Great Idea for us scenario builders!

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-21-2001 04:07 PM If you mean that we bulldozed Iraqis than you are quite right. We do not know how many we killed in the war because we dumped sand on their heads. The 'war' was so one sided that construction crews could have been used to win the 'war.' I do not think this proves that the U.S. is so strong nor would necessarily have taken our allies longer to defeat him had England, France, Germany, and others participated. Should the U.S. have gotten involved? IMHO I would say yes, but it is something that we should never brag about nor use to say we are so great. War is a terrible thing and when it has no end result or sucess than it is pointless and those that died did so for no gain to anyone.

I agree totally. I was saying that to make a point, nothing more. If anyone here is offended because I am putting us americans above other nationalities, please forgive me, that is and was not the case in any way, shape or form.

And another thing: My dad fought in the gulf war, I think I would know what we did. Dont assume I dont know anything. My dad was in the United States military for 26 years, I think I know quite a bit about stuff that went on, and is going on. According to ALOT of peoples posts on this webpage, they think I'm a elementry stupid kid, who talks about stuff he doesn't know...I can assure you, that is not the case.

[ajli@home]

We shoudl have tons of scenarios--not just those. I liked how many they put in civ2 gold.

[Cannes]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-21-2001 04:07 PM If you mean that we bulldozed Iraqis than you are quite right. We do not know how many we killed in the war because we dumped sand on their heads. The 'war' was so one sided that construction crews could have been used to win the 'war.' I do not think this proves that the U.S. is so strong nor would necessarily have taken our allies longer to defeat him had England, France, Germany, and others participated.

The Allied ground advance was so fast that the allied bombers had a very difficult time in identifying their targets when navigating. It actually ended up with lots of allied targets being bombed by allied planes...

[Brent]

maybe we should talk about all the strengths of eachothers countries. I am into genealogy so I feel a connection with my English ancestors. I've got an ancestor who came to Jamestown in about 1610 that I think I can be sure of, and I've got a different line that claims to go back into royalty. This was the Plantagenets. Thankfully, no Tudors. Hey, I don't mean to brag. I didn't do any of the research myself. I can't really judge whether these royalty were good people or not, but I think its interesting. I'm convinced just about everyone has some royal ancestry, because those people multiplied a lot over all those centuries. I like to name my civ and colonization leaders after Henry III and the other Plantagenets.

[Matthew Hayden]

Evil Capitalist,
the British government was known for its injustice in the treatment of women and children easily into the sixties.
Women were stereotyped as mindless sex objects or otherwise inferiors of men.
Children had no rights or say in the running of their lives, and I don't just mean family rules. Society and the corrupt school system allowed many purverted adults to exploit the pupils of these schools up until the early seventies.
Until then the youth of Britain had almost no say at all in their upbringing, especially in upper-class or traditional families.

Also, the British, in the past, have always used a rather snobbish foreign policy, especially during Britain's golden age as the richest and most powerful nation in the world.
In Ireland, we still insist on holding on to the last six counties of Ulster, less than a sixth of Ireland!

[Biddles]

Diablo: Are you trying to alienate half the forum are are you just stumbling blindly into people's firing zones (I'm australian ).

But how about we get back to the point of the thread, would these scenarios be good to play. IMHO, the rise and fall of the roman empire would be great, as would WWII. However, the american revolution wooldn't. Playing as the redcoats, it would be too easy to win (that's if it is made historically accurate).

Beter scenarios would be:
1. The french revolution
2. The British empire
3. Middle east supremeacy/Gulf war
4. A colonization scenario
5. I'm sure there are others

Let's face it, the only reason you want the AR in there is because you're american. From a playability point of view, there are heaps of scenarios that would be better to play
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited January 22, 2001).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Biddles:

you are wrong. for one thing, I dont want the 'AR' in there just because I am american. I want that in civ3 as a built in scenario because it created what is now 'america', which has had a great effect on the world more then any other country SINCE america became, america. I am NOT trying to boast. that is a pure fact. Our economy has led the rest of the world for years. Our freedoms and peoples rights have led the world since 1789, when George Washington was inaugarated as the first President. Our military strength has led the world in years. I am truly sorry, but you are wrong.


