RtW Scenario: 1936 World War!

[Kuciwalker]

Consider: you need at least one civ for every group that could potentially have independent foreign policy. After that, you want to split civs up based on what the player will do with them - and what the player wants to do, as far as I can tell, is lead some sort of campaign. At least, I've never found it fun to move a few units along supporting someone else's attack. Canada would not have a separate foreign policy from the UK (given the depth with which you can model WWII in Civ), so that doesn't require it to be separate. In addition, its troops would just be fighting right next to a bunch of British (and possibly American) units. There's no option for the player to really spearhead the campaign.

OTOH, there's pleny of room for an Oz/NZ combo to do its own thing in the Pacific, as I mentioned earlier.

[Hercules]

Their best stance is neutral then.

Scandinavia as one civ is not logical. Norway was allied (German conquered), Sweden neutral and Finland Axis-friendly and fought USSR. All three had different goals for trade, diplomacy and military. They need to be seperate. If Scandinavia is one civ, may as well join UK, France and Spain together

[Colonâ„¢]

nm

[Dale]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Consider: you need at least one civ for every group that could potentially have independent foreign policy. After that, you want to split civs up based on what the player will do with them - and what the player wants to do, as far as I can tell, is lead some sort of campaign. At least, I've never found it fun to move a few units along supporting someone else's attack. Canada would not have a separate foreign policy from the UK (given the depth with which you can model WWII in Civ), so that doesn't require it to be separate. In addition, its troops would just be fighting right next to a bunch of British (and possibly American) units. There's no option for the player to really spearhead the campaign.

OTOH, there's pleny of room for an Oz/NZ combo to do its own thing in the Pacific, as I mentioned earlier.

Personally, I'd love to take over USA as Canada or Mexico.

They stay.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Hercules
Their best stance is neutral then.

I still feel there's more benefit gameplay wise to keep them separate.

Unless someone's got a better argument.

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Dale
Comments on other mentioned nations:

Ethiopia - Italian conquered
Switzerland - Not feasible on map
Iran/Iraq - Iraq UK territory (just) Iran was Persia
Chinese Communists - Temporary alliance with Nationalists to fight Japan
India - UK territory
Egypt - UK territory
South American nations - Did nothing for war, add nothing to game as separate nations
Central American nations - Did nothing for war, add nothing to game as separate nations
Pakistan - UK territory
Ukraine - A Soviet
Korea (both or one?) - Japanese territory
Indonesia - Dutch territory
Portugal - Combined with Spain
Myanmar - (Burma) UK territory
Vietnam - French territory
Israel - UK territory
Kazakhstan - Soviet
Uzbekistan - Soviet
Bangladesh - UK territory
Syria - French territory

In my post:

I included some civs (who were colonies - just i.e. India) But were fighting (politically for independance). Therefore they may not have sent troops to fight in the war.

Same reason why have Australia as a independant civ? Except for personnal reasons. Get the point I am making here.

Also your start date 1936.

I assumed you wanted to start before Italy took Ethiopia, or Germany annexed Austria etc.

So much happenned in the few years from 1936 to 1939.

I did not include colonies in Africa . Asia and Pacific etc., as you had already posted about them.

I agree some nations added nothing to the war IRL. But finding 36 nations who did will be difficult.

So for game play add some who may sway one way or the other. AS the game progresses.

As you alluded to before - you need to group some civs together. But on a world map, you have to have some groups who played no part in the real conflict. Because you can not have parts of the map empty of a civ.

Maybe you should have something like 25 war like civs in the game and then 11 other neutral (grouped) civs. That way if a player attacks a neutral civ, It will not cause all other neutral civs to be at war with that player.

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Does it include Scotland and Wales too?

If you are going to name it, name it Britain or UK, even if it is an English hegemon on the islands.

Why do we have so much anti England opinions on these Internet boards.

Even from people who do not live in the British Isles.

It is getting to racist IMO.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Dale
Oliver:
Yeah, that's just a naming thing. Nationalist and Republic it is.

Cool! Thanks so much. :-) But if Portugal is going to join Nationalist Spain due to limited number of civs, then there is a name problem again. Maybe "Nationalist Iberia?"

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Harrier UK


Why do we have so much anti England opinions on these Internet boards.

Even from people who do not live in the British Isles.

It is getting to racist IMO.

My statement is not anti-English in the slightest. The salient point is that England and Britain are very different entities. They are not interchangeable terms.

The claim of racism is hilarious for a number of reasons.

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Dauphin
The claim of racism is hilarious for a number of reasons.

Good, you got the double meaning in the post.

But I must apologise, I thought I was still on another site when I saw your post. I had just switched from that site.

There are a number of posters on the other site that want to exclude England from the main game and every mod that is made for it.

Guess they have a grudge - but they are prolific posters.


So - sorry again.

[Dauphin]

I would rather see England in the main game and not Britain or British or whichever. Civ3 mixed and matched and it was painful. I don't want that issue compounded, so I remind people of the difference whenever I can.

The inclusion of 'The Mumbles', that well known English city on the city list summed up my "WTF?" meter.

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Dauphin The inclusion of 'The Mumbles', that well known English city on the city list summed up my "WTF?" meter.

The Mumbles, in a civ game - I missed that.

The Mumbles is a peninsula in Wales. It is not a city, as you so correctly said.

[Dale]

The civs are now on the map! Using the list below.

Originally posted by Dale
How about this list?

Germany (including East Prussia)
Italy (including Albania, Ethiopia)
Japan (including Pacific Isles, Korea, Manchuria)
China
England (including Eastern Africa, Middle East, Sub Continent, India, Pacific Isles)
France (including Western Africa, North Middle East, Pacific Isles)
USA (including Panama & Pacific Isles)
USSR

Arabia
Austria
Australia
Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia)
Brazil
Canada
Central America (including Carribean)
Czechoslovakia
East Balkan (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria)
Fascist Spain (Western Iberia, Portugal, Canary Isles, Spanish Morocco)
Finland
Ireland
Low Countries (Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Belgium Congo, Dutch East Indies)
Mexico
Mongolia
New Zealand
Norway
Persia
Philippines
Poland
Republican Spain (Eastern Iberia)
Siam
South Africa
South America (Non Brazil)
Sweden
Turkey
West Balkan (Yugoslavia, Greece)

[Harrier UK]

I know this will upset people in certain counties, so appologies - but here goes:

Good map, but a few thoughts:

Czechoslovakia. Not invaded but given to Germany by a weak appeasment policy of a liberal coward PM of Britain. He should have been deposed or executed for cowardise, but he wasn't. It was the invasion of Poland that started the War, so why include Czechoslovakia.?

Philippines. Were they not already a USA controlled area?

[Dale]

Totally agree with you on Chamberlain, but having Austria and Czech in provides the basis for some awesome events tieing across a number of nations (hence why I want them in). The Munich Conference could end up a whole series of events based on various nation's decisions. The Pacific goes up in flames in '37 with Japan's invasion of China, and these events series will give something for the European nations to have fun with before Poland in '39.

As for the Philippines, they weren't US territory, but a self-governing Commonwealth of the US between '35 and '46. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonw...he_Philippines