agree Turkey should go to the E.U.


Summery:
1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe

3. US

4. China - Would this include Vietnam, and Laos?

5. Russian Federation - This would be the former U.S.S.R. and called the C.I.S.

6. India

7. Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa)
8. British Commonwealth (NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa) - The Commonwealth without Britian? Hmmmm.......

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and Bolivia) - I am not familiar with MercoSur, I guess I have some research to do.

10. Andean Pact and rest of South America

11. Central America and Carribean Basin - Mexico and who els? I would like Puerto Rico in with U.S.

12. Arab League - including Iran

13. Asian Tigers (from Indonesia to S. Korea) - A.P.E.C.?

14. Japan - Put in with # 13?

15. Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iran

16. Rogue Nations


I look forward to your return One Foot In The Grave.

Let the discussion comence!

[Timeline]

"Yeltsin is a past. The leader od the Russia must be Vladimir Putin. "

Well, this scenario is supposed to be for the year 1995, at that time Putin was working with Russian Intelligence to plan ways to undermine the US and throw it into chaos . . .






5 years of maneuvering and preparation finally paid off in 2000 when Bush was elected president.

[Timeline]

Well, I have just spent the last two hours working on scenario design. I am going to bed now but I'll be back tommorow evening to check for any new posts.

I am basically copying from the old scenario but adding in all our changes, and also adding in some cities. I think the map I have here for Civ 2 is big enough for our scenario. I have 4 cities just in Pakistan!! Soon it should be good enough to show a few of you and see if you have any suggestions. Not much more we can do till Civ 3 comes out (which won't be long).

Well see you all tommorow.

[jsw363]

I am going to use Timeline's version of this as a basis for discussion since I agree with his the most. I have no idea how big this map is, but it sounds huge since Pakistan will have four cities. Should be interesting...

1. EU +Turkey
"Making the EU have high culture would work but would have it’s disadvantages." -Timeline
I like this idea, since Eastern Europe is still recovering from Soviet occupation and thus has "lost much of it's culture." We could even include a Russian national or two in these cities to represent thier influence under the Soviet regime.

2. Eastern Europe

3. US
I'd like to include Israel here and not in the EU for the following reasons.
1. Since their failure in Suez (1956), the European powers have ceded the Middle East to the US as a "sphere of influence".
2. The US consistantly uses thier influece (and veto) on the Security Council of the UN (any MANY other organizations) to stop any resolutions critical of Israeli behavior. The European powers have never vetoed any such resolution, though do occasionally abstain. Just this March the US alone vetoed sending in UN observers to Israel, because it was scared of what the observers would report about Isreali behavior.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
3. It is not the EU, but the US that provides Israel with BILLIONS of dollars in aid annually. If the EU is really so Pro-Israel they should put their money where their mouth is.
4. The US also supports the Isreali army with technology, training and logistical support. I haven't found evidence of such a deep connection with any of the European powers.

4. China - Would this include Vietnam, and Laos?
Vietnam is still communist as is Laos, so I think that they more closely fit with China than APEC. (Don't know what to do about Burma/Myanmar since they are under a military dictatorship)

5. Russian Federation - This would be the former U.S.S.R. and called the C.I.S.
"Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - shouldn’t these go to the C.I.S.? Really, the only city we will use in these will be Murmansk. "
Isn't Murmansk in Russia? Shouldn't we use Riga or Vilnius? And I think that they should be in E. Europe since they declared independence.
As for Chechnya, Grozni could be a city heavily influenced by Islamic culture that would likely break off. A barabarian civ wouldn't be out of the question either, as long as the citizens were of the Islamic civ.

6. India

7. Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa)
8. British Commonwealth (NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa) - "The Commonwealth without Britian? Hmmmm......." - Timeline
Perhaps it would be better to exclude Britain from the EU and put them with the rest of the commonwealth. Any opinions on this. Britain is definitely less integrated than many of the countries and this would help the commonwealth be more powerful. (Also I guess this means that Ireland has to be part of the EU.)(And, this designation has problems, I jsut realized since the commonwealth has about 54 countries among them Pakistan, India, Bermuda and Guyana.)

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and Bolivia)
This is an tariff union that includes the most developed countries in S. America. (Bolivia and Chile are only associate members)

10. Andean Pact and rest of South America

11. Central America and Carribean Basin - "Mexico and who else? I would like Puerto Rico in with U.S. " - Timeline
I don't know how the map size plays out, but perhaps San Jose, Managua, San Salvador and Guatemala City end up in there?

12. Arab League - including Iran

13. Asian Tigers- Thailand, Indonesia, Maylasia, S. Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Borneo, Cambodia, etc.
It's not really APEC since Mexico, Russia and the US are some of the additional members to the countries we are talking about.

14. Japan - Put in with # 13?
I think that they're strong enough to stand on their own in a 16 civ scenario.

15. Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iran

16. Rogue Nations

It will be really interesting to figure out the ethnic makeups of all these civs. It could be really important in how easily new cities assimilate.

[Timeline]

“I'd like to include Israel here and not in the EU for the following reasons.”

Ok, I agree.

4. China - Would this include Vietnam, and Laos?
“Vietnam is still communist as is Laos, so I think that they more closely fit with China than APEC. (Don't know what to do about Burma/Myanmar since they are under a military dictatorship)”

Okay, Vietnam and Laos are in china.

What do we do with Bangladesh and Nepal?

5. Russian Federation - This would be the former U.S.S.R. and called the C.I.S.

“Isn't Murmansk in Russia?”

Yes, you are right of course. I got a little confused last night on where Estonia is (I thought it was farther north), I have downloaded a few maps and have it figured out.

“Shouldn't we use Riga or Vilnius?”

Yep, we will use both.

“And I think that they should be in E. Europe since they declared independence.”

Yeah, I checked my reference, looks like there are only 12 C.I.S. members today, and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania aren’t among. I must say, you know your stuff, you know far more than I do.

Okay, they are in with East Europe.

“As for Chechnya, Grozni could be a city heavily influenced by Islamic culture that would likely break off. A barabarian civ wouldn't be out of the question either, as long as the citizens were of the Islamic civ.”

Neat thoughts. Maybe we could program a random chance for a barbarian uprising in that area with a message “Chechnya Revolts! Rebels Take up Arms Near Grozni.” Maybe give it a random chance based on City happiness. Well, like I said before, it’s too early to start planning in THAT detail.

6. India

7. Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa)

8. British Commonwealth (NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa) - "The Commonwealth without Britian? Hmmmm......." - Timeline

“Perhaps it would be better to exclude Britain from the EU and put them with the rest of the commonwealth.

I think if we are going to use the Commonwealth as a civ then Britain must be in it . And I do like the idea, -alot-.

“Any opinions on this.”

I too would like to hear other people’s opinions

“Britain is definitely less integrated than many of the countries and this would help the commonwealth be more powerful.”

I agree with you here.

“(Also I guess this means that Ireland has to be part of the EU.)”

Does Ireland have a closer relationship with the EU than the UK? I know they have strong religious differences, is there anything els that divides them? (Again a subject I don’t know too much about.)

Is there anyway we can sneak Ireland in there? Perhaps by making the City on the island Belfast, instead of Dublin, effectively leaving Ireland out while not allowing the Island to go to waste.

“(And, this designation has problems, I jsut realized since the commonwealth has about 54 countries among them Pakistan, India, Bermuda and Guyana.)”

Ouch! Well we can still give them their own Civ and have them start out with a close affiliation with the Commonwealth.

Perhaps we could limit the commonwealth it to only a few:

Great Britain
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
South Africa (and Swaziland)
Falkland Islands
Papau New Guinea
Singapore



Really, we did the same thing with the Arab League and Iraq, so I don’t see why we can’t do it here too.

“9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and Bolivia)
This is an tariff union that includes the most developed countries in S. America. (Bolivia and Chile are only associate members)”

Are there any good Pacts which we could unite Africa under?

“10. Andean Pact and rest of South America”

Do you really think it is good to break up South America so much? The more we break them up, the weaker they will be . . . . and perhaps the less fun it will be play them.

It is however much more fun to play against many civs (at least for me) and it is realistic to break them up as much as possible I suppose. I guess the question is who do we want the playable civs to be here? Open to debate.

“11. Central America and Carribean Basin - "Mexico and who else? I would like Puerto Rico in with U.S. " - Timeline
I don't know how the map size plays out, but perhaps San Jose, Managua, San Salvador and Guatemala City end up in there?”

Yes, All of them can fit but it would be tight. Perhaps it would be best if we dropped San Jose, and Guatemala /or/ San Salvador.

12. Arab League - including Iran

13. Asian Tigers- Thailand, Indonesia, Maylasia, S. Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Borneo, Cambodia, etc.

It's not really APEC since Mexico, Russia and the US are some of the additional members to the countries we are talking about.”

Same thing, again, with what we did with the Arab League (no Iraq) and the Commonwealth of Nations (no India) . It is impossible to be perfect, especially with a game like Civ. Civ 3 will help get closer by giving us 16 civs, but we will never be able to get everything exactly right. I think most people will understand this, and what we are planning here is better than anything I have ever seen for Civ 2 (even our old 8 nation list was far superior to anything currently available.)

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to do anything unnecessarily unrealistic, but how els we gonna tie in these nations? ‘Asian Tigers’ isn’t really a name of a Civ, APEC could be passed as a Civ.

Please fill me in.

14. Japan - Put in with # 13?
I think that they're strong enough to stand on their own in a 16 civ scenario.

Hmm, Japan strong enough to stand on their own? What is it that makes you say that? Now I admit, they have a killer economy, but then again they rely almost entirely on the US as a consumer market. They are forbidden to maintain a military except for self defense. They are heavily dependent on imported raw materials and fuels, which is mostly from the US, also almost 50% of their food is imported. The crowding of habitable land area and the aging of the population remain major problems. All in all, my opinion is Japan would be better off being put in with the US or Asain nations, but NOT by itself (LOL the idea just strikes me as ridicules, especially with only 16 Civs. There are many others I would give their own civ before JAPAN).

Well, this is my opinion, but I am open to reason . . . .