Another thing, I said I wanted to get back to the subject of scenarios, but you, and everyone else are pounding me with guilt...dont do that, I am just trying to make a point that there should not be alot of scenarios in civ3, just a few to get us started, then we can do the rest.

Regardless of the importance of the US (noted at Apolyton so frequently that one has to wonder why Americans are so bothered about it), the American Revolution is exactly the sort of event that would NOT make a good scenario.

It's too short. There's little scope for scientific advancement. Wonders would make no historical sense in this scenario. Most of the action would be tactical military manuveuring, the sort of thing that Civ doesn't model particularly well. Settlement of new cities was not a factor, etc, etc.

The rise of Roman power in the Mediterranean at least has possibilities.

[This message has been edited by lago (edited January 23, 2001).]

[Henrik]

I don't think there should be an american revolution scenario.
And Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto you really need some perspective, sure America is the worlds leading power, it's "the" superpower, leading in economical development and all that, BUT it is still just a nation, like every other, there has been many superpowers throughout the history and America is hardly the only one.
So if you think that the american revolution should be included becouse USA has changed many things in the world, it is not enough of a reason.
I mean why should they include a war that has had an important affect (but not as important as you make it to be), while the war itself was nothing exceptional; as others has pointed out the war was relatively short, no really new tactics where deployed, and overall it is not a very interesting war either, the only reason for it's fame is that the nation USA was formed by the plantage owner George Washington when the war was over (or when it begun, that depends of your point of view).
If the effects of a war is the only thing that is interesting the war shouldn't be included but rather a scenario beginning a year after the revolution reflecting the power struggle between the european nations and USA, as they enter the Industrial Revolution (Brittain "started" the industrial Revolution in the 1720's, there where no factories back then ofcourse but they would come) and as they struggle for collonies and trade monolopolies.
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited January 23, 2001).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 01-23-2001 01:59 PM I don't think there should be an american revolution scenario. And Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto you really need some perspective, sure America is the worlds leading power, it's "the" superpower, leading in economical development and all that, BUT it is still just a nation, like every other, there has been many superpowers throughout the history and America is hardly the only one. So if you think that the american revolution should be included becouse USA has changed many things in the world, it is not enough of a reason. I mean why should they include a war that has had an important affect (but not as important as you make it to be), while the war itself was nothing exceptional; as others has pointed out the war was relatively short, no really new tactics where deployed, and overall it is not a very interesting war either, the only reason for it's fame is that the nation USA was formed by the plantage owner George Washington when the war was over (or when it begun, that depends of your point of view). If the effects of a war is the only thing that is interesting the war shouldn't be included but rather a scenario beginning a year after the revolution reflecting the power struggle between the european nations and USA, as they enter the Industrial Revolution (Brittain "started" the industrial Revolution in the 1720's, there where no factories back then ofcourse but they would come) and as they struggle for collonies and trade monolopolies. [This message has been edited by Henrik (edited January 23, 2001).]

You have a very good point, The "AR" was quite a boring war. I think its a great idea for a scenario that takes place AFTER the "AR", with Europe and the struggling United States.

[Adm.Naismith]

Iago,

quote: It's too short. There's little scope for scientific advancement. Wonders would make no historical sense in this scenario. Most of the action would be tactical military manuveuring, the sort of thing that Civ doesn't model particularly well. Settlement of new cities was not a factor, etc, etc.

Exactly! This is also my point about lot of scenarios I've found about Civ 2 too!

The problem is not (only) if the scenario is about a relevant historical event: the hard point is if Civ III engine and its set of rules can let it fit nicely and in interesting, playable, funny way.

Lots of player enjoy (simulated) wars, and they try to have as many battles they can fit in a scenario, so cutting the most part of Civ III possibility

This is not a RTS, think different!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant