Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[Timeline]

Okay, I tried to post a pic of the map, didn't work. Let me try one more time with it zipped. Here it goes:

[Timeline]

Here is the map itself. Now you can see how big it is. I will have the scenario (IE this map full of cities with national breakdown) By Sunday.

[Colon™]

Jew, Timeline, yeah I know it’s difficult to come up with alliances that are playable yet logical. The truth it is that few alliances and pacts are comparable to start with, except perhaps of basic free trade zones.
A couple of regions desire to construct something similar to the EU, the Andean Pact or ASEAN for instance, but they don’t come even near it.

Regarding the commonwealth and Canada, maybe you should create a neutrals civ, that encompasses Canada, Australia and other countries without a civ and that isn’t allowed to have war with anyone else. South Africa could join the African Union (I think they could use it) and Britain EU.
If any civ turns out to be too powerful you might chop of pieces and let it join the neutrals.

Or how about a “US allies civ”? IRL most of those countries are allies of US anyway and Japan wouldn’t be isolated anymore...

[Colon™]

Several additional notes:

Generally spoken relations between the European former colonisers and their subjects aren’t bad IRL, quite the contrary actually. The aforementioned British Commonwealth is one example, but France and its former colonies have even tighter relations particularly when it comes military links. It’s pretty much the same with Spain, Belgium etc

CIS would be a more logical adversary for the EU, since real life relations are more difficult. (I’m just considering Russia within CIS here, other CIS members in fact have better relations with the West than with Russia)

Colombia currently is the 2nd largest receiver of US aid in the world (after Israel), exactly because of the drugs war. You can argue about this but I wouldn’t say relations are bad because US supports most of the incumbent governments besides Chavez of Venezuela but they tolerate him because he rather behaves himself.

Regarding Congo-Kinshasa (there’s another Congo as well), the central state has collapsed, the economy has disintegrated and human rights are an unknown term, yes. But a rogue country? No.
It’s true the elder Kabila alienated foreign supporters and the West, but he never conducted foreign aggression and his son has restored relations somewhat

Besides, I’d like to remind you that such called rogue nations are based on a list the US makes and these aren’t necessarily enemies of other countries as well. North Korea has good relations with China for instance and the US trade embargo isn’t followed in EU and the rest of the Americas.

I think I’ll cease commenting for now...

[Timeline]

Okay, I’m back. I heard that the world map that ships with Civ III will be six times larger than the one for Civ 2!! If that’s true I will use that map for our scenario (I am not I map designer, heck I’m not even an editor but I am willing to try ) So, that means we can forget about this map and just wait until civ 3 comes out.

Don’t worry, I will put everything we discussed down on paper so we don’t lose it . Jsw, did you want to see the map I’ve been working on? If you do I can post it or E-mail it to you.

Colon, thnx for the post. I agree with everything you said, but I just wanted to ask you if what you said about Congo meant you thought they would be better represented in Africa.

“Besides, I’’d like to remind you that such called rogue nations are based on a list the US makes and these aren’’t necessarily enemies of other countries as well. North Korea has good relations with China for instance”

That’s why N. Korea is going to China

“the US trade embargo isn’’t followed in EU and the rest of the Americas.”

Well, I think a nations like Cuba (and maybe Iraq) can truly be called rouge nations. I agree with what jsw said a while back that in a cold war scenario, Cube could have part of the Soviet Union, but who do they have now? No one really. China and Russia no longer back them, I don’t believe they really have too many good relations with Latin American countries (I could be wrong). Maybe the EU doesn’t apply trade embargos like the US does, but it doesn’t mean they are friends lol.

Iraq is a member of the Arab League, but like jsw said, they attack other members at will. The EU and US have just in the past weak or two taken measures maintain their air superiority over Iraq, effectively crippling Iraq’s ability to attack Israel and other nations.

Some nice thoughts though Colon. Just need to wait for Civ III then work like mad!!

[Timeline]

Oh and jsw, when you come back, I would still like to see any info you can give about the Commonwealth. Maybe a writeup or something. Some kind of introduction.

Thanks!!

[HisMajestyBOB]

I've been planning a 21st Century scen of my own, but it'll be way different from yours, and I won't say anything else.

[Vitmore The Great]

Originally posted by Timeline

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.

Remember that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are members of NATO as of 1999. The Baltic States (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), Slovakia, and Romania are thought to be next in line. EU and NATO expansion are supposed to go hand in hand to preserve maximum stability in Europe.

And about Huntington, I have Clash of Civilizations as well as a book edited by Robert Pastor called "A Century's Journey" which says there are seven great powers that shape the world: Germany, France, Britain, USA, Russia, China, and Japan. I have other political science/history books. Try reading "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. It's a little outdated since it was written in 1988, but it would give good ideas for civs in modern scenarios and their relative strengths and weaknesses. One factor in making a good modern scenario based on today is who makes up what civ, but it's even more difficult to implement each civs strengths and weaknesses (ie. military, industrial capacity, financial strength, culture, technology, etc.) accurately. It would be nice for example, in Civ III for example for China having a massive population and the US, without the large pop to still be superior technologically, therefore more powerful. I've always noticed China in scenarios having less pop than most and being held behind by that fact.

Vitmore The Great

[Timeline]

Well, if your scenario will be “way different” than mine, then I doubt we will be in competition.

I realize you were just joking though.

[Timeline]

[quote] Remember that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are members of NATO as of 1999. The Baltic States (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), Slovakia, and Romania are thought to be next in line. EU and NATO expansion are supposed to go hand in hand to preserve maximum stability in Europe. [quote]

Thanks for the info. Would you be suggesting here (by any chance) that perhaps Eastern Europe is not culturally distinctive enough, or politically independent enough, to be it’s own civ in a scenario of this type? Perhaps they would be better represented by the EU?

One factor in making a good modern scenario based on today is who makes up what civ, but it's even more difficult to implement each civs strengths and weaknesses (ie. military, industrial capacity, financial strength, culture, technology, etc.) accurately. It would be nice for example, in Civ III for example for China having a massive population and the US, without the large pop to still be superior technologically, therefore more powerful. I've always noticed China in scenarios having less pop than most and being held behind by that fact.

And that is exactly the stuff I want to change! I have always noticed that kind of stuff also, and it always bugged me. There are many other little quirks that always annoyed me too that were inherent in the Civ 2 program (mainly AI, and civ limit). These are expanded features I look forward to exploiting in Civ III.

In many ways, I have a very difficult job ahead of me. I am very happy that there are people like you, Colon, jsw, and other Apolytoners who are willing to help and give me their “two cents”. After all, if everyone in the world or even in the US gave me 2 cents I would be a very rich man .

Are there any other references you can give me too help me ascertain various countries’ military strength, industrial capacity, etc? I will be sure to read those books you suggested, and thank you very much for your post.

Oh, btw, you are from Canada, so let me ask you: who do you think Canada would best fit in with: (US / make an Independent Nations civ / British Commonwealth / Other) - Thanks!

[Colon™]

Timeline, which scens have you made before? It has been some time ago since I’ve played civ2 so excuse me for not knowing.

Regarding Congo, well if you define a rogue country as a country that’s has bad diplomatic relations with everyone (or even US) you can’t say it is a rogue country, so I’d put in the African civ yes. (shame you can’t have a couple dozens of civs more, then you could simulate the warring parties in the country )

Good that you include N.Korea with China, I mentioned it because you included the country in the rogue civ in one of your previous posts.

Cuba isn’t particularly popular in most of world either, but neither are they isolated as NK is, they enjoy trade with Canada, Europe and Latin America and they derive a lot of income from tourism.
But as I’ve said previously, a lot of civs include countries that are or ahve been in conflict with each other so I don’t believe adding Cuba to Central America and the Caribbean Basin would particularly worrysome.

You can apply the same argument when it comes Iraq.

[Vitmore The Great]

Originally posted by Timeline


Are there any other references you can give me too help me ascertain various countries’ military strength, industrial capacity, etc? I will be sure to read those books you suggested, and thank you very much for your post.

Oh, btw, you are from Canada, so let me ask you: who do you think Canada would best fit in with: (US / make an Independent Nations civ / British Commonwealth / Other) - Thanks!

Well, as to references...the CIA World Factbook is a good place to get relative stats on countries of the world http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...ook/index.html

I also read lots history books, but I doubt those would assist to much with a modern scenario beyond storyline atmosphere.


About Canada? I'm playing this one EXTREMLY accurate modern scenario that is somewhat storyline driven, and it has Canada in the "Allied" countries, which comprises of all the western oriented nations of the world. The author put severe limitations on the this large civ to make sure it doesn't take unrealistic advantages of it size. Since I'm splurging this person's idea, I should mention his name and the name of the scenario, and even where to get it.
"Crises fo the New World Order" - Andrew P. Livings
I got it at civfanatics.com

If Canada is not in an "Allied" civ, it might as well be part of the US. It pains me to say it, but it would be convienient for circumstances of the scenario. Do not make Canada a part of a "Neutral" civ because it is not neutral.

It is not worth having a Commonwealth civ. Perhaps in a pre-WWII scenario, but not in the globalist/ regional economic bloc driven post-Cold War World. For the most part, the Commonwealth is a symbolic organization connecting the old dominions and former colonies of Great Britain. Regional groupings such as NAFTA, NATO and the EU are more top priority than the Commonwealth when poush comes to shove.

About Europe, there are two organizations you can use to represent it. You can either use the European Union, which is currently only economic, or NATO (minus North America) which is of course military. I would EU would be better, becaue though Europe and North America are allied, they are also global economic competitors and have different political paths and agendas. Since the EU is going to expand into eastern Europe in the next five years, I would just join it with the EU. And about eastern and western differences, that notion is kinda from the Cold War. Poland is mostly Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox, and historically aligned with the west (before the three Polish Partitions of 1772, 1793 and 1795 and the Inter-War Period). Hungary I believe is also Catholic and was a prominent Western state since the Middle Ages and as part of the Habsburg Dual Monarchy. The Czech Republic (Prague) was a Western cultural centre within the Habsburg Empire.



Vitmore

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



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

they can also be reached from the Apolyton main page.

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

LOTM

SLeague ownz!!

I bet there will be a distinct revival with the coming of Civ3!

[Timeline]

Timeline, which scens have you made before? It has been some time ago since I’’ve played civ2 so excuse me for not knowing.

Well, this will be my first scenario, but I have no worries about it as I have made a few private scenarios for myself and have edited existing ones. I kinda discovered the whole Civilization magic thing very late compared to the rest of you (it’s been about 4 years now). Civ2:MPG was my first civ game, and that came with a ton of scenarios then when I had played most of them I found Apolyton via search engine, and after that I had to change my definition of a ton . Point is, I never had a need to make scenarios for Civ2 because they already had every one Icould have dreamed of. But now, with Civ3 coming out, I will be able to learn along with everyone els and get a little jump on things .

Colon, you are a scenario designer right? How long does the average scenario take to make for Civ 2?

Regarding Congo, well if you define a rogue country as a country that’’s has bad diplomatic relations with everyone (or even US) you can’’t say it is a rogue country, so I’’d put in the African civ yes. (shame you can’’t have a couple dozens of civs more, then you could simulate the warring parties in the country)

Maybe some well placed barbarians in the area could do the trick?

Good that you include N.Korea with China, I mentioned it because you included the country in the rogue civ in one of your previous posts.

Oh

Cuba isn’’t particularly popular in most of world either, but neither are they isolated as NK is, they enjoy trade with Canada, Europe and Latin America and they derive a lot of income from tourism.

Who would want to tour Cuba? “On your right you can see Castro’s Palace built in (insert date here) and on your left filling the countryside are the beautiful huts and tents where everyone els lives.” “Mommy, mommy!! Look at all the dolphins in the water!” “No honey, those are people trying to swim away.”

BTW, Just having a little fun, don’t take it seriously.

But as I’’ve said previously, a lot of civs include countries that are or ahve been in conflict with each other so I don’’t believe adding Cuba to Central America and the Caribbean Basin would particularly worrysome. You can apply the same argument when it comes Iraq.

Are you trying to dissolve the rouge nations civ. I guess that’s not a bad idea. So we have so far:

1. EU (+Turkey (+ Baltics, Austria, Hungry, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, ?Yugoslavia?, other eastern europe states)

2. US, Canada + Israel

3. China (+Vietnam, Laos, ?Mongolia?) - should Mongolia go with China?

4. CIS

5. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

6. African Union (Sub-sahara Africa)

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

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

9. Central America and Carribean Basin (Mexico, (+Cuba)

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

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

12. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore (+ NZ, Australia, Papua New Guinea)

13. Japan

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


Any Suggestions? I am thinking we don’t need 16, less is ok. But if we were to use the other two, what would they be?

the CIA World Factbook is a good place to get relative stats

Yep, I have that site bookmarked . Thanks for the Info Vitmore, do like the list above better?

[Tiberius]

Just my 2 cents about Eastern Europe in your scenario:

From my point of view, you have absolutely no reason to include an Eastern European civ in the scenario!

I have 2 reasons to say this:
1. Like Vitmore the Great said it very well, the EU is going to expand into eastern Europe in the very near future; it's almost sure that in the next 5 years Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, maybe even the Baltic States and Slovakia will join the European Union, with Romania, Bulgaria and probably Croatia (maybe even Yugoslavia!) following them in the next, let's say, 10 to 20 years.
2. Every single nation from this region has better relations with the EU that with the other nations from here! Because of historically bad relations between these nations, you hardly can put in the same civ Hungary and Romania, or Romania and Bulgaria and so on.

Next: where belong these civs? Economically and politically, thinking in near future (20 years), certainly to the EU (all of them). If you want a religious border, then put Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovenia, Croatia and the Baltic states in the EU while Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia in the Russian Federation (slavs/orthodox nations). If you make a religious border, take care where you put Greece: they are orthodox!

Hope this helps. I'm looking forward for your scenario!

[Colon™]

Timeline, I’ve made a couple of private scenarios, but there are experienced people in the hosted sites’ forums who are probably far more capable in helping you on the technical side of this. (assuming civ3 won’t change the essence of scen creation too much)

Regarding Cuba, about 2/5 of the foreign currency Cuba earns comes from tourism (amounting to some $2 billion), it’s the country’s fastest growing industry and the main destination of foreign investment.

BTW Castro celebrated his latest birthday in Venezuela at the invitation of Chavez, where they, together with president Cardoso of Brazil, inaugurated a high profile infrastructure project...

Just some trivia I’m sharing with you.

[Va-Toran]

I would have the following civs:

1. EU (+Turkey, Baltics, Switzerland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia etc.)

Most eastern european states are currently on the road to joining the EU (if it will let them!), and tend to have as little as possible to do with Russia, unlike the CIS states (Baltic states are not CIS) which rely on Russia economically. Nowadays the cultural links between Bulgaria and Russia are not that strong, as Russia is associated with communism, with destroyed a lot of the Orthodox culture anyway. Even the new Yugoslavian regime is quite pro western, unlike Milosovic.

The only problem about Eastern Europe is Albania, which is very unstable and as a consequence is quite isolationist in comparison with it's neighbours. I would suggest putting some barbarians in the Balkans to represent the ethnic unrest.

Note: You put down Austria on your list even though it is part of the EU!

2. US, Canada + Israel

3. China (+Vietnam, Laos)

4. CIS (+Mongolia)

Mongolia has more in common with the CIS than with China, like the CIS it is a former communist state in transition and has a similar culture to the Mid Asian states that are part of the CIS.

5. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

6. African Union (Sub-sahara Africa)

Although it has a large land area, Africa would be the least developed civ. They would be quite dull to play though, again some Barbarians in war zones would be a good idea.

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

Or possibly put Brazil on their own but would they be too weak?

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

9. Central America and Carribean Basin (inc. Mexico and Cuba)

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

These Arab states are quite sympathetic to Iraq, even the more Pro-Western ones, it is really only the US and UK that are very hostile to Saddam.

11. Australia (+ NZ, Papua New Guinea and any other pacific state)

Australia should have it's own civilization, as it has a independant foreign policy, and is quite suspicous of the South East Asian states.

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

13. Japan

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

[Andreiguy]

World scenario : (civ capitals in CAPS)

1: US of A - WASHINGTON
technologically superior military
Rich, mixed cultures
2. Canada - OTTOWA
small, well-trained military
Rich, diverse
3. EU - BRUSSELS
military comparable to USA
RICH, very diverse culture
4. Eastern Europe (minus Russia and the S. S. R.'s) - WARSAW or PRAGUE
large militaries, less well trained
divirse culture, medium wealth (not rich, simply higher than my classification of "poor", ex southern Africa)
5. Russia + former S. S. R.'s, mongolia, afghanistan - MOSCOW
extremely large military, air force is the only truly technologically modern part
diverse culture, medium wealth
6. South Africa + everything up to North Africa - JOHANNESBURG
large poorly-trained army, virtually no air or sea power
poor, diverse
7. North Africa (including Egypt), Iran - CAIRO
ditto, except more sea power
medium wealth, diverse
8. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman - BAGHDAD
Large armies, but powerless to defend against certain more powerful technologies
medium wealth, diverse
9. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates - RIDAYH
large, technologically advanced army, navy, small air force
Rich, diverse
10. Mexico, Central America - MEXICO CITY
medium-sized, medium-trained army, comparatively small air force, navy
Medium wealth, more homogenous
11. S. America except Brazil - LIMA or BUENOS AIRES
medium military, small air force, slightly larger navy
lower medium wealth, more homogeneous
12. Brazil - BRASILIA
ditto as above
higher medium wealth, more homogenous
13. Australia, New Zealand, Japan - CANBERRA
technologically advanced, yet relatively small military
rich, diverse
14. Oceania, Burma, Thailand, Siam - JAKARTA
large, poorly-trained military
very diverse, medium wealth
15. China, Pakistan, Bangaladesh - BEIJING
Huge army, substantial air force and navy
diverse, medium wealth
16. India - NEW DELHI
large army, substantial air force, smaller navy
more homogenous, poor

Suggestions, copy and pastes with changes, and comments are welcome!

[Skanky Burns]

13. Australia, New Zealand, Japan - CANBERRA
technologically advanced, yet relatively small military
rich, homogenous

Just a quick note about Australia. We wouldn't be considered a homogenous civilization, especially when combined with Japan!! We are very multicultural.

The rest of the list looks good, and i look forward to this being completed

[Vitmore The Great]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
World scenario : (civ capitals in CAPS)

1: US of A - WASHINGTON
technologically superior military
Rich, mixed cultures
2. Canada - OTTOWA
small, well-trained military
Rich, more homogenous culture

Suggestions, copy and pastes with changes, and comments are welcome!

Here it comes...Canada is just as if not more heterogeneous than the US. Unlike the US melting pot, Canada has a mosiac, meaning we promote multiculturalism rather than assimilation. Take a look at Toronto, our largest city. 52% of its population is of immigrant origin (non-Anglo-French). Canada had waves of immigrants that were parallel to the US waves.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Vitmore

P.S. Oh yeah, two official languages (English and French)

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
World scenario : (civ capitals in CAPS)

4. Eastern Europe (minus Russia and the S. S. R.'s) - WARSAW or PRAGUE
large militaries, less well trained
divirse culture, medium wealth

Didn't you read what I wrote just a few lines above your post? Something you call "Eastern Europe" exist only geografically, there's no such civilization or union or whatever! Countries like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria cooperate with each other only for the sake of the promised join to the EU and NATO!
Large militaries? Medium wealth? Jesus Christ, from where did you get all this? The richest countries in the area barely have a GDP that is half from the poorest EU country's GDP! Why do you think they want to join the NATO and the EU? For military protection and wealth!

For the rest I like more Va-Toran's or Timeline's model.
Btw, I'll put the EU's capital in Berlin.

[Vitmore The Great]

Originally posted by Tiberius

Btw, I'll put the EU's capital in Berlin.

Nay Berlin I say! Germany is by far the most powerful nation of the union, and basically is the engine of the EU Ferrari, but the two cities where the EU is most centralized are Strassbourg (where the European Parliament is) and Brussels (parallel to NATO). I'll put my money on Brussels over Strassbourg.

Just my two cents.


Vitmore

[Tiberius]

Vitmore, you're right. Brussel is a good choice. Though Strassbourg is a beautiful city, I prefer Brussel because:
1 - the NATO headquarters are there
2 - the european "government" is located also in Brussel

[Andreiguy]

Didn't you read what I wrote just a few lines above your post? Something you call "Eastern Europe" exist only geografically, there's no such civilization or union or whatever! Countries like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria cooperate with each other only for the sake of the promised join to the EU and NATO!
Large militaries? Medium wealth? Jesus Christ, from where did you get all this? The richest countries in the area barely have a GDP that is half from the poorest EU country's GDP! Why do you think they want to join the NATO and the EU? For military protection and wealth!

First of all, I'd like to apoligize about Canada and Australia. Sometimes I forget to think. Second of all, about the quote above, I would like to say the following: I was born in Kiev, Ukraine, and believe me, I KNOW my region. Try to bear with me and understand that I cannot make every single country its own civ. Therefore, a generalized grouping of eastern Europe was my only choice. They are loosely similar as being Soviet satellites. That is the only reason they are together. Secondly, I would like you to compare these countries' per capita GNP's with Russia, or my own Ukraine. Much higher, no? That is because they were lucky enough to escape complete Soviet domination. Compared to my classification of "poor" (southern Africa, India), these countries are relatively wealthy. A per capita GNP of only about 1500-2500 is still much better than 20-120. So please, in the future, think about your response before posting it. I mean no insult!

And yes, Brussels is my choice. It is the center of the EU.

[Immortal Wombat]

I'd be a bit wary of playing as Japan in that scenario, Timeline. Even give a 6x bigger world map, thats still only six-ish cities, and doing anything from there would be like playing Spain in Civ2's WW2 scenario, even given huge production.

[isaac brock]

Yeah, yeah, i know that, sadly, it makes sense to lump canada in with the U.S. But i still really like the Commonwealth concept. it gives some possible power to some otherwise powerless countries.
i don't want to see Australia lumped in with a bunch of asians. it just doesn't fit. I like the idea of some countries with similar values and similar roots being in their own civ.
besides, how is the U.S. going to get all that trading going if they don't have their life-giving partner (canada) to channel in resources and funds? It seems slightly foolish, but i believe that the commonwealth is a great idea, and a necessary civ.

[Timeline]

Tiberius -

Next: where belong these civs (eastern europe)? Economically and politically, thinking in near future (20 years), certainly to the EU (all of them). If you want a religious border, then put Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovenia, Croatia and the Baltic states in the EU while Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia in the Russian Federation (slavs/orthodox nations). If you make a religious border, take care where you put Greece: they are orthodox!

Ok, I am going for economic and political minded groups, as I have mentioned before. That is why I have decided to lump the eastern europe civs in with the EU. I would imagine that countries like Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova would go to the Russian Commonwealth. Since this is a political breakdown, Greece will obviously goto the EU.

Colon -

Timeline, I’’ve made a couple of private scenarios, but there are experienced people in the hosted sites’’ forums who are probably far more capable in helping you on the technical side of this. (assuming civ3 won’’t change the essence of scen creation too much)

Are you recommending I head over there and see if I can find anyone willing to help? Do you think anyone *would* help me? By hosted sites do you mean the Scenario League?

Va-Toran -

The only problem about Eastern Europe is Albania, which is very unstable and as a consequence is quite isolationist in comparison with it's neighbours. I would suggest putting some barbarians in the Balkans to represent the ethnic unrest.

Yep, sounds good. It was my plan originally to use barbarians to represent civil unrest/uprisings. While I don’t intend to start the game with barbarians owning any cities, I do want to make “trouble spots” where barbarians pop up from time to time. Maybe the longer you go without dealing with them the more they multiply. If I can, I want to make it so at first they just fortify in the hills, but eventually they come down and try to take back their city. This won’t happen all the time, but when it does, the chances of more popping up increase, until you finally deal with them, and then the chances go away ... for a while. This may happen once or twice at a random time within a 20 turn period, and then it won’t happen again.

Note: You put down Austria on your list even though it is part of the EU!

Yes I see that, oh well, no body's perfect.

Mongolia has more in common with the CIS than with China, like the CIS it is a former communist state in transition and has a similar culture to the Mid Asian states that are part of the CIS.

I have seen scenarios where Mongolia belongs to China, I have seen some where it gets put into a ‘democratic’ civ, and I have seen some where it is part of a ‘neutral’ civ, so I have seen it all . In this scenario I want Mongolia to go either to China or Russia, I don’t care which so you guys debate it out . For now I guess it’s going to Russia, any objections?

Although it has a large land area, Africa would be the least developed civ. They would be quite dull to play though, again some Barbarians in war zones would be a good idea.

Agreed. The fun in playing them, I think, would be the challenge. You would have plenty of land area to develop, lot’s of technology to research, and tons of good ole barbarians to fight off. You would have less money but also less expenses, this would leave you free to be able to buy any goods your people need and slowly inner settle the continent. There is some fun to be had in *developing* your civ (as you could with Africa) rather than *maintaining* it (as you do with the US, EU, and China).

Other Civs like Australia, Canada and (maybe) Russia will be able to do a lot of inner settling as they will start off with some un used space. Where as nations like the US, EU, China, and India will be packed full of people, with no real space to grow. These are just basic ideas, but remember, I am going for realism when it comes to statistics and other stuff.

Australia should have it's own civilization, as it has a independant foreign policy, and is quite suspicous of the South East Asian states.

I think we can swing this, we certainly have enough civ slots.

Thanks for the post Va-Toran.

Andrieguy -

Wow, you sure do have a lot of weird ideas! It would be *much more* helpful if you could provide us with some ideas that go along a little more closely with what we are planning.

“2. Canada - OTTOWA
small, well-trained military
Rich, diverse”

You later apologized for making this statement as we had already dismissed this idea, However, we *do* have an extra civ slot . . . I don’t see why Canada shouldn’t be independent. If someone says no, then I'd like to ask them what civ they would chose to give independence rather than Canada?

This is assuming we do not do the commonwealth idea which I have not ruled out yet. I am missing jsw, but maybe he will come back and make an argument of why it should be in . . .

Andrie, where did Argentina, Peru, and the other Latin American countries fit into your list?

Thanks for the post, although it was kinda weird


Brussels makes a good capital for the EU. I have seen it used before in other scenarios.

I'd be a bit wary of playing as Japan in that scenario, Timeline. Even give a 6x bigger world map, thats still only six-ish cities, and doing anything from there would be like playing Spain in Civ2's WW2 scenario, even given huge production.

There BETTER be a WORLD map at least 2X LARGER than in CIV 2 - or els I cannot be held responsible for my actions!!

Okay, back on topic. Even *if* the map is 6X larger then, sure Japan will be bigger, but so will everyone els! I never thought the idea of making Japan independent was a great one, seems like they would fit into APEC quite well. Jsw said that might make them too strong, and I myself have to admit, they really shouldn’t be lumped into APEC because of the difference of agendas and long term goals. But then again, they really shouldn’t be alone either ... people said they can’t go to the US because it would make them too strong ... so where do they go? Maybe they *should* be seperate, but as an unplayable civ. After all, IRL they don’t have a very large army or any natural resources to export. Their economy is based on the sales of manufactured goods, and I am not sure mfg’s are represented in civ3, anyone have any information on that? Civ 2 represented mfg’s through the “freight” and “caravan” units, but these were taken out of Civ 3 and natural resources are in its place. So, to the point, I am not sure if Japan’s thriving economy can be represented.

Oh, I just got a cool idea!!!!!!!!!



What if I were to create a new resource, call it “finished goods” Make the graphic in to a factory, and put the *only* tiles of it in Japan (maybe other areas, but Japan would have a lot). What do you all think?

Oh and also, what could I make this resource a prerequisite to?

Thanks for the posts guys. Keep’em comming!

[Tiberius]

Andreiguy, I understand you now. I still don't agree with you about the Eastern Eropean civ, but at least I understand your motivation in creating such civ. Yes, they are similar in beeing former Sovjet satellites, but that's all. These countries have only one common goal in their agenda, and that is the join with the EU and NATO (about Ukraine, I'm not sure ?). Grouping Ukraine with Hungary, Poland or Romania would be a bit strange, don't you think?
IMO Eastern Europe should go with the EU. About Ukraine I'm not sure. If you don't want Ukraine in the EU or with the russians, there's the possibility to have Ukraine in the 'neutral' civ, if such will exist in the scenario. After all, it is a big country.

[Tiberius]

About Japan: I really think Japan should go with the APEC. So what if you won't have 16 civs? It's better to have a well balanced, "10civs" scenario, than an unbalanced, "16civs" one.

Or, if you still want all the 16 civs, you could put some independent/neutral states in the empty slots (like Ukraine ). I say no problem if they are small. At least the big civs will have something for their expansionistic appetite OK, to balance it a little, make the small civs allied with more than one big civ as well as military powerfull (like Pakistan and their atomic bomb).

The "Independent Islamic States (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)" is really a good idea, but what other independent/neutral civs can we use? I have no idea.

PS Are you sure you can play with 16 civs in Civ3? How about an alternate, 8 civs scenario, just to be sure?

[Roman]

Countries like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria cooperate with each other only for the sake of the promised join to the EU and NATO!

While the prospect of entry into NATO and the EU clearly plays a role in fostering cooperation among countries of the former Soviet Block, what you are saying is a gross exageration. For example Slovakia, Czech republic and Poland are genuinely friendly towards each other and cooperate far in excess of what is required for their entry into the EU and NATO.

Large militaries? Medium wealth? Jesus Christ, from where did you get all this? The richest countries in the area barely have a GDP that is half from the poorest EU country's GDP!

Our militaries used to be large during the communist times, but you are right - this is no longer the case.
As to wealth, however, your facts are simply wrong. Slovenia, for example, has a higher GDP per capita than Portugal or Greece both of which belong to the EU. Hence I believe the designation of medium wealth for at least some of these countries is correct. (Of course countries like Ukraine or Moldavia would pull down the average by a large amount.)

BTW: Our expected date of entry into the EU is 1st January 2004.