[jsw363]

OK... a new version...

1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe + Baltics

3. US + Israel

4. China (+Vietnam, Laos)
(Where does Mongolia go? It's a republic. It's not APEC material and not a rogue.)

5. CIS

6. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)
Nepal has historical, geographical, cultural, religious (Hindu) and linguistic links to India.

7. Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa)
I have no idea what org. there is that covers this. Not my area. Org. of African Unity has ALL African members, and so is too big, so I have no ideas....

8. British Commonwealth (Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Papua New Guinea)
Sounds good to me. Don't even know if the village on the Falklands will be big enough to register. There's mostly just sheep there....
On Ireland. You tell me if there's enough room for two cities there. I think it's kind of **** to do Belfast instead of Dublin. Ireland is a totally independent country and with the way nationalism is running in that country nowdays I think that they'd prefer the EU to Britain, but personally I don't care.

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile)

10. Andean Pact (Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Guayanas)
It was sort of my hope that by splitting them up that Brazil and the rest would engulf the other non-Mercosur countries. I don't know what they're relative strengths will be.

11. Central America and Carribean Basin

12. Arab League (Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States)

13. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore)
I think that Singapore is much more like India in this case. A colony who has gained independence and is now sufficiently culturally and politically autonomous to deserve indepence (in the civ sense). So let's lump them with APEC.

14. Japan - Put in with # 13?
I think that if you put Japan with APEC it will be a powerhouse. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But I think that their foreign policy interests are divergent. Japan is industrialized, the rest aren't. Yeah, they are dependent on others for many goods, but that will just mean that they'll have extensive trade routes with the US and others. What others would you have on their own besides Japan? (Asia's NOT my area of expertise)

15. Islamic Civ (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)
Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan for many years. They still share many cultural and religious links.

16. Rogue Nations (Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba)

We can't make all civs equally powerful. That's impossible. But we can make it reasonable equal. I think that the EU, US, BCommonwealth, CIS, and China will probably be the most powerful. As for the rest I think that they should be weak. It's not like Mercosur force poised to take over the world. I don't have strong feelings about the Japanese inclusion thing, but I am jsut trying to imagine how this will all play out. Some civs will have better coping strategies than others. CARICOM will have a economic ties to the US and Japan and APEC will have extensive ties. I think that their alliances will help also.
I understand the naming point as well. You're just trying to create usable names.... I can't think of any names for some areas (C. America and Africa) Possibilities?

When do you think that you're gonna have the basic layout ready?

[Timeline]

OK... I like this new version much better.

1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe + Baltics

3. US + Israel

4. China (+Vietnam, Laos)
“(Where does Mongolia go? It's a republic. It's not APEC material and not a rogue.)”

I don’t know. I will think about this for a while and come up with an answer.

5. CIS

“6. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)
Nepal has historical, geographical, cultural, religious (Hindu) and linguistic links to India.”

“7. Sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa)
I have no idea what org. there is that covers this. Not my area. Org. of African Unity has ALL African members, and so is too big, so I have no ideas....”

We’ll think of something, even is we have to call them “The African Alliance”

8. British Commonwealth (Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Papua New Guinea)
“Sounds good to me. Don't even know if the village on the Falklands will be big enough to register. There's mostly just sheep there....”

How big is Stanley? It can fit if we want, and it could always be a small town. Falkland Islands could be a critical staging point if (and when) Britain wants to colonize the Antarctic or if they ever need to carry out “peace keeping” missions in B.A. j/k

“On Ireland. You tell me if there's enough room for two cities there. I think it's kind of **** to do Belfast instead of Dublin.”

LOL, okay I hear you. I didn’t necessarily want Belfast more than Dublin, I just didn’t want to give Great Britain I nice reason (or desire) to ever want to go to war with the EU because they have a city that close to their capital. But, what ya gonna do? Maybe the Civ 3 AI will be better than the Civ 2 one (IT BETTER BE!!!).

Yes, there’s enough room for both. Great Britain is 12 tiles, Ireland is 4.

“Ireland is a totally independent country and with the way nationalism is running in that country nowdays I think that they'd prefer the EU to Britain, but personally I don't care.”

Whatever you think is more realistic, but I agree with your last statement (after doing some research on it).

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile)

“10. Andean Pact (Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Guayanas)
It was sort of my hope that by splitting them up that Brazil and the rest would engulf the other non-Mercosur countries. I don't know what they're relative strengths will be.”

Hmm, well I heard rumors a while back that US police in Ecuador were fighting off guerrillas that were crossing over from Colombia. Is this true? If it is, then I can see why your (extreme) breakdown of SA might be good. It would allow the US to fight a war against Colombia and Peru while not threatening the rest (Mexico and Brazil). Do you think this is realistic?

I am still am wondering if THREE CIVS for south America Alone is too much. But I do like Mexico Separate from the rest.

“11. Central America and Carribean Basin”

12. Arab League (Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States)

“13. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore)
I think that Singapore is much more like India in this case. A colony who has gained independence and is now sufficiently culturally and politically autonomous to deserve indepence (in the civ sense). So let's lump them with APEC.”

Okay.

“14. Japan - Put in with # 13?
I think that if you put Japan with APEC it will be a powerhouse. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But I think that their foreign policy interests are divergent. Japan is industrialized, the rest aren't. Yeah, they are dependent on others for many goods, but that will just mean that they'll have extensive trade routes with the US and others. What others would you have on their own besides Japan? (Asia's NOT my area of expertise)”

Maybe it would be best if we used the extra spot to break down Africa a little more.

Where Japan goes really depends on what the Civ 3 gameplay is like. It all comes down to if you can airlift into -airbases- or just cities. If you can only airlift into cities then nations like the US will need cities under there control around the world to simulate their ability to project control (aircraft carriers never did this well in Civ because they are too slow). Places like Kuwait, Seoul, Japan, and Jerusalem will be ideal for these reasons.

Now, on the other hand, if Civ 3 is an improvement besides just graphics, and it is possible to airlift into bases, then we will use that to simulate US military influence and Kuwait, Seoul, and Japan can go elsewhere (Arabs and Asians).

“But I think that their foreign policy interests are divergent. Japan is industrialized, the rest aren't.”

Perhaps, but what about there military? All their “foreign policy interests” that you mentioned are economic and not military. They are really helpless to enforce their Foreign policy except through laws and support from the US. In a scenario, they would be nothing but trading partners and a few US military units would be sitting on their island . . . as far as I can tell. In a scenario, Japan would must likely start trading with other civs, the US would get mad and tell them to embargo the civ, Japan would get mad and cancel the alliance and tell the US to get out.

I can’t see such a thing happening in real life. I think they would more realistically be represented by the US. After all, Japan is the US base of military operation in the Pacific.



“15. Islamic Civ (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)
Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan for many years. They still share many cultural and religious links.”

Okay, great, I see a war comming on between India and Pakistan sometime soon .

16. Rogue Nations (Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba)

We can't make all civs equally powerful. That's impossible. But we can make it reasonable equal. I think that the EU, US, BCommonwealth, CIS, and China will probably be the most powerful. As for the rest I think that they should be weak. It's not like Mercosur force poised to take over the world.

Yes, I agree. And if the player want to take charge of Mercosur, let him! It will be a challenge to convert his civ into a force to be reckoned with, while navigating diplomatic relations and trading in the mean time. The US will never know what hit em, lol. I agree.

No more time, I will be back!

[Timeline]

“When do you think that you're gonna have the basic layout ready?”

Well, right now I am placing cities and making alterations to the map. This stuff takes hours to do. I think I will have something for you to look at by next Sunday.


Come on people, we need ideas! If you have read this far you must be interested, speak up!

[Colon™]

Timeline, jsw, maybe you should leave out the British Commonwealth altogether since the main significance it has is symbolic. (it's just the remainder of the former Brittish empire) The largest impact it has on world politics is that of an international forum and the capability to suspend undemocratic members.
I also don’t believe it would be a viable civ (too disjointed) and it would be better the merge its subparts with the other civs.

Ireland and UK are definitely bound more tightly with EU than they are with the Commonwealth, since they share supranational structures (superior parliament, court of justice, an executive etc) with the other EU countries.

I’m aware that it would create problems with Canada and Australia, but I suggest to merge them with APEC and separate Japan from it. (it should be a viable civ)

Besides, I wouldn't underestimate the economic power of several APEC countries. South Korea and Taiwan and Malaysia have manufacturing industries rivalling that of the West. (particularily electronics, but SK is also a major shipbuilding and automobile manufacturing country)

[Timeline]

“Timeline, jsw, maybe you should leave out the British Commonwealth altogether. I’’m aware that it would create problems with Canada and Australia, but I suggest to merge them with APEC and separate Japan from it. (it should be a viable civ)”

Are you suggesting we give Japan a civ over Canada or Australia?! Is there something I am missing about Japan? Someone needs to explain this too me.

If we were to get rid of the Commonwealth, then I would make Canada its own nation in place of the Commonwealth. After that, you’d have to choose if you want Australia independent instead of Japan and give Japan to the US.

Option 1:
APEC + Australia
Japan
Canada
US
Mexico and Central America

Option 2:

APEC
Australia
US + Japan
Canada
Mexico and Central America

I think it is rather silly to put Canada in with a bunch of Asian nations.

Question: Why is it so important that Japan (Small Country) gets independence rather than Canada (Big Country).

Now don’t go telling me that size doesn’t matter, that there are other factors like culture, economic influence and all that other stuff, don’t say it! SIZE DOES MATTER! Don’t tell me that 90% of Canada’s population lives on the southern edge, I ALREADY KNOW! THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CANADA THAN JAPAN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

I wouldn't underestimate the economic power of several APEC countries. South Korea and Taiwan and Malaysia have manufacturing industries rivalling that of the West.

Hmm, sounds like Japan could fit right in with APEC too, wouldn’t you say? :LOL:

[Colon™]

Timeline,
Regarding Japan and Canada, Japan has a population 4 times larger than that the Canadian and an economy that’s also 4-5 times larger, so it’s hardly a small country. In comparison with Australia, Japan is a behemoth.
Provided you can simulate real life situations well, merging Japan with US should give a civ that dwarfs every other civs in economic strength, since IRL they constitute half the world’s economy, so this would create game imbalances.

Lumping together Canada with Asian countries seems silliness but I don’t believe it’s practical to worry about this sort of it. If you would, then you can abolish APEC altogether because most of the assumed members have problematic relations with at least one of the other members. (North Korea and South Korea, South Korea and Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand...)

Actually, if you want to rule out such silliness, you could abolish nearly all the civs listed, except US and perhaps EU.

[Timeline]

“Regarding Japan and Canada, Japan has a population 4 times larger than that the Canadian and an economy that’’s also 4-5 times larger, so it’’s hardly a small country. In comparison with Australia, Japan is a behemoth.
Provided you can simulate real life situations well, merging Japan with US should give a civ that dwarfs every other civs in economic strength, since IRL they constitute half the world’’s economy, so this would create game imbalances.”

Canada’s population: 31,281,092

Australia’s population: 19,169,083

Japan’s population: 126,549,976

I guess I should check my facts before speaking so loudly.

“Lumping together Canada with Asian countries seems silliness but I don’’t believe it’’s practical to worry about this sort of it.”

Well of course you need to worry about it. But, the real task lies in finding which silliness is tolerable, and which would drive you crazy. So there is a need for tolerance for silliness, but I would never say “don’t worry about”. If we didn’t worry about it this scenario would probably be in the weeds right now (that’s assuming it is not already and i don’t know about it )

“If you would, then you can abolish APEC altogether because most of the assumed members have problematic relations with at least one of the other members. (North Korea and South Korea, South Korea and Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand...)”

Most of these nations you stated here are not even in the same civ in our current layout:

North Korea is in China
Japan is not in APEC.
Singapore I don’t know where the heck they will go, but they will probably end up with Asians.

3 out a 4 aint bad at all. Considering you can never get it perfect, this is like a 100%!!

“If you would, then you can abolish APEC altogether because most of the assumed members have problematic relations with at least one of the other members.”

“Actually, if you want to rule out such silliness, you could abolish nearly all the civs listed, except US and perhaps EU.”

You are just playing a name game here. We could call all those nations Australo-Asians or Asian Tigers or about 50 other names for all I care. They don’t have to be “APEC” or “ARAB LEAGUE”. It is just like jsw said, we are just trying to create usable names. Something that will put the player in an environment that really makes him feel like he is a world leader with all these coalitions and unions. Obviously with 16 civs we are gonna have limitations, and are gonna have to make sacrifices sometimes, but such is life.

You know, you never commented on my first list. What do you think of this:

APEC + Australia ( or Australia could go to the EU)
Japan
Canada
US
Mexico and Central America

I guess we have an option 3 too, putting Canada in with US. This would open up a civ slot for ... who?

[Colon™]

Well, I’m aware that you’ll have to be pragmatic, which is why I don’t understand why lumping Canada with Asian countries isn’t acceptable, but something such as Japan with APEC is. (you did propose that) Canada is a member of APEC IRL already so...
When I said that you could abolish nearly all the civs I didn’t meant to say you can only leave 2 civs, just that you’d have to transform the current list since nearly all civs include countries having rocky relations and serious disputes with each other.

Maybe you should first think of a guideline for your civs, whether to compose them according to culture, political allegiance, economic strength or something else.

BTW, it’s my intention to be constructive, by making suggestions and giving information, but you're free to decline it. In case you'd think otherwise, I’m not trying to make life hard for you.

[Timeline]

First off you said,

When I said that you could abolish nearly all the civs I didn’’t meant to say you can only leave 2 civs, just that you’’d have to transform the current list since nearly all civs include countries having rocky relations and serious disputes with each other.

Yes yes, I understood what you meant, my response may have sounded like I was talking about breaking the world down into two nations, but I was not. When I said:

“You are just playing a name game here. We could call all those nations Australo-Asians or Asian Tigers or about 50 other names for all I care. They don’’t have to be “APEC”“

When I said this I was talking about the APEC or Asain nations.

What is more, I meant to say I WANT names like APEC and ARAB LEAGUE and MERCOSUR because it’s “Something that will put the player in an environment that really makes him feel like he is a world leader with all these coalitions and unions.”

I am very sorry for the confusion, looking back at my message, I see it was very hard to understand.

“Well, I’’m aware that you’’ll have to be pragmatic, which is why I don’’t understand why lumping Canada with Asian countries isn’’t acceptable, but something such as Japan with APEC is.”


Consider: Why lump Asian countries with American countries, when you can lump Asian Countries with Asian countries? - it is a better geographical breakdown.

Japan has more cultural links to Asia than does Canada.

“Canada is a member of APEC IRL already so...”

Yeah, and so is Russia, China, The United States, Japan, Mexico, and Peru, among others. Why call our grouping of nations APEC then, you ask. For now, here is the argument for making APEC a civ:

In our scenario of the modern world, most of the independent Asian, Malaysian, and Indonesian countries will be grouped under a single civ called the Independent APEC Nations. APEC was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence among Asia-Pacific countries. APEC has since become the primary regional vehicle for promoting open trade and practical economic cooperation. In 1999 APEC's 21 member nations had a combined GDP of over 18 trillion dollars (US) and 43 percent of global trade. APEC’s independent Asian nations maintain close ties to China, Russia, and the U.S. Their goal is to increase Asia’s sense of community and to advance Asia-Pacific economic influence around the world.

I still think Japan should be part of APEC

“Maybe you should first think of a guideline for your civs, whether to compose them according to culture, political allegiance, economic strength or something else.”

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, we already did this a while back. I think we settled on “Political, Economic, or Military Pacts” - a little different than “political allegiance”.

“BTW, it’’s my intention to be constructive, by making suggestions and giving information, but you're free to decline it.”

Thank you very much. I could use all the Suggestions and info I can get. You could help a lot by giving your (humble ) opinion of everything I said above. Your opinion based on a (possible) future player of the scenario and your own understanding of world affairs.

“In case you'd think otherwise, I’’m not trying to make life hard for you.”

I was beginning to wonder . After reading your post I went to the left panel looking for a “pulling hair out” face

[Colon™]

Timeline, so essentially, you want to randomly shape the civs to what feels best?

[Timeline]

Well I wouldn’t say random really. I want a lot of thinking and debate (such as this) to go into the division of the various factions. I think that the breakdown will be geographical mostly, however with politically affiliated names (I.E. APEC rather than Autralo-Asians, Arab League rather than Arabs, US rather than Americans . . . you get the idea).

Of course I want it to feel good.

I would really appreciate your opinion of all I have said in my last few posts.

[jsw363]

Guys- Sorry I've been MIA for a while.

Colon- Your comments are definitely appreciated. We are uncertain how to create "hard boundaries" for our civs. Some are economic alliances (Mercosur), some political (CIS), some a combination (EU) and some neither (US). I suggested a "cultural" breakdown into civs for the 8 civ game, but I don't know what to do with 16 civs. We're open to suggestions. I don't know enough purely economic or political alliances to encompase all the nations of the world. I think that our system of creating civs basically as we see fit definitely has problems, but I think that it's the best solution.

Colon - About the Commonwealth. We're not creating civs that necessarily have geopolitical significance based on the organizations themselves. We thought that it would be a good idea for a civ since these countries all share similar values, not because the Commonwealth is a name feared across the world. I personally don't think that they'd be that disjointed. I think they share much in common culturally, linguistically, economically and politically. Britain trades much more with members of the commonwealth for historic reasons. I believe that up until the 1950's they've had preferential tariff systems and were quite unified economically. I wouldn't discount this option quite yet.

But assuming that we've done away with the commonwealth...
the debate of the day seems to be - Japan

I still think that they should be independent. A US-Japan alliance would be unbalancing. A Japan-APEC alliance makes them much more of a power then they are. Japan's a powerful country that should be able to support itself. (maybe one of it's first moves will be to get a military)

I don't think that Canada is powerful enough to stand on its own. It could go to the US, or APEC. I'd favor the US because of cultural similarities (this shady reasoning might get me into trouble with Colon though ) That unfortunately leaves the problem of Australia, which can't stand on its own, but doesn't have anywhere to go.

I guess that until I hear your responses I'd be in favor of this, though I am not pleased with it.

Option 1:
APEC + Australia
Japan
US +Canada
Mexico and Central America

The 16th space could be taken up by another African civ, but I don't know how well it would do. Their largest country (Congo) is a rogue and there aren't really any other players in Africa which could lead factions. (like in South America)

If you did want to split Latin America up differently, you could do A Mexico/Carribean civ, but include Colombia, Venezuela and the Guayanas and a Mercosur +Peru +Ecuador civ. At that point however we're losing all civ distinctions. There's no treaty, arrangement etc. that would split Latin America this way. I think that you need to split it up somehow since a civ with Brazil, Mexico and Argentina would be too powerful (compared to what the reality is). Latin America is much more fractured than the EU. Brazil wants to be the regional leader. Argentina is in competition with them and Mexico is "so far from God, so close to the US." (AKA dealing with all their own US issues). I don't think that 3 civs would be bad, but again I'll wait until I see all the cities laid out.

EU - The Ireland issue. I guess this may be resolved by the dissolution of the commonwealth, but I'm not sure that 4squares is enough for two cities. One would be better. I think that it should be Dublin since it's Irish and most of the island is Irish territory.

Don't know if this post helped clear things up or muddle them up...

Timeline- Brits failed three times to get into BA. Don't think they'd stand a chance...

[Timeline]

Colon- Your comments are definitely appreciated. We are uncertain how to create "hard boundaries" for our civs. Some are economic alliances (Mercosur), some political (CIS), some a combination (EU) and some neither (US). I suggested a "cultural" breakdown into civs for the 8 civ game, but I don't know what to do with 16 civs. We're open to suggestions. I don't know enough purely economic or political alliances to encompase all the nations of the world. I think that our system of creating civs basically as we see fit definitely has problems, but I think that it's the best solution.

Yes, well said. We are very open to suggestions.

“Colon - About the Commonwealth. We're not creating civs that necessarily have geopolitical significance based on the organizations themselves.”

We aren’t?

“We thought that it would be a good idea for a civ since these countries all share similar values, not because the Commonwealth is a name feared across the world.”

We did?

“I personally don't think that they'd be that disjointed. I think they share much in common culturally, linguistically, economically and politically. Britain trades much more with members of the commonwealth for historic reasons. I believe that up until the 1950's they've had preferential tariff systems and were quite unified economically. I wouldn't discount this option quite yet.”

Would you be willing to make a formal argument/introduction type presentation similar to what I did with APEC? Something that justifies their inclusion? I don’t mean to sound stupid but such a thing would help me to know what roll they would have, their disposition, their goals and such things. Something that might pop up if you select that civ to play.


“the debate of the day seems to be - Japan”

....... ah ....... Japan.

“I still think that they should be independent. A US-Japan alliance would be unbalancing. A Japan-APEC alliance makes them much more of a power then they are. Japan's a powerful country that should be able to support itself. (maybe one of it's first moves will be to get a military)”

I guess I have no choice but to concede . Everyone who as posted here recently (2 ppl LOL) have said Japan can stand on it’s own in a 16 scenario. Very well, it shall.

I think it’s much more realistic to put Canada with the U.S. for 2 reasons.

1. Culture. The stuff you mentioned about cultural similarities.

And 2. Military. Canada lies to the north of US across a completely unfortified and undefended boarder. If the US went to war with any of those Asian Countries (although I don’t think this would happen and I can’t think of any reasons off hand) Then the Asian nations would very well use Canada as a staging point for a counter strike!! LOL! I don’t think that is too realistic.

This is still “shady reasoning” on my part, but I think you already know what I am talking about and I’m too lazy to think too much right now .

APEC + Australia

Australia could always go to the EU. Or we could give it our 16th space.

The 16th space could be taken up by another African civ, but I don't know how well it would do. Their largest country (Congo) is a rogue and there aren't really any other players in Africa which could lead factions. (like in South America)

Well, I don’t think we can use the OAU (Organization for African Unity) because it includes in its member nations *all* nations in Africa, including all the Arab nations that we have put in the Arab League. Further, it’s headquarters are located in Ethiopia, so the Arabs are just as much of a part of the organization as the sub-Saharan nations are. Also, it would never work because it is very disjointed. They have trouble just mediating disputes among it’s member nation, let alone standing as a world power.

Let’s just make all those African nations barbarians!! Hehe.... just kidding, pretend I never said that.

“If you did want to split Latin America up differently, you could do A Mexico/Carribean civ, but include Colombia, Venezuela and the Guayanas and a Mercosur +Peru +Ecuador civ. At that point however we're losing all civ distinctions. There's no treaty, arrangement etc. that would split Latin America this way. I think that you need to split it up somehow since a civ with Brazil, Mexico and Argentina would be too powerful (compared to what the reality is). Latin America is much more fractured than the EU. Brazil wants to be the regional leader. Argentina is in competition with them and Mexico is "so far from God, so close to the US." (AKA dealing with all their own US issues). I don't think that 3 civs would be bad, but again I'll wait until I see all the cities laid out.”

Sunday . . . . you can see it then.

“EU - The Ireland issue. I guess this may be resolved by the dissolution of the commonwealth, but I'm not sure that 4squares is enough for two cities. One would be better. I think that it should be Dublin since it's Irish and most of the island is Irish territory.”

Okay, it’s no longer an issue now . Thanks for input

“Don't know if this post helped clear things up or muddle them up...”

I don’t know either, but it gave the thread a much needed bump. It’s good to have you back though jsw. And Colon, get your sorry empirical butt over here and post RIGHT NOW.

Hey, check it out, I am a Warlord

Keep the Ideas comming!

[jsw363]

Timeline- For an American you're awfully status conscious. All this stuff about "Warlord" this and "Chieftan" that. Don't go and get all uppity on me, ya hear?

So....

1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe + Baltics

3. US, Canada + Israel

Good reasoning on Canada BTW.

4. China (+Vietnam, Laos, Mongolia?)

5. CIS

6. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

7. African Union (minus South Africa)

8. British Commonwealth (Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Papua New Guinea)
If we dissolve this where will they go? South Africa Could be the leader of the British ex-colonies in Africa (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania) Australia, NZ and Papua New Guinea could form a civ, but it'd be weak. I am liking the commonwealth idea more and more. I'll come up with a description later.

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile)

10. Andean Pact (Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Guayanas)

The US is fighting a drug war in Colombia. They also have ops in Peru and Ecuador and possibly Bolivia. It's part of a larger initiative to stop (or stem) the drug trade that also includes economic assistance and other stuff. How messed up is it to give people you're fighting a war against aid?

The way I see it playing out is that Mercosur will take over the rest of South America, but won't get to Mexico. That's a realistic possibility at least in economic terms.

11. Central America and Carribean Basin (Mexico)

12. Arab League (Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States)

13. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore)

14. Japan
Finally! (kidding)

15. Islamic Civ (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)

16. Rogue Nations (Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba)

I forget what we've agreed upon and what we've changed now, but it seems pretty stable. Opinions?

[Juggernaut]

Maybe a "The Beginning" scenario, starting >4000 BC, if it's possible. Starring Germanics, Etruscs, Celts, Slavics, Iberians etc. All would be nomads at first and have no techs at all (not even irrigation) at start.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Hey guys,

I think these 16 civ variations, but we Have to remember that territory palys a major role in CIV. So US & Canada would be by fatr the most poferful civ on the world, since US is most technologically/economically/ military advanced and has a lot of population and canada would in turn double it's territory, while Japan would be stuck on one litttle island (compared to other civ's), and would need to go to war quickly to survive a bit longer.

I like the divisions, you just need to place them on the map, and give civ's some space to survice a bit longer.

It would be interesting to balance the allied/hostile blocks.

EU
allied with eastern europe, very friendly with USA and commonwealth.

Friendly with Japan, and neutral with the rest, maybe hostile to the Islamic civ.


USA

Hostile to China, and Islamic civ.

We could have a latin american alliance as well to make them stronger. I don't know to whom could they be hostile?

Africans could be a hostile toward europeans (maybe as a consequence of colonization) to make the relationships a bit more interesting.



Islamic civ and arab league could have another alliance as well .

So could Japan and APEC.

British commonwealth could be the neutral guys and india/ subsaharan africa ,cis and china could stand for themselves?

India hostile towards the islamic civ.

China hostile towards american civ.

CIS is kind of neutral, (if there is 5 levels of diplomatic relationships with 5 being alliance) Commonwelath could be 3 with everyone and CIS should be 2 with everyone, but not totally hostile.

[jsw363]

OneFootInTheGrave-

If we separate the US and Canada, what should we do with Canada? Did you like the Commonwealth idea? I see that you included it in your post so I am thinking that you do...

Timeline-

Don't know if you're at this stage yet, but check out this site for specifics on the armies:
http://www.toshiro.f2s.com/oob/
It has all the details you'll need to assemble the units correctly.

[Timeline]

1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe + Baltics

3. US, Canada + Israel

4. China (+Vietnam, Laos, Mongolia?)

5. CIS

6. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

7. African Union (minus South Africa)

8. British Commonwealth (Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Papua New Guinea)

I am liking the commonwealth idea more and more. I'll come up with a description later.

Yes me too. In your description, try to give a justification on why it’s it’s own civ.

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile)

10. Andean Pact (Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Guayanas)

The US is fighting a drug war in Colombia. They also have ops in Peru and Ecuador and possibly Bolivia. It's part of a larger initiative to stop (or stem) the drug trade that also includes economic assistance and other stuff. How messed up is it to give people you're fighting a war against aid?

I thought the U.S. have military base(s) in Ecuador? The U.S. is not on good terms with Colombia, maybe because of the drug issue?

“The way I see it playing out is that Mercosur will take over the rest of South America, but won't get to Mexico. That's a realistic possibility at least in economic terms.”

Maybe in economic terms but not realistic in military terms wouldn’t you say? (That is, MercoSur taking over rest of SA)

Why not just put Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guayana in with the rest? (current MercoSur) I know you would not prefer this but it may be for the best.

11. Central America and Carribean Basin (Mexico)

12. Arab League (Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States)

13. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore)
14. Japan

15. Independent Islamic States (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)

16. Rogue Nations (Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba)

Opinions?

My opinion is that it is very good.

OneFootInTheGrave -

You are 100% correct! Territory = Power in Civ 2. Although it’s unfortunate, many small cities are far more powerful than a few big ones. In the old Civ 2 scenario that gave me the inspiration to create a newer version for Civ 3, the US was way to powerful because it had Canada and a ton of land to terraform and expand into to the north. If we are working under the same conditions then we will *have to* give Canada to someone els. Now, I am hoping that Civ III will handle things quite differently than Civ II, but I am not all that sure it will in this regard. Best bet may to be to lump SA and give Canada it’s own civ *or* give it to the Commonwealth. Neither of these are great ideas, becasue Canada would most likely remain neutral in an Anglo-American war, and it’s not important enough to get it’s own civ slot. But, let’s not even waste time discussing it now. For now it is with US and if it is too strong, we will talk about that when time comes.

I like the divisions, you just need to place them on the map, and give civ's some space to survice a bit longer.

Could you get a little more specific with that suggestion?

It would be interesting to balance the allied/hostile blocks.

Yes, I will be getting to that soon. But first I am having some trouble with this stupid map I get from the Earth 97 scenario, which I am using as the base for the initial layout of our plan. I didn;t realize this at first, but some of the continents are “skewed”. Asia is the worst, it looks like someone took a giant hand and yanked Indonesia to the right about 8 inches (oh, excuse me, centimeters ). Our only hope is that Civ 3 will allow you to edit maps with cities on them, then we may be able to fix it. You can “edit” terrain square by square in Civ2, but it would take me forever to fix this kind of damage. I wish I had seen this before so I could have used a different map, well too late now.

I will post the map so you can tell me how bad it is.

[Timeline]

BTW, how do you like my new sig jsw?